Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Sean Keeley's Week 12 College Football Buffet

Owen Schmitt the Fullback

Between bursts of self-assault, Owen Schmitt occasionally plays fullback. Not that I don't find a man hitting himself in the head entertaining, but I thought we could take a break from analyzing the patterns of his blood spatters to watch him play football. Watching athletes play sports is an increasingly novel concept. I am awaiting the day ESPN does to its sports coverage what MTV has done with music videos.

Schmitt was named starter before the season, but lost that spot after week four of the preseason. I don't know that Justin Griffith actually outplayed Schmitt, but Seattle's then struggling running game picked up with Griffith playing fullback.

Schmitt has great potential as a fullback. He is a powerful blocker that savors contact. He is also rather new to the position after playing HB in Rich Rodriguez's spread-option offense. Griffith on the other hand, is to Greg Knapp's offense as Steve Buschemi was to 90s era Coen Brothers movies.

Schmitt played nine snaps in the first quarter. I picked the first quarter to watch him because the game was undecided and the Jaguars couldn't load up against the run. He worked nearly as much as a blocker and receiver.

His play was solid. He had one very good lead block, on the second play of Seattle's second drive, in which he moved into the hole, moved out Jaguars inside linebacker Russell Allen and doing so screened another Jaguar out of the play. Jones was slowed by end Derrick Harvey, but Allen was awarded the tackle. The attribution of a tackle seems almost arbitrary.

Schmitt didn't have any highlight worthy blocks, but his ability to square and power into his defender is impressive. He made an audible "pop" on his first block of the game, again against Allen.

Schmitt and Julius Jones have developed some chemistry, or so it looked. Schmitt ran in front and Jones followed and the two seemed to see the same hole on all but one run play. Schmitt turned a right-angle left just behind the offensive line and continued off-tackle, but Jones cut in and was tackled by the left defensive end. Ray Willis had attempted a cut block, but the Harvey anticipated it and stayed in play.

For one snap, Schmitt was again an HB. John Carlson was at left HB and Schmitt at right HB and the two ran symmetrical patterns. Both were to chip the outside linebacker and then release into a quick out into the flat. Schmitt chipped his man, but Carlson whiffed and Clint Ingram damn near killed Hasselbeck before he could shotput it away.

Schmitt's route running looks crisp, if elementary and he looks surprisingly swift as a receiver. He was the primary target on a godawful FB screen pass, but blanketed and skipped in favor of a wide open Nate Burleson. Schmitt did his part attracting coverage and keeping pressure off Hasselbeck.

I am not so sure if Schmitt is a work in progress or the best fullback on Seattle's roster. Griffith can't stay healthy, and he has yet to revive that magical ability to improve Seattle's run game that got him the job. If Schmitt had been Knapp's Mifune and not Griffith, and Schmitt the one that took the field against the Raider scrubs, would he be starting ahead of Griffith? I think so.

Seattle has shown a willingness to let its talent learn on the job. I have yet to see what Griffin can do that prevents Schmitt from starting. He might not know the offense as well, but that'll come, and his talent and potential as a lead blocker trump Griffith's. He wants it so bad. C'mon Knapp, lets Schmitt spill someone else's blood.

0 recs  |  Comment 40 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Analogy

So Greg Knapp is the Akira Kurosawa of the NFL???

Man I really wana see Toshiro Mifune take on Schmitt in a self-assault battle now. Hari kiri vs. head-to-helmet bashing.

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 13, 2009 7:58 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I went through a big Miyamoto Musashi phase about 10 years ago

my favorite of all things Musashi was the book by Eiji Yoshikawa. I actually haven’t seen much else by Kurosawa, except Seven Samurai which was my favorite…and I finally got around to watching the Magnificent Seven this summer, and that movie really let me down, gawd.

Your analogy is a little strained but I love the intent.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Magnificent Seven is fantastic..

particularly if you drink while watching it, then follow it up IMMEDIATELY with the Three Amigos.

Although I admit I still haven’t seen Seven Samarai, so this could be akin to me appreciation for Denis Leary’s comedy prior to seeing Bill Hicks…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 14, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

No comparison

A Bugs Life is a better redo of Seven Samurai than Magnificent Seven is.

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 14, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Westerns have not aged well

‘The Searchers’ is embarrassingly racist, badly acted, has a meandering and overlong story line, and seems so disconnected from modern thought as to be a relic.

by John Morgan on Oct 14, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Strangely, though

it was more common for me to like any given western and consider it at least a third-level classic. Now, the list of ones I still like, has really thinned.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again, I haven't seen the original...

so it isn’t a “redo” to me but a “do” in which someday I get to see a much better “do.”

Also, when I saw the Magnificent Seven the first time I was a kid. I suppose if the first time I saw it was 2 weeks ago I would not be all that impressed, despite my love of all things Steve McQueen.

I guess that’s part of what HAS aged well about westerns. They tap into our American consciousness. I remember watching them with the significant male role models of my early development.

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 15, 2009 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They kinda helped create that consciousness

so the archetype has aged well. The films, though. I mean some of them have aged well. Shane is still good, and Little Big Man, High Noon, Butch & Sundance…the light-hearted ones actually gained appeal, I think, over time. Cheyenne Social Club. Hallelujah trail is gawdawful, but in a delightful way. The classics, mostly hold up, but not to the degree of regard they used to hold. But High Plains Drifter and the Dollars Trilogy, still good. But the Alamo? Big Jake? Rooster Cogburn? No thank you. Sorry to pick on you, Mr. Wayne, but jeeze.

by jacobstevens on Oct 15, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I Love All Things Pixar

And think they haven’t made a bad movie, but I can’t agree with this. The Magnificent Seven is one of the best films ever. Just the list of actors is phenomenal. (Dude: James Coburn? Robert Vaughn? Charles Bronson? And those are just the supporing roles! The movie turns around Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner.) The pacing is perfect. The fight scenes are dramatic. There’s literally nothing bad about the movie.

A Bug’s Life is good, but it’s not Pixar’s best work. And it doesn’t hit the cultural touchstones like The Magnificent Seven does.

As to the original? The Seven Samurai is a terrific movie, and I understand why it’s considered a classic. However, I find that there’s a whole bunch of cultural context that I don’t get. If I was Japanese, or steeped in the culture, I think I’d appreciate the movie more. That’s another reason why The Magnificent Seven is so awesome: It resonates with the deepest bits of American culture.

by robbbbbb on Oct 15, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mag-7 was a bunch of stereotypes showing off how badass they are

in an unbelievably melodramatic and corny manner. The type-story gives a lot of latitude in how you develop the plot, but I could barely get to the finish, I was so sick of every scene solely being set up to illustrate the villains’ and heroes’ ruthlessness, toughness, savvy, quick-draw or aiming skills, or heroic restraint. Yawn. The drama was turned up to 11. I might as well have watched Titanic.

The original has a sort of profundity in mixing the drama with the humor. It was actually pretty zen. I probably also don’t get a lot of cultural context. In the book Musashi, the repetitive treatment of the love story I could tell had to stem from a very classical Japanese tradition, always coming so close to getting together, and Takezo or the girl always running away at the last minute or something constantly getting in the way. I couldn’t appreciate that, fully, but it was still a fantastic book.

by jacobstevens on Oct 15, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A bug's life is my favorite Pixar film

Just for the outtakes at the end.

If only there were bloopers from Magnificent Seven and Seven Samurai…

Story aside, the directing and cinematography in S Samurai is far superior to M Seven.

Really, Whiskey, set aside a good chunk of time and watch S Samurai. You won’t regret it.

by Groundhog on Oct 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I will at some point, it's on "the list"....

of course, a lot is on “the list” but it’s there…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 15, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agree with jacobstevens' appreciation of mag-7,

and yourself in that the cast was AMAZING. I really wana see more Yule Brenner(sp?) now. But it was long and…didn’t offer anything new and…hmm tbh I only saw it once and can’t remember enough to make a good critical analysis but all I know is that I fell asleep while watching … and it was a bright afternoon.

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 16, 2009 1:14 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do you have a favorite Charles Bronson role btw?

That guy could eat more Nazis and Mexican bandits for breakfast than a time-traveling Godzllla. See: Dirty Dozen.

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 16, 2009 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those were his two high water marks

as far as I’m concerned. Magnificent Seven and Dirty Dozen. I’ll take him in either, and be okay with never seeing another Bronson movie.

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 16, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

First, I love Schmitt

I like what he brings to the position/team and that Lattimer-esque quality he exudes. I don’t like WVU, but for whatever reason I was instantly stoked when he was taken in the 5th.

Secondly, people calling him an idiot for bashing his helmet against his head are ridiculous. No he isn’t an idiot, he’s just slightly insane, and maybe keyed so well to the 12th that knows how to feed their lust for battle.

Plus, the way our season was going, the Football gods required blood sacrifices to be made. Schmitt was first…Warner is next.

by DJ C-Raig on Oct 13, 2009 9:15 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm glad to hear that Schmitt looks like a capable pass catcher. I figured he was just a heavy running halfback

who could bulldoze people, but if he is versatile, then great. I like my FBs and TEs to be good at several areas, which is probably why I was so hesitant when we let Weaver go.

by LantermanC on Oct 13, 2009 9:39 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure they'll think about this, given the right situation.

But it seems like whenever we motion a back out, it’s against man coverage, and an LB ends up moving out to cover the back.

That certainly works out for faster backs, though… that’s why Matt went to the “go” route for MoMo once when he was out wide and covered by an LB.

by djafrot on Oct 13, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think our screen game in general holds us back

more than any receiving back’s capabilities. I like that we’re sticking to it, but even still, just the grace and timing of execution hasn’t really allowed for much success. Hasselbeck’s touch isn’t quite there for screens. We might not sell it well, either. I’m pretty sure this is all Shaun Alexander’s fault.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I never felt Griffith was the permanent solution. I'll take 6'2" 247 lbs over 6' 230

at the FB position provided they offer the same skill set. Not to mention being 5 years younger.

by Trojan Knight on Oct 13, 2009 11:38 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Smashing football good.

I like Schmitt because he likes to hit. I loved it when Mack Strong would just blow opposing players up. Hass says we’re a tough smash mouth team now and we need to establish that rep and not remain the savvy, wily, latte sipping team of the past. Give the opponents more to fear than the 12th Man.
Growl & etc.

by Bodach on Oct 14, 2009 9:25 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

First, FB is more the William H. Macy of football...

…and second, I’m surprised I’m the first one here to reference the 60 Minutes article from last Sunday about the alarming number of football players giving themselves Alzheimer’s due to too many blows to the head. Schmitt’s gesture was good theater, but it was also, er, boneheaded. I wish the guy would put a higher premium on his brains.

by dagraham on Oct 14, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And by "higher premium,"

I am not meaning to involve myself in the health-care debate.

by dagraham on Oct 14, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Lay it on the line...

I, for one, do not want a football team made up of a bunch of players wondering what life will be like at 60 if they continue to put themselves out there every week. I want a team full of crazy SOB’s whose only concern is getting the next first down or the next big stop. Brains be damned, put it in the endzone!

by HawkedUp on Oct 14, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

May be selfish but...

They are getting paid to do just that. They go through pain and torment for the formative years of their lives to enjoy fame and swimming pools of cash. They may be mortgaging their future to do it, but that is their choice when they decide on the NFL. They should give all they’ve got to the game.

Side-show brain bashing is completely optional and unrelated; it is not part of this mini-thread

by StonerHawks on Oct 14, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

C'mon

get real. You think they all make money like a Manning? The average career is what, 4 years? Average salary? Or should I say, mean salary? (Since half a dozen QBs approach $100m contracts, while veteran min. is I think $1.2m). How many guys walk away from their career, netting a handful of millions? That ain’t swimming pools of cash.

Minor contention, there. It’s really beside the point. Yes, they are compensated. But you and I have no right to decide whether monetary compensation is a suitable substitution for additional proactive measures of safety. It makes me ill when I hear football fans even bring money into the discussion when the subject of brain trauma comes up. It’s deplorable.

You’re right that it’s their prerogative. I don’t feel compelled to try to prevent football players from getting to decide whether to take the risk. I simply contend that it is their prerogative, and not ours. It’s the collateral value of their health and livelihood arbitrarily given by fans driven solely by their concern for how safety precautions might affect the aesthetic appeal of the game — this game, that you & I love so much, me more than any other personal interest or hobby — that exceeds that boundary of propriety. It should be of zero concern to you what they make, where there’s any interest in protecting their health.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he has upside but ..

It sure felt weird watching Weaver take it to the house on a pass from McNabb on Sunday. I hated seeing Weaver go because of what he brought to the table as a runner/pass catcher and I would have liked to see if he could develope into a dominant blocker. Schmitt is a better blocker then Weaver but I don’t think by that much, considering the other tools Weaver brought to the table. I thought we turned our back on Weaver to soon before he could truly develope into a complete FB, but we are now faced with now watching Schmitt develope into a better blocker without the other tools Weaver had. I think Rusk doesn’t quite have that eye for offense as he does for defense.

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 14, 2009 11:20 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Weaver had his chances to do so.

It’s blocking, not building a space shuttle by scractch.

by djafrot on Oct 14, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It wasn't because we didn't recognize what we had in Weaver

It was fit. It was return on investment. He wasn’t a running back. He blocked well, received well, ran well, but we needed better blocking. And, though we don’t have great runners, we needed that from another position, another guy. Weaver wouldn’t have helped our backfield except that the dozen FB carries we’d see all year, would be marginally more effective with Weaver than with Schmitt. He was a good runner, but not a good short yardage runner. He wasn’t worth the cost, and he wasn’t a good fit for what Knapp was installing.

I think we all wish him well. It would have been great to make it work, here. We had very little cap room, however, and had much greater needs to attend to. WR, namely. Re-working the defense. Paying for the super expensive draft picks. Retaining and fortifying our questionable offensive line depth.

Weaver was just far down the priority list. We didn’t have a lot to spend. He’d earned a salary that put him out of our reach for the value that he’d bring, when replacement FBs to do exactly the job we want, were attainable, less expensive, could provide the elements that we needed — blocking, and a little blocking on the side — better, and in the case of Schmitt, already in hand and younger.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

understood.

I’m just afraid we let a Pro Bowler go without making any attempt to sign him. We had more pressing needs then FB so I understood the move when we made it. I just don’t think that Schmitt is a big upgrade at blocking over Weaver. Weaver wasn’t a great short yardage rusher but I don’t see that from Schmitt either. I think we ended up with Schmitt, and Duckett going into pre-season and swaped Duckett for Old ass Edge and Griffith when we could’ve just kept Schmitt and Weaver from the begining. Weaver is still pretty young too.

I do understand your point though. I just wished we could’ve figured out a way to offer Weaver something. Owen’s blocking wasn’t good enough for us to not sign Griffith apparently. I think Weaver overall, is better then Duckett, Griffith, Edge, and Schmitt. (Duckett was a good short yardage rusher though). And I wouldn’t discount the 5-8 touches Weaver would get a game. They usually ended up in plus yards that really matter. That could be the difference between a 3rd down and a 1st down.

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 14, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm still a fan of Weaver

I hate the Eagles, but I want to see him have a big year.

by jacobstevens on Oct 14, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

He was a baller in Madden 09

Be it the FB draw or a post or an outlet he’d always come through.

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 14, 2009 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Worried about the jellyfish.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Jj_flag_detail1_small
Field Gulls Mod-enforced Rules and Standards

Recent FanPosts

Tigeravitar_small
Football Logic: 101
Olympiabeer_small
The Official Fantasy Football Thread – Week 11. The place for fantasy talk, thought, questions and general fantasy ranting.
Small
Post Your Hawk: Week 11
Rainbow_small
Video Preview: Seattle Seahawks at Minnesota Vikings
Small
Putting a bow on the Hutchinson debate for hawk fans
Jj_flag_detail1_small
Off Topic: Best Sequels, Worst Decisions and Plans for 2010
Profilepic_small
Alright, I Officially Hate Adrian Peterson.
Me_at_the_vikings_game_small
Ask the Daily Norseman
Small
The Two 1st-Rounders in 2010
Profilepic_small
Mora's Presser and General Feelings Towards Our HC

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation


Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Rainbow_small Scruffy Lefty

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)