Hey Sherman

[jerseyhawksfan79]

You know who would have been automatic in that situation? Shaun Alexander. The prime SA not the last two years SA. That guy could run through a brick wall on goal line situations.

So true! Loved SA, he was such a gifted RB and it was really ashame that injury screwed with his head and performance.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

So true! Loved SA, he was such a gifted RB and it was really ashame that injury screwed with his head and performance.

You know for the hell of it I did a quick google search to see how effective SA was on goaline situations. I was surprised to see he was #1 on the list they were using from SA's prime years.

Who were the best and worst backs in short yardage over that time frame? And what do they tell us about the value of goal-line backs?


Player Carries TD Expected Diff
Shaun Alexander 115 65 46.3 18.7
LaDainian Tomlinson 204 92 75.3 16.7
Priest Holmes 96 49 33.2 15.8
T.J. Duckett 62 34 23.8 10.2
Marshall Faulk 83 41 31.4 9.6
Edgerrin James 162 59 64.7 -5.7
DeShaun Foster 37 7 14.0 -7.0
Fred Taylor 88 23 30.2 -7.2
Marcel Shipp 38 6 14.1 -8.1
Matt Forte 57 10 21.9 -11.9



I just thought that was interesting.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

You know for the hell of it I did a quick google search to see how effective SA was on goaline situations. I was surprised to see he was #1 on the list they were using from SA's prime years.

Who were the best and worst backs in short yardage over that time frame? And what do they tell us about the value of goal-line backs?


Player Carries TD Expected Diff
Shaun Alexander 115 65 46.3 18.7
LaDainian Tomlinson 204 92 75.3 16.7
Priest Holmes 96 49 33.2 15.8
T.J. Duckett 62 34 23.8 10.2
Marshall Faulk 83 41 31.4 9.6
Edgerrin James 162 59 64.7 -5.7
DeShaun Foster 37 7 14.0 -7.0
Fred Taylor 88 23 30.2 -7.2
Marcel Shipp 38 6 14.1 -8.1
Matt Forte 57 10 21.9 -11.9


I just thought that was interesting.

I'm kind of surprised the Edge is down in the negatives considering how hard of a runner he was.

 

[chf]

Heh, forget which board it was at the time, maybe CNNSI? But the #1 topic of people kvetching about the Seahawks? How soft SA was. How he'd go down at first contact, and never ever fight for extra yardage.

We've had a lot of talented backs who weren't exactly road graders, including Chris Warren.

So yeah, I agree that Alexander had a nose for the endzone, he wasn't carrying tacklers in there.

 

[blstoker]

Heh, forget which board it was at the time, maybe CNNSI? But the #1 topic of people kvetching about the Seahawks? How soft SA was. How he'd go down at first contact, and never ever fight for extra yardage.

We've had a lot of talented backs who weren't exactly road graders, including Chris Warren.

So yeah, I agree that Alexander had a nose for the endzone, he wasn't carrying tacklers in there.

I have never agreed with this perception that Alexander was "soft". I know it has been the more popular sentiment about him for the last decade, but I just don't think it was accurate. Yes, he wasn't a power back like Lynch, and he was definitely a finesse back - but Alexander could break tackles - especially near the end zone.


TDs #3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 & 27 all required him to go through a defenders tackle to score (some were more impressive than others). So, in 2005 alone, he had to get through defenders for 14 of 28 tds. Again, this doesn't make him a power back, but the idea he never fought through tackles is just fans not liking how his tenure ended in Seattle (IMO). It still amazes me that Alexander appears to be the most reviled player by fans in Seahawk history (saw a poll just yesterday in which Alexander received 60% of the vote for most overrated player in Seahawks history.Dave Krieg was 2nd @ 12%).

 

[chf]

Oh, I used to be the contrarian and arguing that backs like SA didn't grow on trees. The night game against the Vikings is one of the most fun I ever remember watching.

He was a really really good back.

You're right though, people thought he was tissue paper soft. Or that he was a product of the O-line, running behind Walt/and/or Huck Futchinson.

 

[chf]

Watched the video in its entirety. That line was damned good. I counted three where he kinda' moved the pile (or at least multiple tacklers), the Giants, the Eagles, and the Colts. The rest he was past the LOS, and delivering a blow on tacklers, usually DB's. As you pointed out, on a healthy chunk of them he wasn't even really touched. (he did have sneaky good acceleration/speed)

 

[blstoker]

I've heard people say that Lynch would be successful running behind the line Alexander had - and that is true. People also say that Alexander wouldn't behind the line Lynch has - that is where I think they are wrong. If they lined Alexander behind this line and ran him like he was running behind his line - then yeah, but let's face, Lynch isn't very successful doing that either. But, if you put Alexander back there in the read option with Wilson, like Lynch does, and I think he's just as successful as Lynch out there, or even more.

People tend to forget that Alexander read defensive pursuit and offensive blocks as well as anyone. He rarely missed a hole when it was there. That line was really good (especially in hindsight having seen what we've seen since 2006), but so was Alexander. He should be in the Ring of Honor.

 

[Itsmytime]

I've heard people say that Lynch would be successful running behind the line Alexander had - and that is true. People also say that Alexander wouldn't behind the line Lynch has - that is where I think they are wrong. If they lined Alexander behind this line and ran him like he was running behind his line - then yeah, but let's face, Lynch isn't very successful doing that either. But, if you put Alexander back there in the read option with Wilson, like Lynch does, and I think he's just as successful as Lynch out there, or even more.

People tend to forget that Alexander read defensive pursuit and offensive blocks as well as anyone. He rarely missed a hole when it was there. That line was really good (especially in hindsight having seen what we've seen since 2006), but so was Alexander. He should be in the Ring of Honor.

I agree, and I think it will be soon.

 

[MKHawk]

We saw this season what short yardage runs work like. It's been like that for three seasons now. Lynch is a beast when he's hitting a spread out D line, against stacked fronts, he's been...well not good.

Belichik wasn't going to be beaten by a run in that situation.

Sadly the kid Butler guessed perfectly, AND backed it up perfectly.

The rollout right is only good in hindsight.

Couldn't disagree more with the bolded. We've had this conversation many times over at kffl, but a rollout doesn't rely on three things happening that this team is not good at to succeed:
1) Russ being very accurate on a short pass
2) Jermaine Kearse winning any physical matchup (let alone one with the most physical corner in the league)
3) Ricardo Lockette running a crisp route

 

[chf]

Couldn't disagree more with the bolded. We've had this conversation many times over at kffl, but a rollout doesn't rely on three things happening that this team is not good at to succeed:
1) Russ being very accurate on a short pass
2) Jermaine Kearse winning any physical matchup (let alone one with the most physical corner in the league)
3) Ricardo Lockette running a crisp route

You and 837 both bang the drum on #2, and I don't know where you get that from.

If completing a slant is not doable for Russ, he should hang em' up now and retire.

And as we argued over there, I said that a rollout to the right with Russ either

a. throwing
b. scoring on the ground
c. running/thowing out of bounds

would have been MY call.

But the hindsight deal still holds. Someone upthread quoted Carroll, saying (paraphrasing) 'not the worst call, the worst result.'

That's my point, hindsight.

Expecting #1 and #2 to happen by professional athletes with their skillsets is perfectly reasonable.

I've seen Lockette catch a slant that same season, so I figure that that's reasonable too.

Butler made an otherworldly play. Browner make a great play.

 

[MKHawk]

Yes, "worst call in history" is a hindsight deal. But it would have been a bad call even if they would have scored on it.

Russ absolutely can complete slants. But the ball placement is not often right on the money. Receivers have to lunge for the ball, or stop their momentum to catch it pretty often. It's just not something Russ is good at. Luckily, he throws a gorgeous and very catchable deep ball, and in this offense, that's MUCH more important.

If you go back and look at the Harvin screens that were blown up in the backfield, you'll likely see Kearse blowing a block or overpowered on a block to allow that defender free run at Harvin before he can get going. I've seen multiple football film-watchers who I trust not to blow smoke malign Kearse for his lack of physicality, especially on blocking.

It's not that Seattle can't do these things, but they don't do them well. So pulling them out in that situation is a questionable strategy at best.

 

[chf]

Yes, "worst call in history" is a hindsight deal. But it would have been a bad call even if they would have scored on it.

This is a mysterious way to look at the chess match (insert allegory here) that is a football game. Some plays are high risk/high reward. The winning TD against GB, was that a bad call? It was risky, especially given what had transpired earlier. Tell me that you heart wasn't in your mouth when he first released that ball!

Absolutely the outcome determines the suitability of the call. One can't play safe all the time.

Russ absolutely can complete slants. But the ball placement is not often right on the money. Receivers have to lunge for the ball, or stop their momentum to catch it pretty often. It's just not something Russ is good at. Luckily, he throws a gorgeous and very catchable deep ball, and in this offense, that's MUCH more important.

So you agree that he can throw slants. The deep ball wasn't in play down that deep, so what type of pass is more important to the success of the team is irrelevant. No deep ball can be thrown from that spot on the field.

If you go back and look at the Harvin screens that were blown up in the backfield, you'll likely see Kearse blowing a block or overpowered on a block to allow that defender free run at Harvin before he can get going. I've seen multiple football film-watchers who I trust not to blow smoke malign Kearse for his lack of physicality, especially on blocking.

It's not that Seattle can't do these things, but they don't do them well. So pulling them out in that situation is a questionable strategy at best.

So where does the commentary that the Seahawks WR's while not putting up the #'s of other receivers, but being good at oft overlooked things (like blocking) come from?

I mean Kearse isn't a physical freak, but the story told my the Seahawks, is that he's a GOOD blocker.

My memory could be faulty, but after the initial success of the bubble screens, didn't teams do a pretty good job of diagnosing that play and running guys at Harvin? (ie not having them right up on Kearse/Baldwin where they could be easily engaged?)

I mean again, if I'd been calling the play in the SB, I'd have rolled Russ out. But I can definitely see the thought process behind the slant.

Expecting a 'good' blocker to do his job and rub a DB (even a physical guy like Browner) isn't expecting too much. It's just technique. I can box out a physically superior guy for a rebound, even though I can't compete with him 1 on 1. It's just technique.

Which according to the team, Kearse was supposed to be pretty good at.

But so long as we're separated by 'even if it would have succeeded it would have been a bad call,' then we're just typing out meaningless words I suspect.

We'd have to get past that logical hurdle before we could arrive at some consensus.

 

[dkmightyhammer]

But so long as we're separated by 'even if it would have succeeded it would have been a bad call,' then we're just typing out meaningless words I suspect.

We'd have to get past that logical hurdle before we could arrive at some consensus.

I sincerely have my doubts that there would have been any Seahawks fans second guessing the call for months on end if it had been a reception for a TD. On the contrary I suspect we'd all be lauding Carroll for calling a pass when the whole world was thinking "run the beast".

 

[MKHawk]

I wouldn't have wasted much time complaining about it, but it would have been a needlessly risky call even with a good outcome.

 

[MKHawk]

Sam Bradford can throw a deep ball. He's not good at it, but he wouldn't be an NFL QB if he were completely incapable. Likewise with Russ, but with slants.

Seattle has other receivers, presumably they're better at blocking than Kearse.

 

[chf]

I wouldn't have wasted much time complaining about it, but it would have been a needlessly risky call even with a good outcome.

But again ( I know I'm beating a dead horse here), any deep ball is 'needlessly' risky, right? Why not just dink and dunk? Why not just run? The deep ball has a higher % of failing.

And yet it's a staple of many offences because it

1. keeps teams from stacking the box or LOS
2. along with the high risk comes high reward

Now I'll agree with you that the slant isn't Russ's best pattern.

But sorry, I can't get past the logical disconnect of it being a 'bad' call if we're back to back Super bowl champs.
You could throw that pattern 100 times, how many times out of 100 is the DB going to make that play? Five? Two?

Even if it's incomplete, it still works because it throws doubt into the D (maybe they sub out of the jumbo?) and it also stops the clock. Preserving the time out.

Butler made a play for the ages.

 

[chf]

Sam Bradford can throw a deep ball. He's not good at it, but he wouldn't be an NFL QB if he were completely incapable. Likewise with Russ, but with slants.

Seattle has other receivers, presumably they're better at blocking than Kearse.

Perfect example on Bradford though. PERFECT. Bradford's inability to throw deep made their offense one dimensional. Foles being able to toss the ball deep made Seattle have to respect and cover that. Even if they don't do it well, they HAVE to throw deep now and then to keep the D honest (to compete in that chess match).
Who is better at blocking on the Hawks at WR? I could see an argument that Matthews COULD be, since he's gigantic. But I don't know that. Your use of the word 'presumably' seems to suggest that you're not sure who would be either.

 

[Anointed One]

).

What stands out to me more than anything when I watch this video is how dominant our OL is... SA is rarely even touched on a lot of those TD runs... Not until he get's to the GL at least... I could only imagine how awesome Beastmode would be behind that OL SA had in '05...

SA was a very good RB but I thought he looked much better than he was due to being a benificiery of an all world, elite OL... Justin Forsett looked very good behind that OL as well... The only thing that drove me nuts about SA was how easy he went down on initial contact... He was a soft runner imo... But hey, hard to argue his productivity...

 

[blstoker]

What stands out to me more than anything when I watch this video is how dominant our OL is... SA is rarely even touched on a lot of those TD runs... Not until he get's to the GL at least... I could only imagine how awesome Beastmode would be behind that OL SA had in '05...

SA was a very good RB but I thought he looked much better than he was due to being a benificiery of an all world, elite OL... Justin Forsett looked very good behind that OL as well... The only thing that drove me nuts about SA was how easy he went down on initial contact... He was a soft runner imo... But hey, hard to argue his productivity...

Maurice Morris.

I don't think Alexander gets enough credit (at least now) for what he accomplished because of the perception that his line was so good. That perception completely dominates the conversation as if it's the only factor to Alexander's career. I'm not sure I can think of any other highly successful RB in history who's performance is so maligned.

Unfortunately, there are no good stats that would show how good a line is, and so any argument about whether Alexander was a product of his line is just the perceptions of the opinionated. I'll see if I can find something that can be used, but until then - these are interesting reads, but really don't do much in solving the question.

What great running back was most helped by his offensive line? Part I » Pro-football-reference.com blog

What great running back was most helped by his offensive line? Part II » Pro-football-reference.com blog

What great running back was most helped by his offensive line? Part III » Pro-football-reference.com blog