Five Observations from the Seattle Seahawks Second Offensive Drive

by John Morgan on Aug 17, 2009 4:08 PM PDT

5. Eric Weddle discarded a blocking Deion Branch on Julius Jones two yard rush. If Branch is traded, it might not be his injuries but his fit within this offense that instigates the move.

4. Nate Burleson was Matt Hasselbeck's second progression on Seattle's drive opening play-action pass for 12. I can't critique the route-running itself, but Burleson found a soft spot in the zone and that's progress.

3. Seattle went five wide on its second play with T.J. Houshmandzadeh in the modern flex TE/WR position. Housh outmatched Tim Dobbins and got open in a heartbeat. The fringe benefit of going five wide is it gives the pass rush little time to develop.

2. Shaun Phillips pressed John Carlson and rerouted him out on Seattle's attempted third down completion. Carlson released between Phillips and Kevin Burnett and curled. Hasselbeck thread the needle and led Carlson left, perhaps expecting a dig or post route, but Carlson was out of position for the pass. He grasped but could not catch it one-handed. It's debatable decision making by Hasselbeck. Carlson is bracketed by Chargers, but neither is a great pass defender and neither looks the least aware as the pass zings past them. Had the two been on the same page, it would have been a first down. Had Phillips or Burnett been aware, it could have been an interception.

1. Phillips beat Sean Locklear to the inside and pressured Hasselbeck out of the pocket. There looked to be some confusion between Locklear and Owen Schmitt. Schmitt engaged inside linebacker Dobbins rushing outside, while Locklear feigned out and then was beat in by Phillips. The blown block was especially damaging because Hasselbeck's hot route, the route running into the area vacated by the blitz, was cut off by the pressure. Instead, upon scrambling right, Hasselbeck faced Burnett and Shawne Merriman crowding the right flat. He threw it away towards Carlson.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think once the offense finds a rhythm,

They will be pretty decent, like a top 10 offense.

Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.

by Carl Shinyama on Aug 17, 2009 4:42 PM PDT reply actions

Of all time?

by LantermanC on Aug 18, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions

That would be pretty ideal.

I wish.

Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.

by Carl Shinyama on Aug 18, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Is there any evidence that the Seahawks are shopping Deon Branch in a possible trade?

First I’ve heard of it. Can’t say I’m opposed to the idea…

by Mr Fish on Aug 17, 2009 5:31 PM PDT reply actions

Since Crabtree won't budge

Let’s trade him to the Niners where we can watch his career take a downward spiral.

by aerozeppelin on Aug 17, 2009 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions

perhaps I should clarify my comment

I like Branch. I think he’s got game (when he’s healthy). But WR is the deepest position on this team and if we’re looking to trade in order to improve some other position, a WR is what I’d be shopping around.

by Mr Fish on Aug 17, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Do people still not realize how fragile our WR depth is?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 17, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Um, I sure don't.

If what happened last year happens again – especially with the ADDITIONS of Housh and Butler – I’ll eat my shorts.

I actually think our WR corps is the deepest it’s been in a very long time, if not the most talented.

by djafrot on Aug 17, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Short memories, apparently.

-Burleson
-Branch
-Housh
-Butler (unproven rookie)
-Obomanu (mediocre)
-Taylor (flashes of “good” marred by stretches of “bad”)
-Kent (Practice squad fodder)
-Bumpus (Unproven, likely below average)
-Hass (hasn’t been able to crack a starting lineup despite being skilled)

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Aug 18, 2009 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd be very afraid if we didn't have at least two of the following guys active and healthy:

Burleson, Branch, Housh and Carlson.

The rest of the guys haven’t shown that they can trusted to be starters for any length of time.

by ninjasocks on Aug 18, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions

/crosses fingers

We need a good season from Branch

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Aug 18, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions

so what you're saying is

that it was irresponsible for John to suggest that the Seahawks might be thinking of Branch as trade bait?

by Mr Fish on Aug 18, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't see how that would make any sense,

but then again, I thought we wouldn’t trade away Julian Peterson either.

Branch is Ruskell’s guy. If he’s traded, that’s basically admitting that trade was a bust. Not to mention that Houshmandzadeh has never played all 16 games in a season, Burleson is coming off an injury which takes usually 2 seasons to fully recover from (and he was inconsistent anyway), and I’m terrified with everyone behind them.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 18, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Debbie Downer

!!!

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Aug 18, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Haha, indeed.

But seriously, our WRs, while far better than previous years, is still not anything to hit home about.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 18, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions

And while I'm not trying to give off the impression the group in general is weak,

it certainly has a lot to lose by subtracting Branch.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 18, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, of course it does!

How many WR corps (sorry, John) in this league do you see keeping their potential intact by removing one of their best three players?

One might think, actually, that considering Branch’s injury history, trading him might not be that bad of an idea?

I’d trade him in a second if it meant a 2nd round pick. However, I think his contract pretty much nullifies any trade possibilities… anyone have any numbers on what trading him would mean for our cap?

by djafrot on Aug 18, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions

For the record

though, the unofficial record, Branch was an example of Ruskell providing his coach with the kind of player his coach wanted, not breaking the mold of the Ruskell plan or Ruskell player criteria, but not borne of it, either. He got Branch for Holmgren, and to help the team win now.

A trade would give an opportunity to yield some tangible returns on the original deal, since production has been precluded by the injuries. But I absolutely agree with you it would speak of confidence in the remaining corps and I’m not certain that there is any.

by jacobstevens on Aug 18, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions

It feels so wrong to say this but,

I’m realizing that I enjoy reading these breakdowns more than actually watching the game itself, especially in preseason. There is so much stuff going on that I just can’t take all of it in during a casual viewing, and its easy to miss a lot of good stuff that goes on. Reading these breakdowns the past year has really made me aware of how much we skim the surface when watching a football game. So much stuff is going on every play.

Thanks, these never fail to be enjoying to read.

by kearly on Aug 17, 2009 5:55 PM PDT reply actions

I think of it this way:

I turn off my brain and casually watch the game with a beer and my buddies and I enjoy. There’s probably nothing better.

Then I cone here the day after to read the a week of game analysis. It’s like seahawks all week without any repeat!

Seahawks fans are extremely lucky to have someone as talented as John to do analysis.

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Aug 17, 2009 6:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Seahawks fans are extremely lucky to have someone as talented as John to do analysis.

We are very lucky…especially if you do a tour around some of the other blogs. The stuff that John puts on here, and the people that contribute on this blog are 20x what is even on the Seahawks “officiall” forum.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Aug 18, 2009 5:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Short Fast Series

Seattle’s first and second offensive drives were gone in 60 seconds. Bam, bam, gone. I chalk it up to learning to adapt to a new system and personnel in a very compressed scrimmage session.

The great thing about preseason is that tendencies can be addressed and adjusted following an encounter with a competent defensive environment such as SD. It didn’t take long before Darrell Jackson and Bobby Engram were reading Hasselbeck’s mind. Even Itula Mili got into a groove back in Phase II of Hasselbeck’s curve.

These are all relatively new receivers for Matt in what I call Phase IV. Matt is new to T.J H. and even Branch, considering how infrequently the two have been on the same field together. Just as Nate and Carlson have begun to learn how Matthew operates, so will everyone else — even Branch.

No excuses, no, but also—no trade. Branch delivers. For real.

by Hawksince76 on Aug 17, 2009 6:11 PM PDT reply actions

If we traded for a good CB

a Branch trade would make sense. We’re deep into training camp and Trufant is nowhere to be seen. That’s a real worry given our depth is horrible at the position.

by ASeahawkfan on Aug 18, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions