NWSportsTalk.com

A place for everything about Pacific Northwest Sports

DVR Run Analysis - New York @ Seattle; 7-Nov-2010

A forum to discuss Seattle Seahawk football.

Moderators: Mike, Donald

DVR Run Analysis - New York @ Seattle; 7-Nov-2010

Postby CamasMan » Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:26 pm

Here's my weekly DVR analysis for the Giants/Seahawks game...

* Last week, I wrote "worst game of the year." Double Ditto for this week. But I can't really blame the loss on the running game.

Overall, our RBs had 47 yards (again) on 12 carries for 3.9 ypc. Most of the yards were from one 26 yard run by Lynch. We also got a 1st down on a Whitehurst sneak.


* Q1 - 10 yards on 5 carries for 2ypc. Highlight: Lynch and his teammates push the scrum for a first down with an additional 15 yards for a Giant facemask penalty.

[14:55] Andrews totally whiffed on his block. Carlson was running across to take out the DE, but failed to recognize the free DT who meets Lynch in the backfield for a 2 yard loss.
[5:44] Eight in the box. Both lines slide left, but no holes open as Lynch pushes for 2 yards.
[1:52] With three receivers, the D plays pass. The lines slide left while Baker cuts the DE for a nice hole. Lynch is a bit slow to make his move, but is able to pound for five yards.
[1:20] This is THE PLAY. Eight defenders in the box. Spencer slides his man across to the left. The guards push their men out of the play, as does Locklear. Pitts blocks to the side, but his man escapes to get Lynch, who turns the DE and pushes. Pitts pushes too. Butler and Locklear join the party and the scrum keeps moving. It's Locklear who helps spring Lynch free to get the first down. The 15 yard Giant facemask penalty was away from the play.
[:54] Nine defenders in the box against Forsett. We have three TEs on the right side. The TEs block too few Giants as a LB gets into the backfield untouched. Forsett loses one yard.
[:12] Lynch loses his balance, rocks forward, and gets a false start penalty.


* Q2 - 5 yards on 2 runs. 2.5 ypc. Highlight: 4 yards on a textbook play.

[9:10] Football 101. With a TE in the slot, everybody on the line gets their man and pushes straight ahead. Nice job by Gibson, doubling with Spencer and releasing to get a linebacker. Lynch runs up, picks his spot, and fights for a solid four yards.
[8:10] The lines slide right. Lynch goes right, but the hole isn't where he expected it. Had he turned it inside behind Spencer, he would have had an easy gain. Instead, Lynch delayed, then went outside. By then the Giants had swarmed.


* Q3 - 2 yds on 3 runs. 0.7 ypc. Lowlight: A perfect stunt by the outside LB hits Lynch for a loss of two.

[13:20] The outside LB anticipated a run to his side. He stunted behind Locklear's DE and runs untouched to meet Lynch. Carlson stands there in the slot position with no chance to make a play. The only way to beat this would be if Locklear got a great push. Instead, the DE snapped to Locklear and neutralized him. Great play, Giants. Loss of two.
[10:00] With eight in the box, the lines reach a stalemate. Lynch powers for two.
[9:25] With Morrah in the slot, he and Locklear engage their men well. Andrews pulled behind Locklear, but was sloppy blocking the LB. Lynch chooses the wrong way around Andrews and is swamed for a gain of two yards.


* Q4 - 30 yds on 2 runs. 15 ypc. Highlight: Lynch finds a gaping hole for a 26 yard gain.

[14:28] Giants LB 59 blitzes while Lynch goes the other way around Whitehurst. Morrah takes his man to the outside as Locklear seals the scrum. Lynch sees nothing but daylight. He later breaks two tackles before the secondary gang tackles him for a 26 yard gain.
[:34] Last play of the game. Eight in the box. Lynch is still playing hard and gets four beastly yards.


* Overall Blocking - The line was surprisingly good with few errors. Of course, there were only 12 RB plays and a sneak. Andrews made two errors: on the first play, he totally whiffed. His later error was minor. He made the block on the LB, but it was sloppy and confused Lynch. With 3 TEs in a group, they only took on two defenders and let one free. We need more practice on that one.

Aside from those three plays, the line and TEs played well. Sure, they could have gotten more push here and there. That said, the Giants simply played great defense. They were strong, fast, disciplined, tackled well, and only overplayed the ball once. They loaded the box often in the first quarter, taking away our confidence in the run and forcing the pass. Once we got behind, the running game was an afterthought.

* Play calling - We didn't have a fullback and we didn't have Tate. We had no plays with two running backs. As creative as we got was putting a TE in the slot to make it look like a 3WR set. Nine of twelve running plays (aside from the sneak) were on 1st down. The other three were on 2nd down and went for 5, 2, and 26 yards.

* Runners - Three 1st Downs (including the sneak.) No fumbles (aside from the Washington return.) No TDs. There were a couple of plays where Lynch could have made a better decision. One was clear, the other was confusing because of a sloppy Andrews block. On the other hand, there were numerous plays where Lynch pounded hard for his yards. The guy deserves respect. Forsett only had one run and was met head on in the backfield.

* Overall - You can't blame this loss on the running game. We passed on 3rd down and failed to get drives for points. Given that Charlie didn't face much pressure, blame this loss on Whitehurst, the receivers, and the defense. I often hold the o-line responsible for our losses. They weren't the problem this week.

GO HAWKS!
User avatar
CamasMan
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Postby trharder » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:13 am

Questions...

How much did the Seahawks use TEs and RBs to help protect CW. Did we have any less possible targets for CW because of this?

Did the Giants scheme to get to Whitehurst like the Raiders did to get Matt, or did they drop back and cover?

Do you think Lynch sometimes tries to do to much when he could make his cut sooner and get three or four?
User avatar
trharder
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:15 pm
Location: Enumclaw, Wa.

Postby Charlie Whitehursts Beard » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:32 am

I put alot of this on the receivers. With all the blocking they put in to protect CW the receivers (and CW) were going to have to make a lot of tough catches against double teams. They didn't do that. BMW shows that he has a hard time getting separation, and Butler shows that he can't catch the ball if there is a defender within 5 yards of him.

For the first time this year I was wishing that we'd have gotten Vincent Jackson or god forbid Randy Moss. We need a big WR that can get separation AND catch the ball in traffic.
User avatar
Charlie Whitehursts Beard
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: "Rural" King County

Postby CamasMan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:37 am

I only looked at the running plays in detail, so I'm not sure about extra protection from the RB and TEs, and I'm not sure about the rushing schemes. I've read that we stayed back to protect, and that the Giants stayed in their base defense most of the time.

Regarding Lynch, he was a bit hesitant at times - especially compared to Forsett. Forsett tends to make his cut while keeping his forward momentum. Lynch seemed a bit unsure of things on his cuts.

One thing I can't analyze is if people made the plays as they were drawn up on the chalkboard. Maybe a guy makes a fantastic block and opens a big hole, but the block was to the left, rather than to the right. In that case, the RB might need to stop their momentum, take a split second to decide, and then go. I might give the lineman five stars on the block, when he actually screwed up the play.

One thing that's been clear from day one is that Lynch doesn't yet trust his line. That doesn't mean that he thinks they suck. He just doesn't have enough game time with them to know how they are likely to handle their blocks.

In his first couple games with the Seahawks, Lynch would run up to the scrum, cut to the outside and try to make something happen on his own. This didn't work against the Raiders and Giants, who sealed the edge and were quick to the ball. Rather than breaking single tackles, Lynch found himself smothered on the outside.

The Cards defense isn't as quick. Lynch had success bouncing outside. If the Cards work the outside, they'll just become softer in the middle.

I predict our best running game of the year against the Cards, who rank 28th against the run. Even though the Giants defense played great, I saw some bright signs with our run blocking. Spencer and Locklear looked really good. And, if we can get Okung back and have Pitts play guard, we should be strong from edge to edge.
User avatar
CamasMan
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Postby trharder » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:43 am

CamasMan wrote:I predict our best running game of the year against the Cards, who rank 28th against the run. Even though the Giants defense played great, I saw some bright signs with our run blocking. Spencer and Locklear looked really good. And, if we can get Okung back and have Pitts play guard, we should be strong from edge to edge.


Sweet!
User avatar
trharder
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:15 pm
Location: Enumclaw, Wa.

Postby CamasMan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:36 am

Another thing about going from the Giants to the Cards...

We didn't show the Cardinals a thing last Sunday. It was Charlie in the passing game. We'll have Matt in Arizona. We didn't have a fullback against the Giants. Robinson should be back to play against the Cards. Our three receiver sets against the Giants that were runs included a TE in the slot. I'd guess that we will abandon that look next Sunday.

Overall, I'm thinking that the staff knew that this would be a loss, so they reeled in the game plan - aside from the double pass gimmick play. I somehow get the feeling that we WANT Arizona to study the Giants tape hard, because we will be doing things quite differently.

Heck, Carroll even re-arranged where people sit during team meetings. :)

http://blog.seahawks.com/2010/11/10/musical-chairs/
User avatar
CamasMan
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Postby South Sider » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:58 pm

Sounds like Hass, Mebane and Okung might all three be good to go for the Cards game. That will make a night and day difference right there.
User avatar
South Sider
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA

Postby South Sider » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:01 pm

Sure would be nice to see Okung get back %100 healthy and finish the year strong and have a healthy Pitts be the LG that we are all hoping he will be. That would really change the outlook of the rest the season.


When we had big Walt and Hutch on the left side, that was our bread and butter. Everybody and his brother knew we'd run it left and it still worked.
So if we could get something going with these two guys on the left side to help the run game would be soooo sweet.
User avatar
South Sider
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA

Postby CamasMan » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:23 pm

The word is that Okung isn't a go just yet, but Polumbus is. Either way, we get Pitts back to his natural guard spot with a solid LT. And, yes, Hasselbeck and Mebane will be back too.

Things are looking up!
User avatar
CamasMan
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Postby South Sider » Wed Nov 10, 2010 3:58 pm

Ok, now I seen the report, you're right. Danny O'Neil reported this:
On the offensive line, rookie Russell Okung will participate in individual drills.

Doesn't even remotely sound like "probable" yet. Sure hope he makes it back though. Him and Mebane have been sorely missed.
User avatar
South Sider
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: DVR Run Analysis - New York @ Seattle; 7-Nov-2010

Postby sqwert » Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:40 pm

CamasMan wrote: 12 carries


Sad, sad, sad.

I am all for taking an offensive lineman with the first pick of the draft every year until....well, forever.

Too bad were gonna need a QB.

Any one else wish we would have taken Sanchez instead of Curry? He is turning into a damn fine young QB and if he keeps progressing will be in the top 5 to 10 in a couple years.
"A man can be destroyed but he can't be defeated" -- Jim Harbaugh
User avatar
sqwert
 
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:51 pm

Postby Stealth » Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:08 am

sqwert wrote:
CamasMan wrote: 12 carries


Sad, sad, sad.

I am all for taking an offensive lineman with the first pick of the draft every year until....well, forever.

Too bad were gonna need a QB.

Any one else wish we would have taken Sanchez instead of Curry? He is turning into a damn fine young QB and if he keeps progressing will be in the top 5 to 10 in a couple years.
I would say he may be in the top 10 already...if not very close.
User avatar
Stealth
 
Posts: 2909
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Dayton Ohio

Postby Klytus » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:16 am

If we'd taken Sanchez, he wouldn't be in the top 10. He'd be a backup or in a cast.
User avatar
Klytus
 
Posts: 3205
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:33 pm
Location: Mogadore, OH

Postby Charlie Whitehursts Beard » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:35 am

Not that impressed with Sanchez other than his durability. I'd much rather have Stafford or Bradford.
User avatar
Charlie Whitehursts Beard
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:01 pm
Location: "Rural" King County

Postby CamasMan » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:36 am

True. The Jets were able to put Sanchez behind a strong line with a great running game, so he really could play point guard rather than hero during his first year. The Jets defense contributed as well, keeping games close and avoiding the need for desperation passing.

It was the ideal place for a rookie QB to develop as a starter.

We, on the other hand, make it tough for a healthy, proven vet to shine.
User avatar
CamasMan
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Camas, WA

Next

Return to Seattle Seahawks



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Theme created by StylerBB.net
cron