Greg Knapp Leaves Me Missing the Fullback Draw
by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 7:03 PM PDT
25 comments
What to say about the ensuing drive. Seattle started on its four and didn't get much farther. The first play was a run, and it ended when Brandon Frye couldn't hold off Justin Smith. No surprise there. Then Matt Hasselbeck scrambled for two. That scrambling fool. Finally, Greg Knapp dialed up a play call so defeatist it makes the fullback draw look daring.
Seattle aligned two wide receivers, left and right, an "I" formation and John Carlson at tight end. He started on the left and motioned right. San Francisco was in a 4-2 nickel. Matt Hasselbeck motions to Justin Griffith and then throws to Justin Griffth. Griffith drops it. Net loss: About three yards. Covering Griffith: Patrick Willis. Grape Nuts: Neither a grape nor a nut.
Jon Ryan punts it 36 yards.
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Maybe I'm confused, but how does an incomplete pass lose 3 yards?
Matt Hasselbeck motions to Justin Griffith and then throws to Justin Griffth. Griffith drops it. Net loss: About three yards.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevan Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Sep 23, 2009 9:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Net
It would have gained three if completed.
by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there a play you hate more than play action to the fullback?
by Nate Dogg on Sep 23, 2009 9:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a tough one.
It has all the risk associated with a pass without the chance to accomplish significant yardage. Maybe a fake punt on fourth and one, but that’s situational.
I can’t think of one.
by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's so bad about a fake punt on 4th and one?
Are you just saying that you’d rather a team go for it out of a regular offensive formation?
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see.
Well, a fake punt does at least bring some element of surprise, but I see your point.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 23, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On 4th and 1 it's a lot less of a surprise.
4th and 1 should be fairly makeable.
by djafrot on Sep 23, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
But coaches still punt on 4th and 1 a large majority of the time, especially early in the game. If you were to run a fake punt on 4th and 1 on your side of the field in the first half I doubt the defense would expect it much at all. As you get nearer the end zone or as the game gets nearer to it’s conclusion though, the pendulum swings the other way.
by Brendan Scolari on Sep 24, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Was it designed to go to Griffith or was that Matt's checkdown?
Just wondering if it was designed. Hate it either way, and I remember being really annoyed at that drive. And the lousy punt to top it off.
And then later on SF converting from the one on a same kind of defeatist dump pass to Norris in the flat that Curry misses the tackle on and he picks up the first. Nail, meet coffin.
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 23, 2009 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're the expert.
But how do you know it wasn’t a checkdown?
by djafrot on Sep 23, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
First read
No pressure and into into two zones.
by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I guessed.
But, uh, what does “into two zones” mean? (gonna ignore the second “into”).
by djafrot on Sep 23, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
An into for each zone.
Two 49ers were playing zone near Griffith.
by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WE WILL MISS HOLMGRENS PLAY CALLING
Maybe it’s just me but I’m not a huge fan of Greg Knapps play calling. That fullback dump off was horrible. Say what you will about Holmgrens fullback draws but it yeilded big plays on several occassions over his tenure with the Seahawks. With both Weaver and Strong. It could just be the growning pains of learning his play calling feel but Holmgrens mastery of passing on 1st down usually set us up for 2nd and 5’s or 2nd 4 situation that gave Seattle flexibility for Run pass on both 2nd and 3rd down. I feel were very predictible so far under Knapp and were in a lot of 2nd in 10 or 2nd and 8 situtations which puts way more pressure on Matt and the offensive line. Just a thought.
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 24, 2009 7:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Me too
This team is still learning the new offense and isn’t firing on all cylinders yet.
Mike Wahle(OG), Walter Jones(LT), Chris Spencer(C), Marcus Trufant(CB), Deion Branch(WR), Sean Locklear(OT), Brandon Mebane(DT), Leroy Hill(LB), Lofa Tatupu(LB), Josh Wilson(CB), Justin Griffith(FB), Matt Hasselbeck (QB)
by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close
Couple preseason games looked pretty good passing, that’s been about it. Knapp is probably the only part of the offense I think has done a good job yet.
by jacobstevens on Sep 24, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're jumping the gun here.
Although I do seem to remember Holmgren having a quite a few “incomplete pass, incomplete pass, incomplete pass, punt” scenarios, which would bug the hell out of me and ate up about ten seconds of clock, but you know what? That’s how it goes sometimes. I suppose you’ve forgotten all about those already? Let’s look at the stats:
First half on first down against the 9ers:
Run, 3 yards
Pass, 6 yards
Pass, Incomplete
Run, 4 yards
Pass, -5 yards
Run, 1 yard
Pass, 21 yards
Run, 1 yard
Run, 1 yard
so 5 runs, 4 passes. Wasn’t sure what I was going to find, but that looks pretty balanced.
I’m leaving off the last drive, because it was two minute offense and they were all passes which would skew it way towards passing on first down. The second half we were behind, Seneca was in, and it was almost all passes. Plenty of short ones, I might add, which may as well have been runs.
I think the big problem right now is the zone blocking run game isn’t working yet (though we are ranked 11th in offense) but once it does those runs are going to start looking a lot better and the play-action pass is going to be smokin (my hope anyway).
I’d also like to see a stat on how many times those third and long fullback draws actually worked. 4-5 times in ten years? You remember it when it works, and it looks like a brilliant play call, but you forget the twenty times in-between when you roll your eyes.
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Reply Finn
Great breakdown of the 1st down calls in the First Half. I do think it bolster my point.
According to your stats we ran 5 times and gained 10 yards, meaning our Offense avg 2 yards on 1st Down, basically making 2nd down a Pass situation. We passed 4 times on 1st down and gained 22 yards giving us an avg of 5.2 yards on 1st down. Basically creating a scenario of 2nd and 5, a perfect run/pass, play-action situation.
Even if we don’t use these by numbers and factor it by possessions, Passing on 1st still benefited us more. The 4 out of the 5 times we ran on 1st down put us in 2nd and 7 or longer situations. That’s a horrible, meaning 20% of our 2nd downs were 2nd and longs, which give opposing defenses pass rushers a huge advantage on 2nd and long . Now when we passed on 1st down we were successful (successful being 2nd in 5 or less or getting the 1st down) 2 out 4 times ,giving us a 1st down successful rate of 50%. So basically we were 30% higher on 1st down passes then on 1st down runs.
I do like a balanced attack, but maybe until our running game improves , passing more on 1st down might make more sense. Balance attack asside, Holmgren understood this fact and would attack on 1st down with short yardage passes to put us in friendly 2nd down situations. The staple of the WCO is to use the pass like the run. I still think we can have a balanced attack though while even passing on 1st down to. If were in 2nd 5’s after passing on 1st down, the majority of the time we could use 2nd and 3rd down as running downs to get the first. Giving us times when it’s a 2 Run 1 Pass situation. The idea is to always keep defenses on there heels, not knowing if were going to run or pass. Holmgren was a genuis at that. Our record under Holmgren (minus last year) proves his formula (fullback draws and all) was a success here and in Green Bay. I feel like the guy gets a bad rap considering how far he took our franchise. Great post though.
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 24, 2009 10:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Holmgren was a genius at confusing defenses?
I don’t know about that. For the last three years he was here I could call run or pass maybe 75% of the time just based on what formation we were in.
by djafrot on Sep 24, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do think that's a valid critiscm of Knapp's offense thus far
We do appear to be built for passing. However, if we give up on the run game now two games in, we become way too one dimensional. I know, you can point to 2007, but you can also point to 2005, where much of the passing offense we set up off of playaction and Alexander’s running. I’ve also heard (don’t remember where, wish I did) in the first year of instituting a zone run blocking scheme it takes about four games before players really start getting it. If he doesn’t at least try, the players won’t get the necessary reps in. But, your point makes sense too. Pass the ball early and often, put up some points, then try and run the ball down their throats could work too. I haven’t really seen Knapp try and go all run though, it’s been pretty balanced, even when we were putting the Rams away. I liked that. I’m really hoping, though, against the Bear’s weakened secondary he comes out firing.
by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Me to. I hope he comes out firing.
I think it will loosen things up for our running game. I believe in balance to. But the order could just be a little different. I prefer running on 2nd and 5’s then running on 1st and 10’s early in a game. If it’s the 2nd half and we have a lead I throw that formula out of the window. I really feel that our running game would get a boost though from Justin Forsett. Maybe if (more like when) he becomes the starter the running game may improve. Anyway, I thought Holmgren dealt with our anemic Run Offense in 07’ perfectly. Not saying we have to go to that now, but it was effective.
My thoughts on Knapp were only a early season evaluation. Though his passing offenses sucked in Atl, and Oak, he did well with the Niners under Mooch. Though some believe Holmgren was predictable, he has an unbelievable Offensive mind. What he did for our team speaks for itself. We need to wipe last year out of our memories. We had a mini-dynasty under Coach Holmgren. Tops in the League in the NFC record wise during that magical 5 year stretch, minus last year of course..
by Mr. Blache III on Sep 24, 2009 11:02 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.
