Seahawks Error into Stalled Drive: Growing Pains or Harbinger of Pains to Come?
by John Morgan on Sep 1, 2009 1:05 PM PDT
53 comments
Seattle ran four legal plays on its third drive. Matt Hasselbeck found John Carlson for 11 on the first, Julius Jones ran twice for two and then confusion stalled the drive. Steve Vallos missed his signal from Hasselbeck. That caused a delay of game, and a reasonable third and six became a problematic third and 11. Jones received for seven on a screen. Vallos had no trouble pulling this time and Seattle set a good wedge for Jones to run behind. Kansas City was defending the first down marker. Chiefs swarmed around Jones, picked off his blockers one-by-one, and then tackled him well before the line.
Seattle is breaking in a new system. The preseason is effectively over for starters, but the Seahawks are still miscommunicating and making elementary mistakes. The line is disorganized on run plays and Owen Schmitt is having trouble distinguishing holes. Matt Hasselbeck is more comfortable making reads, but has yet to face regular season pressure. Seattle might stumble out of the blocks. If it were flying cross country to play the Jaguars, a sloppy loss wouldn't be too damaging. Instead, it's facing San Francisco and St. Louis. Teams it should beat and teams it needs to beat. Will it error its way out of vital interdivisional victories? It could. Should it risk health this Thursday to better practice its plays?
0 recs |
53 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Yes to the final question.
I’m talking a single quarter, at the most. Execution is key and they haven’t had enough practice.
Otherwise the starters wouldn’t have played for nearly 2 weeks and they’ll spend most of the first game dusting off. That doesn’t make me comfortable, even against the Rams. Granted, the Rams’ starters likely haven’t played for 2 weeks either, but they didn’t have to grasp an entirely new system in one off season.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Sep 1, 2009 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
1 quarter against the Raiders isn’t going to make the difference in week 2. If the St Louis Ewes were anything more than an NFL speedbump I’d think twice maybe. Matthew could beat those guys with 37 still in the backfield.
Remember they’re going to be playing against guys with nothing to lose and everything to gain in Wk4
The only tangible benefit I can see is that it would give the OLine more reps to practice their cut blocking, which they can’t do in practice, although its still not worth the risk in my opinion.
by timlin45 on Sep 1, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Broken record here
They are not a speed bump. Think twice.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
After thinking twice...
I’m more convinced. I’m not saying that the Rams couldn’t pull an Any Given Sunday™ and win. I’m saying 1 quarter of pre-season action against the Raiders isn’t going to matter for week 1.
The only place they’ve upgraded is the Front Office and the Coaching. Everywhere else they’ve either maintained or gotten worse cheaper and more inexperienced.
I’m not at all concerned about an injured Mark Bulger, or a cast-off Kyle Boller. Even if we didn’t get Tru back for the opener I don’t see a substantial vertical threat.
I concede that Steven Jackson is still Steven Jackson, but Steven Jackson just isn’t built to beat this defense.
If the Rams win it’ll be on the backs of a defense that generated turnovers and nothing else. Playing 1 additional quarter of preseason isn’t going to prevent turnovers, and therefore isn’t going to affect he outcome of this game.
by timlin45 on Sep 1, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree not to play starters against the Raiders
but the Rams aren’t who you think they are. It was a nearly impossible feat to fail at first and goal on the 1 so many times. They’ve had a range of problems for a few years, and they were 3-13, so it’s easy to think Rams and think they’re that bad. But there are a number of predictable statistical behaviors from one year to the other that suggest the Rams have a chance to be decent.
Right now, decent is about the best you could say about us. It’s at home, we’re actually pretty healthy, I expect us to win. But it seems like two thirds of this forum looks at the Rams as a cupcake. That kind of disregard is something we’ve yet to have earned this season.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I look at it this way;
The ‘Hawks were 4-12 last season. I know we can make all kinds of excuses/explanations for that, but that’s the bottom line. Until this Seattle team starts winning on Sunday’s I’m not looking past any teams.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 1, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lambs were 2-14, not 3-13
And gave up more than 30 points in 9 of 16 games (as opposed to 5 of 16 for us). They’re without Torry Holt and Orlando Pace, with 3 starting o-linemen being new, playbook-green offseason acquisitions, making their offensive situation even more worrisome than ours. If the Skins don’t knock out Bulger for another season, the Vikings can be counted on to do so.
Unless you can point out something I’m missing, yes, I believe the Rams are who everyone thinks they are.
by Anticitizen_One on Sep 1, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, iof it's an excuse for us, it's an excuse for them.
3rd most games lost by starters, us being #1. B ut all their halfway decent offensive players: extended time missed by Steven Jackson, Jacob Bell, Brian Leonard, Randy McMichael, Drew Bennett and Orlando Pace.
They were atrocious running the ball in the red zone. And far worse passing in the red zone. It’s kind of a hard to accomplish feat, much less repeat. They moved the ball down there, just had horrible luck punching it in. It’d be silly to bank on that continuing.
They recovered only five of their 17 fumbles on offense. I don’t buy that fumble recovery isn’t a skill, but it is luck. That was bad luck.
Same principle in the red zone, on 3rd downs: they were better on 1st & 2nd down than on 3rd down, on both sides of the ball. That’s bound to regress back to the mean, where their defense suffers a few less sustained drives that they nearly stalled, and they sustain a few more drives themselves rather than shooting themselves in the foot with stupid mistakes. Oh, there’ll still be some of that, but the point is, it’s hard to repeat that kind of bad luck.
More or less, they’re bound to be middle of the road. I’m not talking a division crown contender. But again, middle of the road might still be better than we are. I’m not talking any given Sunday. I’m talking, we may be playing our equals, and they have a fair shot to beat us.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A running game doesn't correct itself
Injuries are an important factor and you listed “extended time missed:” Steven Jackson only missed 4 games, Bell 3, Pace only missed 2. Of the ones that missed serious time: Leonard missed the whole season but with only 300 rushing yards to his name, there’s no evidence that he’d even be effective at giving Jackson a breather. McMichael has been declining in production since his time with the Dolphins, and Drew Bennett is now retired, so he can’t be of much use to the Rams now.
There is a certain point where things couldn’t possibly be worse, but why should it get better? There has been one contributing factor this entire offseason to help with red-zone production; drafting Jason Smith. Now look at every reason that the outcome should go sour; 3 new starting linemen new to the system, lack of a passing attack with a QB who couldn’t get as many touchdowns as he did picks with Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, and a new coaching staff (the same reason I have reservations about the Hawks even winning 6 games). The argument “it should get better because it can’t get any worse” does not a good projection make. =P
by Anticitizen_One on Sep 1, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On their fumbling:
While the amount of lost footballs they may recover might improve, again, why should the amount they drop the ball in the first place improve? Sacked 38 times in 15 games, Bulger fumbled once every 8 sacks. Against the adequate Jets front 7 he was sacked 3 times in the first quarter, and hasn’t been in a preseason game since busting a pinky, not a heartening thought to those who feel their luck is turning.
These were my arguments for not drafting Steven Jackson or Bulger in fantasy football, so you know this is not just Seahawk fanboy-dom.
by Anticitizen_One on Sep 1, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The total number of fumbles was not inordinate
the recovery rate was what made the difference.
by jacobstevens on Sep 2, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say that as though
the Rams hold a certain degree of quality in the run game, a static quality, that only changes on account of personnel, then go about adding and subtracting according to an arbitrary valuation of each transaction.
The whole point is that even with poor talent for the NFL, the performance that the Rams gave last year is difficult to repeat. That alone means it’s substantially more likely that they won’t be that bad, then that they come anywhere near that level of incompetence/bad luck. Not because it can’t get any worse.
Overall improvement for teams worse in the red zone than between the 20s, and worse on 3rd down than 1st & 2nd, is confirmed to be a predictable probability. It sounds like you’re regarding it as gambler’s fallacy, which is inaccurate.
by jacobstevens on Sep 2, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heads and tails
If you get Heads a million times in a row, Tails is still as likely to not come up.
Now, if the Rams truly did achieve the very bottom of their play last year, then yes we can assume they will be better because all other outcomes ARE better.
Also: fumble recovering IS a skill (though luck isn’t absent from the equation – darn that football’s odd shape). That’s what hands teams are for.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Sep 2, 2009 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've faced this argument like 50 times, now
the analogy isn’t applicable. It’s not heads & tails, it’s not ten consecutive snake eyes, and thus the other side of the coin, or 7 (the most probable result for any given roll of the dice) is “due.” That’s the gambler’s fallacy I mentioned.
The analogy would be, last year for the Rams was snake eyes. Or 12, or 11, doesn’t really matter.
Now, they roll again. What’s the most probable result? 7. Is it because 7 is due? No, that’s gambler’s fallacy.
But thinking 7 is not the most probable is the fallacy of statistical geekboy familiarity with gambler’s fallacy that assumes the expected result of GF can’t correctly be the most probable result, rather than recognizing that it may be, just wouldn’t be on account of GF.
I’m a geekboy, I held that assumption for a longtime myself. Most probable is 7, even when gambler’s fallacy also concludes it would be seven. The greatest probability for the circumstances the Rams faced last year is a moderately substantial bounceback in performance as a result of regression to the mean.
It’s a predictable probability that has a high rate of return in football, including the 2003 San Diego Chargers (I think that was the year their offense broke out), the 2003 & 2005 Seahawks, 2006 Saints, as well as a few moderate but surprising collapses, all of which escapes my memory for the moment.
I don’t really expect the Rams to be that good. 6-8 wins, honestly. That’s a big jump, though. I don’t expect them to beat us, but I only spoke up on account of two things that combined to really lack tact: a presumption that the Seahawks will go back to being as good as we were, and a presumption that the Rams will stay as bad as they just were. We’ve got little ground to be cavalier.
by jacobstevens on Sep 2, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Any given Sunday" aside
The 2008 Rams were the 2nd worst team this decade by DVOA, only 1% better than the 0-16 Lions. Their DVOA rating was twice as bad as the 4-12, injury riddled Seahawks. And even last year’s 4-12 team absolutely destroyed the Rams in Seattle.
Opening day is arguably the “easiest” win of the year, at worst the 2nd easiest. Like Timlin, I’m not at all afraid of the Rams, it would have to be a disaster for the Seahawks to lose that game. Besides, I’m not worried about the Seahawks overlooking this one. Its a divisional game against the closest thing the Seahawks have to a true NFC West rival. Lofa Tatupu, when asked to circle some games on the calendar that he thought were the most important, he named one date: September 13th.
by kearly on Sep 1, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I don't think it should risk its health.
I’m not saying that SF or the Rams are “automatics” (God knows how many of these the Seahawks have botched over the last couple of years) but I do think we are healthy and cohesive enough to win those two games.
I think they would have to “error” a whole lot to lose to that Rams team, as hurting as it is at key positions. SF is a bit of an enigma, but they sure don’t look very good to me and Singletary is under some serious pressure in my opinion.
by djafrot on Sep 1, 2009 1:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I'm more concerned about health than St Louis at home
Although with Spags running that D an offense that isn’t on the same page could be in a world of trouble. This is what the preseason is for though, working out kinks and shedding the rust. I’m not sure what the plan for the starters is but maybe give them an extra series.
by Nate Dogg on Sep 1, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let them play for a couple drives
We need all the practice we can get. Is it worth risking potential injuries? I think so, and if those drives are successful it could really boost our confidence
by TheSteelersRuinedMyBirthday on Sep 1, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I want the starting O line and RBs to play the first half against the Raiders.
I’d leave Matt, Housh, and Burleson on the bench, but our linemen and RBs should play a half on Thursday.
We can’t be worried about 300 lb offensive linemen getting hurt. They need to continue to work hard to get in a rhythm by opening day, and I’m sure that’s what they want to do.
by Stevo's on Sep 1, 2009 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second this.
O-line at least for a quarter, maybe for a half. A Spagnolo defense against our offensive line is going to be really bad for Matt (and maybe for our season) if the line isn’t on the same page.
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not overly concerned
They need more reps, in practice, in real games, they need time. They’re not anywhere close to mid-season form. I don’t think that can be changed before week 1. And I don’t think it will be a significant issue. It will impede the run game a bit. It won’t dissuade us from running, clearly. But a couple sustainable drives will be stalled in September.
But the offense and the running game I expect to be functional, in spite of these problems which was very likely to remain extant against the Rams.
I just think the Rams aren’t who many currently think they are. We’re a 4-12 team that has displayed key ineffectiveness in every facet of the game. I see a high ceiling for this team, but also a moderately low floor, and absolutely no team is a cupcake for us.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 2:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Now that's a statement I can agree with...
I do think the Rams are a better team than everyone would like to admit. They’re a team with a lot of upside, but that upside isn’t going to be showing up in Week 1 in an environment as hostile as Qwest field.
However, I see them surprising a lot of people in St Louis this year. I hope Mora isn’t one of them.
by timlin45 on Sep 1, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we get what each other are saying
Well said, I hope coach Mora isn’t taking them for granted.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not worried about Mora taking them for granted
I’m worried about the Hawks players taking them for granted.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Sep 1, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's more the possibility.
But it’s another thing I’m not overly concerned about.
by jacobstevens on Sep 1, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see any of the players that were with the team last year taking anything for granted.
I played on an 0-9 team once, and let me tell you; we were as serious as a heart attack on every practice rep, and every snap of every game for about two years.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 1, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Their run game should be average or better
with an upgraded line and S.Jax
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Sep 1, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why they play the game
The Hawks should handle the Rams. But every year some team wins on the road in opening weekend against a superior team. The Chargers do it frequently (lose) and you name the crappy team that gets a W. The Rams will be better than last season just because of coaching. Their new coach will get more out of his team than Linehan did.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
The Rams have not beaten the Seahawks since 2004 season playoffs. You all remember that season…
by Section 128 on Sep 1, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Its a good point
About the high risk of losing to STL/SF early. The Seahawks need those games badly, because after those two games they have a brutal 6 week stretch:
BEARS
at Colts (10 am)
JAGUARS
CARDINALS
bye
at Dallas (10 am)
The Seahawks are capable of winning any game at home and have a decent chance of winning any non-10 am road game. But the Bears, Jags, and Cards will all be tough contests, and the Colts/Cowboys games will both be long-shots. Going 3-2 through that stretch would be amazing, and heck, I probably wouldn’t complain about 2-3. The team needs to start 2-0 or else it could easily face a losing record entering week 9. On top of that, they are divisional games which matter for tiebreakers- and Seattle could easily come to a divisional tiebreaker with Arizona. Those games are easily two of the most must win games of the year, even though they should be relatively easy wins.
That said, Seattle should not need to be perfect to destroy STL at home. And Seattle had no trouble scoring points against SF last year- with or without Nolan’s inane nickle packages. The loss at home was a ridiculous fluke. Seattle dominated that series last year but split. I don’t think they split this year. Barring disaster, the Seahawks will be 2-0 with a decent chance of being 3-0, and keep in mind this is coming from someone who thinks they will win 7 to 9 games this year. The wildcard will probably require more wins than the division thanks to the incredibly deep NFC EAST and NFC NORTH, so the Seahawks will need to get a fast start to make the playoffs. Without starting at least 2-1, I don’t think they make it, and even with a 3-0 start, it could still come down to the head to heads with AZ.
by kearly on Sep 1, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So a loss in week 1
Would be the most damaging loss of the season hands down.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Sep 1, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They should be forced to watch last year's opening game tape
After all, us fans had to watch it.
Bills 34 – Seahawks 10. Hasselbeck sacked 5 times. That ought to keep our guys focused.
by Stevo's on Sep 1, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion
Yes. But not hands down. A loss at home to Arizona is very close.
Early games matter more I think because they set the tone for the season. While in a tangible sense, a win is a win is a win, but a 4-2 team is going to be more confident in their chances and probably better in intangibly than a 2-4 team. Last year the Seahawks were in a dark, dark place after starting 0-2. Which you wouldn’t normally think is a big deal since most teams lose two straight at some point in the season and doing so early would leave the most room to correct right? And yet, teams that start poorly face staggeringly long odds of making the playoffs.
Last year, the Cardinals, with in many ways the same team that was a perennial 5-11 club, went 9-7 and nearly won the superbowl. The biggest difference was the first few weeks. Instead of starting 1-5 or 2-4, the Cards started 4-2, and with a huge division lead less than halfway through the season, finally had the confidence and winning mentality they had lacked for so long. After that point, they only went 5-5 in the regular season, not amazing, but the fact that they didn’t melt down I think is a testament to positive thinking and hope which started with a fast start. I’m not saying a fast start guarantees success, but I do think a slow start is incredibly damaging, and the teams that overcome it are both uncommon and noteworthy.
Besides the fact that I think getting off to a good start is important, the reason a game against STL at home is rightfully called “must win” is because, the way I see it, losing a game you have a 90% chance of winning cancels out winning a game you have a 10% chance of winning. So in my mind, to make up for losing to STL at home the Seahawks would need to beat Dallas to make up for it.
by kearly on Sep 1, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd call that Patriots game
a total meltdown. Coming back from a loss like that is brutal. But once they got into the playoffs, everything kinda resets and a team like the Cardinals can suddenly get hot and make a run, which is exactly what they did.
by Fear on Sep 1, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Line could use some work
This game was Vallos first preseason game with the starters in a loud stadium. I’m not real worried about that particular mistake.
But the line could use some more work on the field. I’d focus on the run game against the Raiders to get them practice with the run blocking. Matt is set. I’m not worried about him. But the run blocking is suspect. It needs serious work.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 1, 2009 8:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you of the mindset, then,
that Kansas City just has a mediocre defense? Not to say that the run blocking ISN’T suspect but we did run effectively enough to have plenty of 3rd and short scenarios after two run plays. Remember that the ZBS isn’t supposed to produce break away runs very easily anyway (though in the 2nd quarter I believe Jones was one missed tackle away from the longest play of the game).
Knowing plays and missing assignments is something you can correct with team practice. Except maybe for short weeks like this one, Vallos (and whatever other rep-needy starters) will get far more reps at VMAC than he could ever get in a series or two in Oakland. The injury/fatigue risk is too much of a factor that outweighs any benefit he would get from those series, even if its the case that Vallos needs more actual game time.
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Sep 1, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kansas City is mediocre on run defense
I doubt their few moves this season will change that. But we aren’t playing any world beater defenses in the AFC West. Even San Diego fell off on defense last year.
I do think Seattle’s O-line and run blockers need more practice together. Run blocking involves eight or nine moving parts all working in unision. Someone misses a block and the entire play can be blown up whether it is a Tackle or TE cutting the backside, the FB lead blocking, or a WR downfield field blocking a CB. I’d like to see the blockers get more practice with the ZBS.
I think the pass game is solid. It needs very little work. The run blocking needs work and we have one more preseason game to improve the system so we should use it. I’d spend the entire first half running the ball with the starters.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 2, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SD fell off on defense because Merriman was out.
Look for them to rebound.
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Merriman is fantastic,
but I still find it hard to believe just his absence made their defense absolutely horrible.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 2, 2009 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our O line
I think that the first games will be critical obviously because they are divisional. This worries be because of our line. I don’t think our line is terrible, on the contrary I think they have great potential. I see Mr Morgan here hitting a lot on Sean Locklear and I think it is not always founded. Our line is new to each other. This isn’t the line that was together with Tobeck, Hutch, and Walt making the left side inpenetrable.. This is a new line with some fairly athletic talented guys. I am worried because they need to at least perform averagely until they start to get some real cohesion together, but I am a believer that once they are used to each other and have worked with each other.. and Locklear can get back to his posistion we will be in pretty good shape. It will be key to bring in a strong O lineman next year in the draft that can play left side tackle and guard and the future in my opinion will hinge on that. I can tell you all, being in Kansas City for now before I move home next year we as Seahawks fans take a lot for granted.. Those linemen that Seattle’s third string blew up in the last drive, Ndukwe a Alleman are likely to be opening day starters for the chiefs.. In that game they where pushed 6 yards into the backfield by our reserves… That was what an atrocious line looks like. I don’t expect to win it all with this roster… the offense is great less the RB situation and lineman that are not tuned in to each other.. The D looked pretty good in most drives, nice to see a real pass rush.. But I do expect a moderate level of success and contention for the division. If we can hang on with our woes and take out the Rams and 49’ers we are on the right track.
by Ryand1981 on Sep 2, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I beg to differ
Kansas City is mediocre on run defense
I doubt their few moves this season will change that. But we aren’t playing any world beater defenses in the AFC West. Even San Diego fell off on defense last year.
KC has been rated this preseason as one of the top run defenses in the NFL.. It is preseason so take what you will, but they are playing as much of the other teams starters as we are so it is at least proportionally correct in some forms. Our Running situation does suck.. It puts more stress on the line when J Jones doesn’t kick it out and he dinks around in the backfield for 5 seconds dancing instead of hitting the hole, but they do need to ensure he has a hole to pound through.. the KC Cheifs have some decent pieces in there up front.. Are they gonna lead the league in run D through the season? 100 to one says NO WAY IN HELL, but the pre season stats are what they are.
by Ryand1981 on Sep 2, 2009 10:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Chiefs have had an awful run defense the last few years
Preseason is preseason. We will face better run defenses during the regular season.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 2, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I want to know is why Unger and Wrotto aren't C/RG, respectively.
And why Vallos has been taking the field as a starter.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 2, 2009 10:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Solari likes what Vallos does at center
For all we know Vallos is picking up line calls and working with Matt better than Unger at the moment as well as blocking adequately. We can see people function on the field, but we can’t see them function in the huddle or what they’re saying on the line. Since they’ve been preaching “The best five on the line”, I’m assuming Solari feels Vallos brings something to the table.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 2, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Spencer
Spencer will play center when he returns and will play center if Seattle retains him next season. Seattle is serious about playing Unger at guard short term and maybe long term. His height and weakness against the bull rush might mean he’s a better guard at the next level.
by John Morgan on Sep 2, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure,
but is Unger really a worse center than Vallos? And if Solari is serious about wanting the 5 best o-linemen on the field, wouldn’t that include Unger and Wrotto?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 2, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unger looked bad at C vs KC
Wrotto can’t pass block.
by Groundhog on Sep 2, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wondered why Wrotto was getting no time in
Unger would be a solid RG. Chris Gray manned that spot for years. He would be an upgrade to Chris Gray I would think.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 2, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrotto got time against KC.
I thought I saw him briefly with the first team. He’s a powerful drive blocker with the run, but looks lost on the pass.
If you remember Gray helping Spencer make line calls, I have a similar theory that may explain Unger’s performance at Center against KC. In previous preseason games, Vallos played Guard next to Unger at Center. When Unger played Center in the second half, Vallos was out of the game. Unger consequently missed blocks. I think the two players complement each other.
by Groundhog on Sep 2, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would be fun to see who functions the best in the huddle
and with line calls. I would be amused to learn Vallos was some kind of uber smart center that read defenses and protections well because he looks like a meat head.
by ASeahawkfan on Sep 3, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt Vallos is that brilliant.
Unger’s just a rookie. Rookie’s make mistakes, especially at Center.
by Groundhog on Sep 3, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
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.
