Why Check Down? Because It Works.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 3:54 PM PST
41 comments
Simple explanations are best and the simple explanation for Matt Hasselbeck's check down-fever was that Detroit was rushing the passer and dropping into medium and deep cover. The Lions were protecting an early 17 point lead. Their plan to attack the line and drop into deep cover is a typical response to an early lead. So Hasselbeck and Greg Knapp attacked them where they were exposed: between the linebackers and safeties.
He threw to T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Kevin Hobbs put a hat on the ball and forced a fumble. Max Unger was running towards the play and recovered. Unger was beat on his pass block and thus in excellent position to recover. It was a classic Big Play Babs maneuver.
In all, Seattle ran four play-action passes in seven pass plays. They all fit a single idea: draw the linebackers and wait for space between the linebackers and safeties. It worked. It also opened the run for the first time. Seattle ran play action four times, but ran only twice.
Justin Forsett attacked the middle on a simple run up the gut. Chris Spencer turned his man and from there it was Force against the second level. He ran for fourteen. It was the single longest play of the drive.
Julius Jones cashed in on an inside draw. Max Unger was run through and Jones had to bull and spin through a tackle in his own backfield. Specner and Rob Sims had fought back the defensive right and Jones cut left and into space for the touchdown.
A team uses the plays that work. I am sure the Seahawks will feature a similar playbook versus the attacking Arizona Cardinals. I did not consider Hasselbeck's showing a failure. It worked. However, in the big picture, this is the latest game in which Matt Hasselbeck seems unwilling to pass against modestly tight coverage. That coverage gets tighter this Sunday. Will Seattle design enough check downs to stay astride an explosive Cardinals offense?
0 recs |
41 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
It's almost as if...
Hass got spookd by his first pass and pick, and dinked and dunked the rest of the game. For 300+ yards.c
by Hawkdawg on Nov 10, 2009 4:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re LoJack in your caption
I think it was him that came rushing towards Stafford when he threw the game-ending pick 6 to Josh Wilson. Am I correct in saying this?
I have no idea why the Lions (other than the fact that they’re the Lions) would try a play-action play on 3rd and 10 with :33 to go and no timeouts. That play development was perplexing.
Check down works. However, I want all those catches Griffith got (5) to hop over to Forsett and Jones, preferably the former from now on.
Fire Bruce DeHaven.
by SSreporters on Nov 10, 2009 4:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I can't remember where...
but I remember reading that on Hass’s pick, his shoulder got dinged a little bit while he was trying to make a tackle and/or he got blocked. Which is why (one possible reason at least) he started to throw short and even side arm sometimes until “it loosened up.”
by skwid206 on Nov 10, 2009 4:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I guess it's possible, but boy does he not show even the slightest bit of discomfort after getting up.
He even went so far as to throw a fist in disgust and snapped at his chinstrap.
by abender20 on Nov 10, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I hate to speculate on this stuff
but I’ve found the story hard to swallow. Hard enough that I almost feel bound to question its validity.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems odd that Matt would make this up, though.
If someone questioned him after the game he could of easily pointed to his 39 completions and 330 yards to validate his check downs.
SEA!
by MFAN on Nov 10, 2009 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It happened
When he tackled Delmas at the 2. The collective groan was audible in my section.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 10, 2009 5:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, now I see what you're saying.
I don’t see where he hurt it either unless it was on the extension. C’mon, who hasn’t used the old “I’m usually much better baby, I swear.”
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 10, 2009 5:12 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Probably when he made the awkward attempt at the arm tackle
I buy the story. Stick your arm in front of 220lbs running at full speed, and something’s going to pop. Or maybe it happened on a different play, but Hass was definitely acting gimpy on the sidelines the rest of the game – a lot of pacing back & forth, swinging his arm in circles, and rubbing the top of his shoulder. In the 2nd quarter my wife was tapping me on the shoulder and telling me he was hurt, and a lot of other people in my Section noticed it. We were all (half-seriously) joking to each other that we’d find out he tore his rotator-cuff or something after the game.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
by jteckmann on Nov 10, 2009 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd guess when his elbow hit the turf, looks like it hit pretty hard, the upward force could've injured his shoulder
Adrenaline would explain why he didn’t feel it immediately.
Other then that, I don’t have a clue, but I don’t get why you’d just make it up. It’s not like he had a terrible five interception game or we they lost, so it’s not like he even needed an excuse for anything.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 10, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the only thing you can see from that hilight is
the fact that when Hasselbeck made the tackle he landed hard on his right elbow.
Elbow does not mean shoulder but, and this is a big but, sometimes the shoulder will take the energy from such a collision with the ground. I doubt it rendered him “worried” about his throwing and that’s why he checked down so much.
I commented on the fanshot about this. Most of the check downs were designed plays to deliberatly avoid the pass rush and down field coverage.
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/11/9/1124062/i-was-mad-at-matt-for-checking
"What is it about good sex that makes me have to crap?"
by durteehawk on Nov 11, 2009 8:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of questions
Ok so let me preface this by saying I work weekend graveyard shift in the San Francisco so I have to wake up every Sunday in the middle of my sleep to watch my Seahawks on my little computer screen in ultra low def P2P. So I kinda just watch to see how my Seahawks look overall and enjoy the game. Anyway here are my questions:
Why do I keep hearing bad things about Unger? I was screaming at the top of my lungs for Seattle to trade up on draft day when he started falling and then WE DID! I was running around the room screaming like it was Christmas and I got a Ferrari. Now I keep hearing him getting beat. Is it just because he is a rookie and linemen mature later or is he a little less than I was expecting? I really like the guy but I’m just wondering if he is living up to expectations. I believe I am more than likely expecting too much of him this early in his career but I am just looking for someone to tell me that is correct.
Next is my trade question. I like Housh’s spunk but I really could do without the fits. There any chance we would consider trading him? I don’t know what his contact looks like and if there was something stating he couldn’t be traded for a period of time. Actually here is a list of my tradable players. Maybe you could help with how likely a trade is (in the offseason) and what we could get.
T.J. Houshoushmandzadeh – He is good but if I can get a young stud OL, DL or DB for him, later Housh.
S. Wallace – I’m ready to have someone else (the future) backing up Matt next year
D. Hawthorne – I love "The Heater" but you only need so many top notch linebackers.
Tatupu – See above
L. Hill – See above the above
Ok sorry last question but it’s a two part question.
- Any chance there is a stud center in the 2010 draft like Alex Mack we can take?
I have yet to hear a center mentioned on any Seahawks cite. Rodney Hudson (G Florida State) has me excited but is that the only interior lineman that people are getting hyped about at this point?
- Any chance we take that center and move Spencer back to LG and would he even be a good fit to dominate there or should we just draft a LG? I’m just thinking if that is the case, we give him a new contract and then can draft the best of the available center or guard and he just plays the other spot.
Ok thanks in advance.
P.S.
Taking Tim Tebow in 2010 would scare me more than Paranormal Activity at bedtime.
by MikeIto3000 on Nov 10, 2009 5:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Spencer and Sims are Seattle's best offensive linemen
I see no reason Seattle would want a center.
Max Unger is growing into his position. Plainly speaking, he’s weak. He was weak in college and he’s a weak rookie. He will get stronger.
Let’s avoid wild trade scenarios. It’s not happening soon.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Spencer is a good center?
So if Spencer and Sims are our best linemen and Unger will get better, that’s our three interior linemen. Why are we in such need of interior linemen? Or is it that our depth is bad and we need depth because we can’t stay healthy? I have watched our line and it’s bad. Poor Hasselbeck is always under pressure.
Frye and McIntosh seem to be serviceable LTs and Locklear is average I guess (all I can really do is guess because he has been hurt). You think with those three (or two out of three) at RT and LT starting next season our OL would at least have above average starters?
LT LG C RG RT
Locklear – Sims – Spencer – Unger – Frye/McIntosh
That looks good to run behind and protect Matt’s behind in 2010?
That makes me uneasy. I want our line to make our running game better and not have to draft a “Star” RB to try to make it better. If our line looks good and we still can’t run then we can deal with that easier than if our RB looks good but has no line.
by MikeIto3000 on Nov 10, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On second thought. I don't think I will count McIntosh as a RT. Prolly not gonna happen and not worth the thought.
by MikeIto3000 on Nov 10, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is 'Prolly'?
“Probably” I assume.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Urban Dictionary to the rescue
I don’t remember the word “prolly” from Confederacy of Dunces, but I didn’t finish. I fucking hated Ignatius.
Prolly is two letters shorter than Probably.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ignatius is the progenitor of Larry David.
Your criticism has closed my valve.
by dlinsley on Nov 10, 2009 8:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It comes from texting, when like me, you have only a standard cell, w/ no keyboard.
‘prolly’ is much easier to thumb when ur phone only has 12 buttons.
by Misfit74 on Nov 10, 2009 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Three
As long we’re nitpicking.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Nov 11, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Six and eight.
You never miss a chance.
by John Morgan on Nov 11, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Math is hard. I am really bad at it today.
"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie
by ninjasocks on Nov 11, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
harder to beat than a sore dick?
"What is it about good sex that makes me have to crap?"
by durteehawk on Nov 11, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You don't assume development
Unger could develop and be an average to above average right guard. Right now: He’s pretty bad.
Spencer is already average to above average at center.
Sims is a conundrum because he’s good, but he is not the best fit for the system. He’s not lost, but he is not a prototypical zone blocker either. I think he will move on and make someone a decent guard.
Locklear is hard to say. At some times, he looks like a serviceable left tackle. Below average but not bad. He moves will which is a plus, and he cuts well. Have to see more snaps to read Lock.
McIntosh is just a big guy that knows football. He’s not bad, but he doesn’t contribute a lot either. He doesn’t move real well and he doesn’t block real well on the move, but he doesn’t get bullied and he doesn’t get eaten up outside.
Willis is a big athletic dude that still doesn’t get off the line fast enough to stop the edge rush, but moves well enough. His recognition is not so great. Willis is the blocker most likely to be doing nothing on any given play.
That does not add up to a great line, of course. Most of it is very cheap. I think Seattle will sink a lot of resources, but maybe not high value resources, into the draft next season and continue to add bodies and see who wins out.
by John Morgan on Nov 10, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unger seems to have hit a plateau
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 10, 2009 5:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you can fairly say that about a Rookie RG
"What is it about good sex that makes me have to crap?"
by durteehawk on Nov 11, 2009 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's funny how people get mad at Hasselbeck for effective checkdowns.
Yet wish Hasselbeck would check down more when Seneca also does it effectively.
by LantermanC on Nov 10, 2009 7:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And by effectively, I mean almost exclusively.
by LantermanC on Nov 10, 2009 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seneca does a lot more "running out of bounds for no reason"
And essentially sacking himself than Hasselbeck.
Fire Bruce DeHaven.
by SSreporters on Nov 10, 2009 8:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We should have moved Seneca to WR a long time ago.
"What is it about good sex that makes me have to crap?"
by durteehawk on Nov 11, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
With what other QB back up?
David Greene? Charlie Frye? Mike Teel? No one was as capable as Seneca Wallace. The only time that the Seahawks might have afforded to do that was when Trent Dilfer was still with the Seahawks.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Nov 11, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like Seneca has ever led us into the playoffs or anything
or has kept a season alive. The best he did was go 2-2 in 06 to put us at 9-7. David Greene could’ve went 2-2 in ‘06 (just kidding). Ok, so he’s factored in ‘06, that’s it. He lost all his games this year, so we may as well have started Teel. I’d rather develop a young kid with the potential to do something great, give them the experience to find out, then waste it on a career backup, especially if that backup has the skills to excel at another position. Unless you have someone who can come in a play great right away (and who does) backup QB’s are overrated.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 11, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely
and in the mean time the Hawks could have drafted a QB to develop. This team should have known a while ago that Seneca was nothing but a mediocre backup.
"What is it about good sex that makes me have to crap?"
by durteehawk on Nov 11, 2009 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
