Starting to project our passing game
Taking a look at how some of the top passing teams distributed their receptions and yards last season and how the Matt's tendencies may play a role in our distribution pattern this season.
WARNING: This takes you to a blog I write. Do not visit the link if you think I'm just trolling for traffic. I saw some interesting things, and instead of copying my whole post into a fanpost, I just dropped a link here.
2 months ago
hawkblogger
40 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I understand how you reached your conclusion.
However, we have never had the kind of weapons the Saints have with the Seahawks. Most years, even Matt’s best weapons dropped the ball, and over 5 years of being a good to great QB he still spread it around. When Branch got hurt, all Hasselbeck had left was Engram, Burleson, and Hackett, with no particularly special TE and #37 not catching the ball well either, although he did have Weaver to throw to at least.
He has more pairs of reliable hands now than in any previous season. Carlson is way better, Housh’s hands are better than any one WR we’ve had, unless Branch’s are that good, which they seem to be. Butler hasn’t dropped anything I’ve noticed, JJ and Edge are better catching than SA, and at least close to MoMo, if not better. Burleson is the only guy who I could imagine dropping the ball, but not that often.
My opinion is, it’s likely Hasselbeck spreads the ball around even more.
by cashless on Sep 1, 2009 11:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Awareness
Matt seems like a very aware quarterback. One who can think on his feet and dabble outside of the normal parameters or tendencies of the play and use judgement to make the best pass for that particular play. Branch, Burleson, Carlson, Housh, James, Jones and to an extent Butler are all good to quite good at receiving and Hass knows this.
Matt is going to have more opportunities on more plays than he’s (arguably) ever had before. Some of those guys do stand out more than others, but if Matt has 5 guys he can effectively pass to, why wouldn’t he end up going to each of them as the situation dictates?
Glenn Beck likes argument, but has a deap-seated hatred for logic.
by Cheddar28 on Sep 1, 2009 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
in other words...
you think our distribution will look more like the saints than the cardinals? I definitely agree with everything you said, but I also see a 100+ catch, 1100+ yard season for Housh, and a 70-85 catch season from Carlson. Burleson is the clear third guy, and then I’d expect a pretty big drop off. It sounds like you think Branch would be another 40+ reception guy. Do you think there might be a fifth, maybe a RB?
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 5:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you
but I think that Burley doesn’t separate himself from Branch as much as you think. I think it’s clearly Houch and Carlson, with a little Burley and Branch sprinkled in. That is, unless there’s some … (knock on wood) I wond even say it.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 2, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
I commented on the blog, but I don’t remember Matt going to his TEs all that often in the past and I think Carlson’s numbers last year were mostly due to our decimated WRs. I love the guy and he’s definitely the best TE we’ve had, but I think the ball will be spread more evenly. I see Housh getting ~85 receptions, Branch and Burleson each getting ~75 and Carlson getting ~50. Edge and Butler will be down around 25 each.
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought that Matt never hesitated to throw to Jerramy Stevens if he was open.
Same with Itula Milli and Marcus Pollard.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 2, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of them ever got more than 50 catches in a season w/ Seattle.
His prediction of 70-85 catches seemed high, so I checked the numbers. Stevens had one season (‘05) with 45 receptions (and probably a dozen drops); Milli had 46 in ’03 and 43 in ’02. In ’04 Matt threw to the two of them a total of 54 times. The highest total by a good amount was in ’02, when they combined for 69 catches. (I hadn’t looked back that far, and it may well ruin my point. Dammit.)
Carlson’s far better than any of our past TEs, but that still seems like a lot when you’ve got so many legitimate WRs. That TE-heavy ‘02 season our third leading receiver was Shaun. It’s possible that JC will have the second-most receptions, but I think this assumption is selling Branch short. In ’06 he had 53 receptions in 14 games; in ’07 he had 49 in 11. He had over 650 yards both years. I see him getting the ball a lot more than 40 times.
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Matt and Carlson are healthy for 16 games...
I’d bet nice shiny penny that carlson easily goes over 70 receptions. As Matt said, “He caught 55 balls last season and we didn’t have a single play drawn up for him.”
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Totally possible.
But again, last year we had no other targets. I’m with cashless on this one; I think we’ll have a more even, Saints-type distribution…but I won’t wager more than that one shiny penny.
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt's TEs were always horrible-to-mediocre
And Jerramy Stevens had a hard time holding on to anything that hadn’t passed out already.
I think that Carlson is going to be a go-to guy (probably behind Housh but ahead of Branch/Burly).
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 2, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marcus Pollard was pretty bad too.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 2, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That...
was a classic line on Stevens…
Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 2, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Carlson = Engram
The dominant media assumption is that Engram’s routes and catches are going to Housh this year. I certainly think that will happen in some cases, but I think Carlson is going to work those zones and seams to death, and that Hass already talks about him in similar terms. I know he appreciates the predictability of a guy like Carlson over a guy like Housh.
I would not be totally shocked if Carlson eclipses 1000 yards, but that’s a stretch. 8-10 TDs is a real possibility.
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess that's why he has more receptions than Branch and Burleson combined this preseason.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 2, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Forsett's got more than Housh.
SSS + preseason
by thebyron on Sep 2, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Forsett made two-thirds of those catches
durring one quarter of football where they repeatedly ran the screen play. It was obvious they were working on it.
Against the Chiefs, in the 3rd preseason game where teams let the starters get the run and they aren’t working on a specific look for an entire drive, and all four of the top targets were on the field the line looked like this:
J. Carlson 5 68 13.6 1 28
T. Houshmandzadeh 5 60 12.0 1 17
N. Burleson 2 49 24.5 0 31
D. Branch 2 13 6.5 0 8
I might be totally off my rocker, but this tells me something about tendancies.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 2, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possible, but I don't think so.
I can’t back this up except to reiterate that in shortened seasons in ‘06 and ’07 Branch got the ball around fifty times. (Last year he got thirty receptions in eight games, but I’m not sure how many of those were from Matt and how many were from Seneca.) Write it off as a hunch if you like, but I feel like people are selling Branch short and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get more catches than Burly.
by thebyron on Sep 3, 2009 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I would like to see
I think a productive season for Branch is a huge plus for the ‘Hawks. I would like to see him blow Burley out of the water. I’m just sharing what I’ve seen. In ‘06 and ’07 Branch didn’t have to compete for targets with the likes of Housh and Carlson. And when that unit has been on the field together, he’s not getting tageted much. I hope I’m wrong.
by Jo-Jo on Sep 3, 2009 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're all hoping for big production
I’m not we care where it comes from. I think Branch has the least to offer of those top four targets in terms of YPC, YAC, size, speed. There isn’t one thing Branch does clearly better than the other three, but that’s not the same in reverse. That’s where I predict him fourth. Even Deon Butler has flashed more ability to impact a game thus far, but it will be interesting to see how Branch does against the nickel and dime backs come regular season.
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 3, 2009 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must mean cumulatively among YPC, YAC, size, and speed.
Size is obvious. Speed and especially change of direction he blows away Housh, Burleson, and Carlson. YPC and YAC depends on how he is used, as well as what type of player he is.
Career YPC from highest to lowest:
Burleson 13.7
Branch 13.2
TJ 11.4
Carlson 11.4
Career YAC from highest to lowest:
Burleson 5.1
Carlson 4.3
TJ 4.0
Branch 4.0
But then in a 3 year average(How convenient, Branch and Burleson’s Seahawk years) it’s different for the Seahawks offense. In 19 games for Branch and 17 for Burleson(yes, he’s missed more games for Seattle)
YPC
Burleson 13.7
Branch 13.6
YAC
Branch 4.7
Burleson 4.0
So the entire YAC disparity(however small a one-yard difference is) between Branch and Burleson comes from the way Minnesota and New England used them.
by cashless on Sep 3, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant to reference.
Stats taken from the yahoo.com splits.
by cashless on Sep 3, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Branch is tops in size, speed, YAC or YPC
Size = Housh/Carlson
Speed = Burleson/Butler
YPC = Burleson
YAC = Burleson
There just isn’t that one thing that really stands out to me with Branch. He’s just a good combination of speed, precision and decent hands. But, again, I’d be just as happy if he went for 100 rec/1000 yards as any of these other guys.
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 3, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eyeballing it.
Watching the two of them on the field it looks to me like Branch and Burly are about the same speed: fast. (Both were HS track studs, but I couldn’t find 40 numbers for them.) But Branch’s hands are certainly above “decent”….dude’s got glue on those bright green gloves.
by thebyron on Sep 3, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to pick nits
…but if you’re looking for Branch’s ability to impact a game, check the Super Bowls. I think he or Burly will create nightmare matchups for nickelbacks. AAAAAH I can’t wait for this season to start already!
by thebyron on Sep 3, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I do.
Unless the two-TE sets that we just saw is the norm this year, then I would go with your numbers as more likely.
I think that we will see a lot of Branch and Butler, as I think they are better at 3rd and 4th WR for our offensive production than John Owens and one of our FBs will be for our production. And I think Knapp looks like an OC that adjusts to his personnel pretty well.
But this is just an opinion, you are not wrong, and I am not wrong, we are just speculating.
by cashless on Sep 2, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like reading your stuff.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Sep 2, 2009 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Me too
I really appreciate the research, kind of wish that there was more analysis/conclusion and don’t always agree with the conclusions, but I appreciate the work and the chance at more spirited discussion.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 2, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please only read my blog if you agree with me
mindless drones suck. always happy to have a good-natured debate
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was sarcasm if it wasn't obvious... :)
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't :)
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 2, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarcasm is like eating ice cream.
I know it’s bad for me, but I keep doing it anyway.
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I first read it - It went right over my head.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 2, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you must be really short
damn! there it goes again…
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It sucks you made the 2nd half sarcasm instead of the 1st...I was starting to like you.
by cashless on Sep 2, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was that sarcasm? :)
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 3, 2009 6:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, just pretending to misunderstand your sarcasm.
by cashless on Sep 3, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need to stop explaining jokes.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Sep 3, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
I like writing it…when I can find the time…
Bring back the Uncle Cliffy!
by hawkblogger on Sep 2, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you need to take into account context
In 2007, there were Branch (often injured), Hackett (often injured), Bobby Engram (solid like a rock) and Burleson (still working on his route-running). The RB was pretty bad catching the ball (and I think he had a cast for a while as well) and the TEs were really bad (Marcus Pollard was the starter).
Matt’s not going to spread the ball around to guys who aren’t comfortable in the offense (because of time out due to injury or struggles learning the exacting playbook) or who couldn’t be depended on to catch the ball.
A third wrinkle is the difference between Holmgren’s offense and Greg Knapp’s. It seems like Holmgren’s offense required more precise timing (and synergy between the QB and WR) while Knapp’s offense is more free-flowing (more flexibility for the WR) and vertical.
I see the order going Housh, Carlson, Branch/Burly, RBs, other TEs/FBs/Butler.
Brett Favre is the Kenny Powers of football.
by ninjasocks on Sep 2, 2009 11:37 AM PDT 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.
