Is it Time to Play Owen Schmitt?

by John Morgan on Oct 22, 2008 3:08 PM PDT in Commentary

Something short as I shrug off this sick and figure out how I'm going to stretch 2009 season previews over 10 months.

In 2008, Leonard Weaver was a nationally anonymous but integral part of Seattle's offense. As a rusher he was worth 40 DYAR, had 13 first downs and a touchdown. As a receiver, he was worth 87 DYAR, nearly as much as Deion Branch, 97 DYAR, and D.J. Hackett, 99 DYAR. He caught 75% of his targets and earned 15 first downs. He was a vital outlet receiver and by season's end, a punishing pass blocker. In a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, Weaver's combined 127 DYAR was second only to Bobby Engram. It wasn't a systems thing, it was a one-handed catch, pretty juke, DB baptismal into the dirt thing. He earned it.

This season he's all but forgotten, a fullback with feature back abilities just playing fullback. Weaver has 13 runs, including five third down draws. Zero converted the first. With Matt Hasselbeck injured and Seneca Wallace and Charlie Frye incapable of completing short passes, Weaver's no longer contributing as a receiver. Combine the two and his contributions equal -20 DYAR. Of course, Weaver himself hasn't changed, but the capability and nature of this offense has.

Weaver has never developed as a run blocker. Owen Schmitt, on the other hand, looks capable of becoming the next great blocking back. Schmitt was a monster in the preseason.

Fifth play of Seattle's second drive of the fourth quarter. 2^nd and 5, Chicago 16. Seattle breaks 3 WR, Split Backs. Bears in a base 4-3. At the snap, Floyd Womack, who had a very solid half, blocks in engaging Matt Toeaina. That frees Pat Murray to pull left. Ben Claxton pulls up and patiently sits between Rod Wilson and the offensive left, engaging Wilson when Wilson begins rushing towards Forsett. With Womack attacking in, Murray pulling out left and Claxton attacking the middle of the second level, defensive end Ervin Baldwin is unblocked until -- a screaming comes across the sky. Schmitt staggers Baldwin, jogs him downfield and picks Craig Steltz. Steltz, forced to flatten his pursuit angle and engage Forsett horizontally, compensates by facemasking Forsett.

If that were it, that'd be sweet, but that's not it, no that's not half of it.

Overtime, fourth play of Seattle's first drive. 1^st and 10, Chicago 36. Seattle breaks 2 WR, TE, SB. Bears in a base 4-3. Seattle is running a sweep play left, with both guards, left guard Murray and right guard Mansfield Wrotto, pulling. At the snap, Schmitt again attacks the right defensive end, but this time strikes with such force that he levels both end Nick Osborn and tackle Toeaina. That pileup picks all three linebackers and Forsett sweeps untouched into the second level.

And the timing is right. As a team, Seattle can't truly give up on the season. It would be uncouth and bad business. So starting second stringers just to see what you got isn't an option. Seattle should see what they've got, but for now it still must be in the name of winning. Luckily, Seattle needs its running attack, to protect Matt should they feed him to Singletary's wolves, or to hide Wallace in the more likely case The Stoic again sees the field. The Niners are much stronger against the pass than the run. It would be a seamless transition, Schmitt's been active in all but week one, and wouldn't require Weaver to sit, or not start, but only sit a bit, and let Schmitt hit that second level for a few drives. Schmitt isn't one-sided, he could receive, and team's that run blitz better prepare for the nastiest screen in the NFL. You'll tackle him, but you'll wish you hadn't. For this season, what remains, and for next season, what could be, it matters. Plus, it would be really damn cool.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments |

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I feel you but...

that seems like a hard case to make. The running game is the one non-dysfunctional aspect of this team right now. How do you make a case for taking snaps away from Weaver, even if he’s being underutilized? I agree that to the well-trained eye he’s hardly a punishing run blocker, but I don’t see him as worse-than-decent. I’d imagine that when the coaches look at the tape they think, “we can live with just-adequate blocking from Weaver because he’s more-than-decent in pass pro AND he can catch the living daylights out of the ball.” How do you take that off the field to give Schmitt more burn on 1st and 2nd down? Weaver’s a vet but he’s in his ostensible prime. There is almost as big a question mark surrounding his future on this team as Schmitt’s. The team has a good bit invested in Weaver and owes it to itself to figure out if what we’re seeing right now is what we’re going to get. I doubt he’ll ever be a Lo-Neal-esque punishing run blocker but I’d imagine he can improve in many of its technical aspects—enough to make him an above the median blocker.

I’d love to see more Schmitt myself, but creating a context for that became far more difficult when the team signed Duckett. Weaver might have been your short yardage tailback in the backfield with Schmitt. (Duckett’s been balling, btw. I’m not knocking Duckett—and I was a skeptic.)

Having said that, should our current malaise continue—and it probably will—there may be lots and lots of garbage time burn for Schmitt, Forsett, et al. :(

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Oct 22, 2008 4:08 PM PDT 0 recs

Schmitt upgrades the run game more than Weaver upgrades the pass game

Our pass offense has been terrible regardless of the QB so far. Weaver’s exceptional pass blocking is, well exceptional, but it’s not resulting in more success in the pass game. Schmitt on the other hand has the potential to make a good ground game great and still contribute with his pass catching ability on screens or play action.

I don’t think the idea would be to replace Weaver though. Right now it’s about a 95-5 playing time split for the two full backs. Bumping Schmitt up to around 30% of the snaps could make a significant impact in the run game and on opposing team’s face masks.

by Nate Dogg on Oct 22, 2008 5:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

And I agree with John on another point

This is the perfect week to try this. Has anyone seen the NFL Network commercials for “America’s Game” or whatever that show is called? They have a clip of Singletary saying “We knew in that huddle, there was a group of guys destined to apply the kind of pressure that had not been seen before.” It gave me chills before he was the head coach, now it terrifies me. Rolling out a punishing run game to avoid passing and to hopefully slow down that D could only be a good thing.

by Nate Dogg on Oct 22, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Who hasn't?

If you’ve spent more than 10 minutes in the last two years watching that channel, you certainly would have that commercial ingrained in your memory. They played it every break it seemed for ever! I wanted to punch the TV when it came on, esp. with Namath so happy I could just puke. It seemed that they played that thing more than actual programming I tuned in to see. AGain? What? ANY way…..I digress.

I don’t know if Owen’s receiving skills are yet comparable to Weaver’s and although it’s a good idea, I’m not sure he’s ready for too prominent a role. I would love to see him mash some people, though.

by Misfit74 on Oct 22, 2008 9:15 PM PDT up 0 recs

Dude

We did it… we did it!!

That commercial makes me blow up like an exploding meerkat. And it’s still on every other break. I’m about to sue for mental anguish.

by vanrijn on Oct 23, 2008 11:53 AM PDT up 0 recs

HEAVY SET

Why not line up Weaver as half-back and Schmitt as fullback? It would be a nightmare for runs up the middle, either one would be a threat to go out for a pass, and we might actually have decent protection for our QB while he prays for a wide receiver to get open?

Probably not logical, but it would sure be fun to watch.

by HawksFan on Oct 22, 2008 4:10 PM PDT 0 recs

More Schmitt

less Duckett. I don’t think it’s illogical at all to put Schmitt ahead of Weaver at all. It seems like a more athletic, faster, might I be so bold as to say stronger, version of the Duckett experiment.

by Dukeshire on Oct 22, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is exactly why I wanted Tim Ruskell to sign Lorenzo Neal in lieu of T.J. Duckett.

With the Baltimore Ravens, Neal is doing for Le’Ron McClain what he could’ve done for Leonard Weaver. Neal would’ve been a great mentor for Owen Schmitt, too, but that’s neither here nore there.

by AK1984 on Oct 23, 2008 2:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

I like your argument.

They could still start Weaver, but to give Schmitt a couple drives a game wouldn’t hurt anyone. Why wait for garbage time?

by PascoJoe on Oct 22, 2008 4:17 PM PDT 0 recs

I think there was a typo

“…Charlie Frye incapable of completing ~~short~~ passes, Weaver’s no longer contributing as a receiver.”

by Nate Dogg on Oct 22, 2008 4:57 PM PDT 0 recs

lol......

precisely. er, poor choice of words.

by Misfit74 on Oct 22, 2008 9:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think they will run weaver into the ground.

As we won’t be resigning him…

by michaelfox99 on Oct 22, 2008 5:49 PM PDT 0 recs

Well they better get working on that

He’s had 19 touches in 6 games…..

by Nate Dogg on Oct 22, 2008 6:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

Lead-blocking takes just as much (if not more)

out of a FB than carries.

by redwolf75 on Oct 22, 2008 11:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, that was what I was thinking.

by michaelfox99 on Oct 23, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up 0 recs

I love our backfield.

Jones, Duckett, Weaver, Schmitt, Forsett, Morris – probably the best backfield top to bottom in the NFL. I would trade any three of these guys for Clinton Portis (a few years ago that is), man that guy can block. I think Portis is as good as it gets, he’s very nearly as good a rusher as a LT or AP and a superior blocker.

If our passing game could sustain drives and open things up every so slightly I bet these guys would be making headlines.

I have always felt Weaver was miscast. He is a feature back in the TJ Duckett mold- sorta makes you wonder why we brought in Duckett. Still, as a run blocker he leaves something to be desired, and hes not gonna see carries while Duckett, Morris, and Jones are all hankering for touches. Still, he is the best pass-blocker we have for the FB slot and with all of our QB’s banged up I just don’t see how we can allow that aspect of our team to be weakened. Having Schmitt wait in the trenches for a little isn’t so bad. I don’t think we can keep all these backs around long term, my guess is weaver and morris are gone after this season which leaves us with the new look backfield of:

Duckett, Schmitt, Jones, Forsett

That is a sick backfield. You have your full-time FB in Schmitt, a bruiser for your power package who can backup the FB slot in Duckett, your everydown guy in Jones, and a change of pacer / returner in Forsett. Money.

by michaelfox99 on Oct 23, 2008 9:11 AM PDT 0 recs

'Plus, it would be really damn cool.'

As good a reason as any it probably won’t happen. Holmgren rarely supplants a starter lest they put up huge fail, and not even then sometimes. Weaver pretty much sucks as a blocker but I doubt they’ve graded him out that poorly overall.

by lemonverbena on Oct 23, 2008 10:30 AM PDT 0 recs

3 words.

IT IS TIME

by 13receivers16days on Oct 23, 2008 12:27 PM PDT 0 recs

Off topic:

If Matt gets shut down for the season, what about the idea of bringing in Culpepper? I would be fun to see a good deep-ball, provided he can still throw it. Of course, there are many drawbacks to the idea but it would be fun. Seneca certainly needs to play better and reportedly has a good deep ball of his own. Sure would be nice of the Walrus called a more wide-open game plan and we could see it. I hope Seneca performs better this week. Just a thought. Maybe and insane one, but could be fun for discussion.

Free agent Daunte Culpepper formally unretired from football in a Thursday e-mail.
Nobody believed C-Pepp was done trying to catch on when he announced the decision in September. He’s been flirting with teams ever since. Culpepper doesn’t offer much anymore because of shaky knees, confidence, and consistency, but could be picked up by a team handcuffed by injury. Oct. 23 – 2:46 pm et -NFL.com

http://blogs.nfl.com/2008/10/23/culpeppers-retirement-lasts-49-days/

by Misfit74 on Oct 23, 2008 3:18 PM PDT 0 recs

Culpepper turned down numerous teams....

who were picking him up as a second stringer. He declined and said he would rather retire than play behind somebody. Sounds like a real team player who is selfless and all about team. May the best man for the job take the field and let the team get the W. There is no way he is anywhere near good enough to be an exclusive QB. He is an arrogant fool, no way would I want him on this lineup…I would rather start Brian Russel at QB.

I heard that idea tossed around quite a bit in the pre and early season

by collyb on Oct 23, 2008 10:34 PM PDT up 0 recs