Defending T.J. Duckett
T.J. Duckett has been pitted against Justin Forsett. After Forsett's two week preseason spectacular, Duckett has unilaterally gotten the worst of it. The (flimsy) pretense for this discussion is that Seattle will only keep three running backs and with Maurice Morris and Julius Jones mortal locks, the discussion turns to Duckett V. Forsett. There is no discussion; just like there is no logical basis for the contention that Duckett should be cut. There are an awful lot of irrational arguments, locked in hearsay and incomplete information, but to that in a second.
See, a roster is a bit like a draft. You have your needs, but your greater goal is best overall talent. The argument that either Duckett or Forsett is "on the bubble", while Kyle Williams or Charlie Frye is "safe", simply because the team must have x number of running backs and y number of offensive tackles or quarterbacks defies not only common sense, but common practice. There's no one way to build a roster, not in the NFL, not in Seattle, and no well-run team will ditch better talent in favor of needs. Why then should Seattle cut Forsett or Duckett? Do they represent two of the least valuable players on Seattle's roster? Why, if Duckett is on such unstable footing, did he get a quarter+ snaps in each of Seattle's two preseason games?
He's not, and, sad to say, this "controversy" seems like pure media fabrication. To wit, I listened to this interview to audit this post by Frank Hughes. Upon further review, what a snow job interpretation. This is Mike Holmgren's answer about Duckett in its entirety. The question starts at 18:49 if you want to listen along.
Well it's, it's gonna be a tight call going down to the wire. T.J. comes in; clearly he has the ability to move the pile. And in short yardage situations, goal line situations, there's real value there.
I think he's a better than average pass blocker. So that - there's value there.
The problem is how to use him and when to use him and things like that. You have - and it's not his problem, it's the fact is we have, the pile is pretty big. Y'know, you got Morris, you have Jones and you have Weaver, but, y'know, TJ's a great guy. He's working hard and, uh, we'll just see how it plays out at the end. It's tha - the, the - a couple positions are going to be a real tough call at the end.
Interpret that as you will, but I challenge you to find more than praise and coach speak.
The second tier of the cut-Duckett argument centers on his 19 preseason rushes. And I know where the vitriol stems, it's as plain as paper, the vitriol stems from fans who either don't watch the games or watch them drunk or distracted. I'm not digging their fandom, one does not become a better or worse fan because they live outside the local broadcast. No, but fans who do not watch or do not watch attentively are often victims of hype and bad stats. I've talked hype, now let's cover bad stats.
Duckett's yards per rush is 1.9. An ugly number, no doubt, but a number that speaks more of Duckett's usage than ability. Of those 19 rushes, nine have come on short yardage downs. Most if not all against a stacked box. On those nine rushes, Duckett has been successful six times, gaining two yards on first and five, converting four first downs and scoring a touchdown. That's a 67% success rate in "power situations". Seattle as a team converted just 52% of power situations in 2007. Right off, nine of Duckett's 19 rushes are not only in situations where yards per attempt is reduced, but also meaningless. Go ahead and cut out three more attempts from Saturday's overtime victory. Duckett rushed three times starting from Chicago's 21, essentially to position the ball for Brandon Coutu.
That leave seven runs. Seven runs to build a case on. Seven runs and bollocks.
Sorry to take the piss out of this controversy. I know something had to supplant Bobby Engram's riveting holdout, but not only has Holmgren not bad mouthed Duckett, he praised him and seemed more concerned about finding him touches among the sure starters (Jones, Morris, Weaver) than cutting him. And not only has Duckett not played poorly, he's done exactly what was asked of him. I don't get it, isn't football exciting enough without all the TMZ drama?
0 recs |
34
comments
Read Related
Comments
You make a good case for why he's not on thin ice
but from the 2 preseason games we have to evaluate him I don’t see what he brings thats special or can’t be replaced. I’m not sure that comparing his effectiveness on short yardage situations to a pitifully below average short yardage team last year is high praise.
These are the discussions that make me really wish I had Tivo, even more than usual. What are the other runners success rates in short yardage situations this preseason? Is he doing something other than being big and running into the back of his blockers on these short yardage carries? Is being big and running into the blockers his only option, or would one of the other backs have found a hole to squeeze and push through? I’d go back and answer those questions if I could.
Ultimately I agree that Duckett shouldn’t be at risk to lose his job when there are some other borderline players that will go first. But I think there is a lot of validity to any discussion about what kind of workload TJ should see during the season.
by Nate Dogg on Aug 21, 2008 4:19 PM PDT 0 recs
Kind of a weird quote came out of Sportcenter yesterday
When talking about Hass not playing against the chargers. Hass said they wanted to get Frye more playing time because they weren’t sure what they were going to do with him.
A couple of teams have started going with 2 QBs. And personally I agree with you were just the next team to adopt the philosophy.
Coach Owens = No Fun Zone
by Scruffy Lefty on Aug 21, 2008 4:19 PM PDT 0 recs
I wouldnt mind going with 2 QB's
if we have to start Frye in the regular season we’re kinda screwed anyways.
by MFAN on
Aug 21, 2008 4:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
It would seem the goal is to determine whether Frye is better than whatever player off the street or practice squad the Hawks could find if both Hass and Seneca go down. Who would be our emergency QB, I wonder? Didn’t Tats play QB in HS?
by jeager on
Aug 21, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Its Will Heller!!!!!
Coach Owens = No Fun Zone
by Scruffy Lefty on
Aug 21, 2008 5:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Just so you know
Will Heller really is our emergency QB
Coach Owens = No Fun Zone
by Scruffy Lefty on
Aug 21, 2008 6:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Lol. Tatupu inder center on both sides of the ball.
Just think, A QB that could push the pile when he tucks and runs.
Why? Because the Seahawks rock my socks.
by Chickadee on
Aug 21, 2008 5:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The sample size may be small....
as you say, but it is NOT impressive. At least to me. The dude does NOT hit the hole 1/4 as hard as Forsett, for just one example, on an “average” carry. He tiptoes, hesitates, picks, etc.
We here in Seattle know what that is like. But he also does not seem to have SA’s vision and weave.
No clue why Holmgren says he is a good short yardage guy. Like Hugh Millen, I do not see it, myself (as Hugh said “a one trick pony, and not very good at that trick, either”). Do not see what he brings to the table that Weaver doesn’t, and that Schmitt won’t.
All that said, you are right that we are not bound strictly by position. If Duckett is in the top 53, fine. But IF he is judged to be in the top 53 and Forsett is not, there is something wrong.
by Hawkdawg on Aug 21, 2008 8:40 PM PDT 0 recs
Keep 6 RBs
I’ve been playing around with my predictions for the 53 man roster on another fan board, and I’ve been able to keep both Duckett, Morris and Forsett on the 53. I totally agree that you have to keep the top 50 in talent regardless of position, leaving the specialists out.
Kyle Williams hits the PS rather than Duckett being cut. Another scenerio is going with 2 QBs or maybe 2 TEs.
The WR situation does make some of this tricky though.
by Dougula on Aug 21, 2008 9:00 PM PDT 0 recs
Yup.
If you need another body at some other position down the road you deal with it when the situation comes up. If the guy you are leaving off the roster now isn’t any better at his position than what you can find midseason in free agency then why keep him?
It is natural for the hawks to go into the season with a lot of running backs because we reinvented our backfield and we have to see who sticks.
We will probably need to do the same thing with the WR position because of Branch and Engram’s situation. PUP’ing one or both of those guys will help a little but it means we miss them until week 6.
Keep in mind weaver is likely gone after this year, he is playing on a RFA tender and we drafted schmitt and have been teaching duckett the FB position supposedly.
Morris is a free agent after this year also I think.
None of our backs have much power other than Duckett. He was brought here for a reason and nothing has changed.
I think, as John has pointed out, that Forsett makes Morris rather expendable.
I don’t see us letting go of Frye. Even though he has the skill level of a nobody free agent, he has been with the system for a year now and therefore makes sense as a #3. Hasselbeck is a big injury risk at his age and then we would have no one behind Seneca. What we are learning from the preseason is that Frye will never be a #2 and certainly not a #1.
by michaelfox99 on Aug 21, 2008 9:22 PM PDT 0 recs
Frye will NEVER be a #2 or #1?
Based on what, his play in 1 and a quarter preseason games?
Matt’s stats, year one with the Seahawks (and EXACTLY the same age as Frye is now):
54.3% completion percentage
7 TD’s, 8 INT’s
QB rating 70.9
And that’s with the first team offence, all the way.
Frye’s had ONE game, a lot of it against the starting Bears’ D, and with pretty crap-poor o-line protection. He wasn’t good, but does that mean he’ll never be good? If he’s so terrible, why did the Hawks trade a 6th for him?
I’m not saying he’s going to be good, but certainly there’s not enough evidence to throw him under the bridge.
by djafrot on
Aug 21, 2008 11:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Ya but Matt had been sitting in Green Bay
Frye was the starter in Cleveland. Kid has played enough
Coach Owens = No Fun Zone
by Scruffy Lefty on
Aug 22, 2008 6:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
well, now that you mention it...
Yep, Frye had one year of 13 games, and spot duty the year before.
Matt had two years in Green Bay, where he didn’t play much… but he DID spend two years in Holmgy’s WCO! I’d say that’s pretty significant.
by djafrot on
Aug 22, 2008 1:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
i don't think your argument holds water
saying that there are many ways to build an nfl roster is one thing, expecting mike holmgren in his last year of coaching to depart from what he’s done his whole career is another. he has a number in his head for how many of each position he wants on the team, and that number for oline is always 9. if kyle williams is the 9th best player on the roster and doesn’t deserve a spot (he definitely doesn’t) that doesn’t mean holmgren will go with 8, it means ruskell will have to find a better castoff from someone elses training camp. with all the injuries and uncertainty on the oline this year i’m betting depth is a primary concern going into the season.
playing a season with 2 qbs is even more unlikely. he’s a qb coach for god’s sake, it’s his pet position. if jeff garcia came available and was willing to come here cheap to back up hass fry might get cut, but you’re not going to find a scrub off the street that can come in and be a better option than fry because it takes literally years to learn how to play holmgren football as a qb.
looking at numbers is just as valid a roster prediction process as best player available, maybe more. no way does mike holmgren keep 6 backs and 6 wr’s (plus branch on pup). he’s much too conservative to short some position and roll the dice on an injury destroying his season.
by bitterguy on Aug 22, 2008 12:26 AM PDT 0 recs
I don't think yours does
since Holmgren’s not the one who’s going to make that decision—Ruskell is. The Walrus will have input, certainly, but this isn’t going to be about “what he’s done his whole career,” it’s going to be about what Ruskell thinks best. If Ruskell thinks keeping 6 RBs and 6 WRs plus Branch on PUP is best, he’ll do it, and hang Holmgren’s conservatism.
by The Ancient Mariner on
Aug 22, 2008 7:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
They did go with 2 QBs last year
And they made that decision before they knew Frye would be available in a trade. They’ve also overloaded at other positions (5 DE’s last year) when injuries have been an issue breaking camp..
One thing about Ruskell – he’s always been very active with in-season roster adjustments, and the roster #‘s have been fluid.. Just because we start the season with 12 WR/RBs, doesn’t mean it will be like that after Week 3 or 4.
I think it’s very realistic they could keep 6 RBs this whole year, have Branch on PUP and carry the extra WR. Then in week 6 they deal with the decision on how to re-work the roster numbers. Maybe try and sneak one back on the PS, or one of the young ’uns has an “injury” that puts them on IR (like how they stashed Hackett a few years ago).
I haven’t totally given up on Duckett yet, but IMO if it does come down to a decision between him & Forsett, then the rookie gets the nod. Preseason rushing #’s aside, Forsett just contributes way more on ST than Duckett does.
by jteckmann on
Aug 22, 2008 9:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
People need to realize that John Morgan is generally better at football analysis than any commenter here.
I know discussion is encouraged and I’m sure this won’t be a popular position, but I can’t help but facepalm when people will talk about John being wrong. He’s been wrong before, but I’ve learned to let things play out a little bit before challenging his position, because the majority of the time he’ll be right.
For all you new folks, watch the season play out. You’ll see what I mean.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Aug 22, 2008 1:08 AM PDT 0 recs
I appreciate the respect, but criticism is among my greatest tools.
I thrive in a blog environment. The instant interaction is like jazz and I find myself inspired by the format.
The only argument I don’t respect is that I don’t have a right to disagree with the coaches and management.
by John Morgan on
Aug 22, 2008 10:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh yeah, I know disagreement and criticism is fine.
But seeing things phrased like “Your argument doesn’t hold any water” seems a bit harsh. The blog environment is nice but since it’s online sometimes it allows people to forget manners and common courtesy, which has seemed to happen here more lately than it used to.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on
Aug 22, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree with that.
I guess after being called a douchebag and asshat at Niners Nation, I’ve grown accustomed to people being rude.
by John Morgan on
Aug 22, 2008 11:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That's terrible.
But it doesn’t change ‘asshat’ from being a hilarious word.
I’m optimistic that given the advanced level of the posts here, it will repel the kind of crowd you might find at other blogs. Not that that seems to work anywhere else.
Is it just me, or is this AJ trade looking worse every day?
by The Alaskan on
Aug 22, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
i agree
I predict Jones, Morris, Duckett, Forsett, Weaver and Schmitt all make the team.
I also predict all 5 DEs make the roster, it is a premium position with Atkins and Babin both having upside.
And to make that possible I think guys from last years sqaud like Frye, Obomanu, Kirtman and CJ Wallace are in trouble, as well as veterans like Tripplett and Cooper.
by puerto on Aug 22, 2008 1:37 AM PDT 0 recs
agree
No way Kirtman makes the 53, I think, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Obo was the one cut to make room for Branch when he gets reactivated. Wallace will have to impress – Jamar Adams is pretty obviously better than him.
by UW Alex on
Aug 22, 2008 6:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Tough Tough team to make
this is the deepest Seahawks squad heading into a season that I can remember and there are some tough decisions to be made.
by puerto on Aug 22, 2008 1:39 AM PDT 0 recs
Which is kind of funny
given how thin we are on the OL . . .
by The Ancient Mariner on
Aug 22, 2008 7:01 AM PDT
up
0 recs
though that's largely because of injuries
I mean
LT Jones, Porky
LG Wahle
C Spencer, Vallos
RG Sims, Wrotto
RT Lock, Willis
Isn’t bad, and I’m probably missing someone, oh yeah, Williams. Not sure if he counts.
by djafrot on Aug 22, 2008 1:10 PM PDT 0 recs
You think?
I’m hoping Vallos shows enough this preseason to count as a solid backup at C, and I still have hope that Willis is a solid backup at RT, though he can’t play LT, and Wrotto just ain’t ready this year. IMHO, if everyone stays healthy all year, that’s a good starting line; if not, it could well be turnstile city.
by The Ancient Mariner on
Aug 22, 2008 2:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The thing about Oline depth is
It appears to be the same for every team in the NFL.
I don’t think there is a team out there built to deal with more than one prolonged injury to a starter along the oline. The number of teams starting rookie tackles this year is more than I can remember in recent memory.
by puerto on Aug 22, 2008 9:54 PM PDT 0 recs
good point
It’s not like our (or most teams’) backups at ANY position are great, or supposed to be.
What with at least Vallos, Chop, and Willis having SOME experience, it’s a start.
by djafrot on
Aug 23, 2008 3:04 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Nice thing about our OL B/Us
Fortunately it looks like the back ups are all versitile to one degree or another. Willis is primarily an RT, but has a bit of RG exp. Same with Pork Chop, and of course Vallos as a C/G.
It could be a lot worse that’s for sure.
by Dougula on Aug 23, 2008 4:37 PM PDT 0 recs











