Hey Sherman

[JMR]

Mo Morris was like a lot of backup RBs -- looked way better in small bursts than they did when the workload increased.

 

[gohusk]

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

I don't think it screwed with his head. That foot injury destroyed his agility and he was nothing but an easy target when he got handed the ball. It was a shame to see, especially after he signed that fat contract, but it happens to all of them. I think we'll see the same thing this year from Lynch and we'll really have to figure out a way to pick up that production somewhere else.

 

[JMR]

I don't think it screwed with his head. That foot injury destroyed his agility and he was nothing but an easy target when he got handed the ball. It was a shame to see, especially after he signed that fat contract, but it happens to all of them. I think we'll see the same thing this year from Lynch and we'll really have to figure out a way to pick up that production somewhere else.

Recognizing I'm in the minority on this issue, but I don't think it will be that hard to carry on in life after Lynch. Beef up the OL a little bit and find a bigger back to tandem with Rawls and that'll be just fine. It's only 2 games but so far our O is better when it's more about Russell and less about Lynch.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I don't think it screwed with his head. That foot injury destroyed his agility and he was nothing but an easy target when he got handed the ball. It was a shame to see, especially after he signed that fat contract, but it happens to all of them. I think we'll see the same thing this year from Lynch and we'll really have to figure out a way to pick up that production somewhere else.

It kind of did screw with his head. Lot's of time S.A. would run into a pile and just fall down. Before his injury, he normally would cut or drive his way through the d-line. I guess we're nit picking but overall he was a hell of a player for us.

 

[gohusk]

Wow. That's a horrible call.

 

[gohusk]

Can we pull that out of the playbook and just burn it?

 

[MKHawk]

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.

Okay, let me put it this way then.
That play call is the equivalent of Bradford's OC calling for a deep post on 4th and 1 from the opponent's 37 yard line with 37 seconds left in the Super Bowl, up by 3, and with the other team having no timeouts left.

Yes, it will be a one-on-one matchup and yes, sometimes you have to do the unexpected to give the defense something else to think about, but that game situation is NOT the time to do that.

I am not saying to never throw slants. I am saying that we have (well, maybe had) an offense that did a number of things well. That wasn't one of them and thus should not have been in contention for one of the final 3 play calls of the season needing one yard to win the Super Bowl.

 

[chf]

Okay, let me put it this way then.
That play call is the equivalent of Bradford's OC calling for a deep post on 4th and 1 from the opponent's 37 yard line with 37 seconds left in the Super Bowl, up by 3, and with the other team having no timeouts left.

Yes, it will be a one-on-one matchup and yes, sometimes you have to do the unexpected to give the defense something else to think about, but that game situation is NOT the time to do that.

I am not saying to never throw slants. I am saying that we have (well, maybe had) an offense that did a number of things well. That wasn't one of them and thus should not have been in contention for one of the final 3 play calls of the season needing one yard to win the Super Bowl.

And my issue with all the hindsight crowd is that their #1 choice (hand off to Lynch again) has been a miserable failure this year, and was to say the least 'problematic' going back two seasons before this one.

So if we're playing a stats game, handing off to Marshawn against that jumbo pkg had less of a chance of success than the slant did.

I have agreed, and will continue to agree that I wouldn't have dialed up the slant either, but hey, maybe my call, (rolling Russ out right) would have been blown up by Brower too...

And c'mon now, a deep post is never going to be statistically EQUIVALENT to a slant, but I get the point you're making.

A slant isn't a high risk play there. Most of the time, even if not going for a TD, it's just going to be incomplete.

In HINDSIGHT, it was an awful, risky play, because of the phenomenal play a rookie DB nobody had ever heard of made.

Shvt happens.

It's not like Bevell called for the FB to run a stretch play or something.

Look, I'd compare it like this. Smoke throwing reliever in in the bottom of the 9th. 2 out, power hitter at the plate, he's a pure fast-ball hitter. Game 7, World series.

First pitch is a fastball strike up in the zone, batter can't quite catch up, swings through it.

Now the fast ball is working. 0 and 1 count. But this guy makes his living hitting fastballs.

Do you

Throw him another high fastball?
Throw a curve or off speed pitch to keep him off balance to set him up for strike three with more heat?
Stay with the fastball, but keep it off the plate, hoping to get him to chase?

2 or 3 are pretty conventional wisdom in the 'chess match.'

Any one of the three can win you the WS, any one of the three can lose you the WS.

Let's say I go with choice #3, keeping the ball down in the zone, just above his shoe tops and the bastard goes down a' la Kirk Gibson, and golfs it into the second deck?

Did that make my pitch selection horrible? Or did the guy just make a great adjustment, and a helluva play, and wins the WS?

My opinion is that the slant WASN'T a horrible call, it was just a call that didn't work out. There was logic and a process behind it. It didn't work out. The other guy made a better (perfect) play, and Kirk Gibsoned us.

 

[MKHawk]

And my issue with all the hindsight crowd is that their #1 choice (hand off to Lynch again) has been a miserable failure this year, and was to say the least 'problematic' going back two seasons before this one.

So if we're playing a stats game, handing off to Marshawn against that jumbo pkg had less of a chance of success than the slant did.

I have agreed, and will continue to agree that I wouldn't have dialed up the slant either, but hey, maybe my call, (rolling Russ out right) would have been blown up by Brower too...

And c'mon now, a deep post is never going to be statistically EQUIVALENT to a slant, but I get the point you're making.

A slant isn't a high risk play there. Most of the time, even if not going for a TD, it's just going to be incomplete.

In HINDSIGHT, it was an awful, risky play, because of the phenomenal play a rookie DB nobody had ever heard of made.

Shvt happens.

It's not like Bevell called for the FB to run a stretch play or something.

Look, I'd compare it like this. Smoke throwing reliever in in the bottom of the 9th. 2 out, power hitter at the plate, he's a pure fast-ball hitter. Game 7, World series.

First pitch is a fastball strike up in the zone, batter can't quite catch up, swings through it.

Now the fast ball is working. 0 and 1 count. But this guy makes his living hitting fastballs.

Do you

Throw him another high fastball?
Throw a curve or off speed pitch to keep him off balance to set him up for strike three with more heat?
Stay with the fastball, but keep it off the plate, hoping to get him to chase?

2 or 3 are pretty conventional wisdom in the 'chess match.'

Any one of the three can win you the WS, any one of the three can lose you the WS.

Let's say I go with choice #3, keeping the ball down in the zone, just above his shoe tops and the bastard goes down a' la Kirk Gibson, and golfs it into the second deck?

Did that make my pitch selection horrible? Or did the guy just make a great adjustment, and a helluva play, and wins the WS?

My opinion is that the slant WASN'T a horrible call, it was just a call that didn't work out. There was logic and a process behind it. It didn't work out. The other guy made a better (perfect) play, and Kirk Gibsoned us.

I agree with you that no one could have expected the INT on the slant play. I also agree that people pounding the table to "just run Lynch" aren't taking into account Seattle's struggles in that situation (though to be fair, the Patriots were similarly bad at stopping those types of plays). My problem is more along the lines of,

This is very much a play that did not play to the strengths of the personnel (which I've outlined before), and I believe Seattle should have done what they are good at in this game situation, instead of trying to win via scheme/fooling against the Patriots. That's why I say it was a bad call. And why I've been somewhat distressed to hear the coaches so defiant over the play call.

 

[chf]

I agree with you that no one could have expected the INT on the slant play. I also agree that people pounding the table to "just run Lynch" aren't taking into account Seattle's struggles in that situation (though to be fair, the Patriots were similarly bad at stopping those types of plays). My problem is more along the lines of,the personnel (which I've outlined before), and I believe Seattle should have done what they are good at in this game situation, instead of trying to win via scheme/fooling against the Patriots. That's why I say it was a bad call. And why I've been somewhat distressed to hear the coaches so defiant over the play call.

Well they seem (to me) to be defiant in the face of the 'worst call in NFL history' hyperbole.

And again, the chess match is going to mean trying to 'fool' the other team. We simply weren't with out personnel (and their personnel) going to line up strength to strength (like we used to do running behind Walt and Futch) and win that game from there. Given the time left, and the # of timeouts, we were going to put ourselves in a bind to be able to run enough plays too. (late game clock management isn't a strength of our O yet either). So we passed.

And sure, given some of the magic that Russ can make on the edge, that's why I've said I'd have tried to roll him out to the right. That's something that HE does well. But there's no guarantee that that works either. Browner moves, up, strips Wilson, and NE wins. Everybody still wails and gnashes their teeth in hindsight.

The struggles we've had this year with short yardage bear out for me that NOT running Marshawn was the right call.

We'd been making shvt up as we went along that whole game on O though. Chris Matthews size mismatch? Ride that sudden discovery till they solve it. Apparenlty even King Bill didn't figure out how to do that until Browner approached HIM, and offered to cover him.

The damned completion that put us in position to score was in hindsight, probably a HORRIBLE throw, and a horrible idea. But it worked.

Everything was working, until that kid Butler.

<shakes fist at Scooby-do> Damned meddling Butler!