I need some help understanding our running game woes completely.
Yes, Shaun Alexander isn't Shaun Alexander. Yes, he's 30, and even though we forget it, having a broken wrist won't exactly benefit his ability running the ball either. But it's clear, regardless of how often we bash him, that the days in which we cheered him are unfortunately behind us. One question, how has Shaun physically gone under the radar among NFL Scouts, Teammates and Coaches? As much as we watch the games, they are there dealing with these situations in person, with years of training under their belts. I have heard several people say Holmgren is scapegoating the offensive line to protect Alexander's reputation. But in a business such as this, where winning means money (a career), and where it's no longer a secret that money is what drives it, why would any coach risk winning in order to protect a player. That type of loyalty is something that is rarely seen nowadays. Maurice Morris has deserved more playing time, how unfortunate for a 2nd Round Pick to spend his career as a backup. He has been successful and like most of the Field Gulls faithful, I am in complete agreement that giving Morris more carries would be a better option, however, I can't just imagine that being the 'fix' for this entire problem. These are some quotes from the Tacoma News Tribune ''It’s going to be hard for Seahawk fans to admit, but Walter Jones is not really Walter Jones these days. He struggled against St. Louis and was hardly better Sunday. Rob Sims has the strength and mobility of a future Pro Bowl guard. But his potential is not being translated into effective play. Center Chris Spencer has his moments, but then occasionally gets dominated. On one play Sunday, Spencer was shoved back off the line so hard that a Browns defender almost sacked Hasselbeck with Spencer’s flying body. On a second-quarter play at the Browns’ 2, Jones, Sims and Spencer all missed their blocks, resulting in Shaun Alexander being dropped for a 3-yard loss. Spencer got beaten again on the next play as Alexander again was tackled for a loss.'' Now, the full article has a very strong opinion that the offensive line was the main problem. I don't disagree with this, but nor do i agree. I feel that yes, Shaun is slowing down, that Morris is in his prime, but that is not to say that with better offensive line play that even the old, slowing down Alexander would be able to have some occasional effectiveness. What do you guys think?
0 recs |
11
comments
Comments
sorry for the jumbled post
by J Hens on Nov 5, 2007 1:01 PM PST 0 recs
I agree with the article
I think it's virtually impossible for a RB to be that good and then this bad so quickly. The wrist, Hutchinson, Walter's decline, Gray, the contract, the WR's out, the playcalling, yadda yadda yadda..... we just are not that good at running the ball right now.
by The Manchild on Nov 5, 2007 2:50 PM PST 0 recs
But then how come
All of those factors, except a sore wrist, have plagued Morris and Weaver as well. They have still been more successful. Heck, Morris was injured enough to miss an entire week.
And as much as you guys repeat it to each other it cannot be emphasized enough: Alexander hurts us in more areas than just the running game. And that really is important. Pass blocking and catching as a RB is an important thing.
by CKremer on
Nov 5, 2007 6:37 PM PST
up
0 recs
Sample sizes
The key to consistent success is the blocking team. Yes, SA has failed as an individual (falling down, etc) but the reason he hasn't had consistent success is the team effort has failed.
If MoMo gets enough carries to get a decent sample size his average will go down. Maybe not as low as SA this year but it will fall.
Check my post on John's Quick Read diary if you want more of my line of argument.
-CBF
by cooshawkfan on
Nov 5, 2007 9:26 PM PST
up
0 recs
I like Morris
the problem i have with the argument of placing him in there instead of shaun, is just why wouldn't they have seen the level of production or talent difference between them already in practice?
by J Hens on Nov 5, 2007 3:34 PM PST 0 recs
Why didn't John McLaren play Adam Jones
by BrettJMiller on
Nov 5, 2007 11:28 PM PST
up
0 recs
I agree
A baseball player doesn't necessarily drop off after age 30, by a long shot. A-Rod's next contract will manifest that (as long as the lucky bride doesn't rely on him in October, heh).
Shaun's not just working against his most immediate medical problems; he's working against the history of all post-30 runnings backs not named Emmitt, Tiki (now a second-stringer for NBC) or Walter. I hate to fall back on statistical cliches, but that one's pretty dramatic and decisive. Once a superstar running back has a subpar season after his stardom, particularly after the big 3-0, the chances for a freefall multiply by billions.
The line's a big part of it, yeah. And Mo can't be viewed as a savior by any means. I'm just saying I saw him bust out a couple near-10-yarders yesterday and he seemed a good step or two faster than the Senior Circuit.
It's a sad fact of life. We all gotta adjust to it. Even loyalists. Sigh.
by Shrug on
Nov 6, 2007 12:08 AM PST
up
0 recs
I think it's clear
(of course if we had done that would we be witnessing potentially the best rookie season from a RB in Minnesota right now? prob not.)
by Snuffleupagus on Nov 6, 2007 12:58 PM PST 0 recs
Well actually
The money that wasn't spent on Hutch was spent on Peterson. But ya Peterson and Hutch would of probably been the better investment.
by Scruffy Lefty on
Nov 6, 2007 2:25 PM PST
up
0 recs
I think this might be instructive.
by John Morgan on Nov 6, 2007 4:07 PM PST 0 recs








