Seahawks Last Gasp, Pt. One

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 6:39 PM PDT Comment 42 comments

More photos » by Marcio Sanchez - AP

The key to beating Dre Bly is telegraphing your throw. Bly is not known for his ball skills or hitting.

It was the last gasp for Seattle. If only it were more exciting. Like Matt Hasselbeck stumbling towards the end zone from the five, this drive was clumsy and cost too much. Josh Wilson's kick return, Hasselbeck's stumbling tumble towards the end zone -- someone sit the Seahawks down and read them Henry IV. The better part of valour is discretion, indeed.

Greg Knapp runs designed plays. Sometimes he runs a wide receiver screen. Sometimes he runs some abhorrent play-action bootleg. Seattle started its drive with an abhorrent play-action bootleg. The Niners were in a four man front. Hasselbeck faked to Julius Jones and then rolled right. The unblocked left end was never fooled and immediately adjusted and pressured Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck found T.J. Houshmandzadeh, but so did Dre Bly. Bly was sitting on the route. Housh took a shot, but Bly wanted the ball. A few years back, Bly cuts the route and takes it to the house. Seattle was in luck. Instead, their $40 million dollar wide receiver with back spasms took a shot for an incomplete pass. That completion could have been big. Four yards big.
Hasselbeck found John Carlson running a short out in the left flat. Dashon Goldson stopped Carlson in the field of play after four yards, but Carlson allowed the momentum to take him out of bounds. The clock runs when the ball carrier is stopped in the field of play, even if they then run out of bounds. The line judge will windmill his arm to indicate this. Brian Billick ignored all these subtleties, instead admonishing Carlson for running out of bounds. About three seconds into his rant, Billick circled the time clock. It immediately began to run. This didn't deter Billick. He continued, clock running all the while.
San Francisco rushed four from a front-four and dropped seven deep. Hasselbeck scrambled for seven and slid. Micheal Lewis gave him minor forearm fall and looked around for a flag. Officials can flag almost any contact after a quarterback slides. The quarterback is technically down. That is why even an out of control defender just trying to stop his momentum, like Lewis, efforts to hit the quarterback as lightly as possible. Lewis didn't try too hard to let Hasselbeck get up, though.
The Seahawks convened and Hasselbeck barked orders. They wanted to set and run a play in the twenty seconds before the two minute warning. Billick didn't think they could. Was so sure, he spoke of the possibility in the past tense. They did. Of course.

experimental

Houshmadzadeh and Nate Burleson ran cascading slant routes on the right. Butler ran a post on the left and Carlson and Forsett complemented routes to the sideline and over the middle, respectively. Hasselbeck pump-faked right, forcing Patrick Willis back, and then found Forsett over the middle. Forsett caught it for seven.

Two minute warning.

0 recs | Comment 42 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I was walking with my wife and had an "ah-ha!" moment

So I changed the background to the actual formation from the game. Good decision? Bad decision? Good decision that still needs a little work? I am leaning towards that last one.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 6:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The perspective confuses the eye

I like the idea, but it doesn’t exactly work for me.

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 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude...

you wear socks with sandals. What do you know about what works and what does not.
I like the look John. Much better!

by HawkedUp on Sep 24, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wear socks with sandals when I walk onto the porch to check the grill sometimes

I’m not going to defend my lack of artistic sense, but there’s nothing serious about “ninja socks”.

by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wear socks with sandles

black socks no less. I also wear robes to the store.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are they black because you hate white people?

Or because you too are a ninja?

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never given it thought.

I have black socks; not all but some; I put sandals over them.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually wear black socks too

It helps because I wear them around the apartment and after short while, the white ones start to look really dirty, but the black ones stay as clean as ever! I don’t even bother with white ones anymore.

I should probably get some slippers. Or sandals. Or clean the floor more often.

Also, the more I stare at the image, i’m starting to agree with ninjasocks. It confuses my eyes like one of those eye-trick pattern things. When I stare at it long enough (a few seconds) the players start to look like they’re moving in circles.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Robes to the store?

Write a check for some half-and-half?

by thebyron on Sep 24, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No checks.

I lack social graces, but am deeply considerate.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A guy I went to grad school with

wanted a PhD so he could get tenure, walk around campus in a bath robe and hit on the undergrads.

by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You got it wrong,

There is nothing MORE serious than ninja socks! But on a serious note I had to add something to my post other than “looks good John”. Since you were the only comment at the time, you got my lack of creativity. This is the Pacific NW home of the Sandaled Socks

by HawkedUp on Sep 24, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

P.S. Plot Twist:

Those aren’t my real feet. Or socks. Or sandals.

by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do that also.

I mean, wear sandals and socks. Black ones and white ones also, at times. I try and avoid the gold-toe socks and sandals, but even that doesn’t always work out.

And now for something completely different.

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 24, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It does

I will work on fixing the perspective. I must flip, stretch and correct the perspective to get it this far, but there’s more I can do.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My 2 cents

I’d make the background a bit more subtle if you can. The contrast from the Numbers/Players and the background is too small. Can you fade or darken the background so the routes, etc are more clear? If so, I LOVE IT. Either way, it’s very good though. It’s easier to get a good idea of SCALE when it’s this way.

by StonerHawks on Sep 24, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It would be no problem fading the background.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That'd be helpful.

I also miss the player markers on the defensive side. I’m pretty sure that I can tell where they are, but not as clearly as with the icons.

by thebyron on Sep 24, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't include the defense

because my intention was showing the routes and also I wanted to test the background and not make it even more cluttered. But that wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, Misfit, I will try and remember to enlarge the numbers.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully fading the background will reduce the visual clutter.

As always, thanks for your efforts on our behalf.

by thebyron on Sep 24, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet.

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 24, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do not like.

I think the ones before were great. Just enough detail, nothing to distract you.

by djafrot on Sep 24, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like it

I get what you are trying to do, but the sharp angle makes it hard to see.

by GarethLewin on Sep 25, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's cool, but I get dizzy looking at it for some reason.

I literally cannot look at it for more than 5 seconds or I feel like I’m going to get cross eyed and throw up. Probably just me though.

by LantermanC on Sep 25, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"respectively"

OK, I don’t really get this word used in the context it usually is. Well I do but I don’t. I’ve seen you use it a few times in this manner and I’ve seen it used a lot by other writers the same way, but it just seems like such a tacked on empty word. By not adding it on, would people automatically think you were disrespecting the second player mentioned? Would the second person feel disrespected? Probably not. I guess I can see that happening in certain cases, but still, someone’s gotta go first. It makes me wonder when the word was first used in this manner and why. Did someone get some flack a long time ago while naming various people in a book once and the courtesy stuck? I know I’m making a pretty benign rant here, but every time I read that it just seems so out of place and hollow, respectively.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 7:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You are thinking "respectfully"

“Respectively” means in the order given.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's for clarity

So the reader knows Carlson ran to the sideline and Forsett ran over the middle.

by John Morgan on Sep 24, 2009 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, ok, I see the difference

I never really thought about it, never seeing the two words near each other, and have up until now blurred the two seamlessly into one definition. Weird.

I do automatically assume player A and player B equals player A route and player B route, so I still get that tacked on feeling, since that’s how a good writer should automatically do it. I imagine there have been quite a few misunderstandings if someone didn’t. That makes much more sense to me now, though, and “respectively” at least won’t bug the crap out of me anymore. Thanks for the clarification.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 24, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Used in a sentence:

“You’ve got to give respective to get respective”.

by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

On the image

what if you keep the play image the same as we see on TV…and instead of drawing everything vertical, draw it horizontal from the perspective of our TV angle? I know play sheets aren’t drawn like this at all, but could work real effectively for this demonstration.

Or not

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Sep 25, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Maybe something like this

but made more professionally and not in MS paint in 35 seconds and obviously you’re have your neat little # circles and stuff and better drawn and all that jazz.

or you can just ignor my stupid idea lol

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Sep 25, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, this is what I was thinking a while ago.

Though it’s tough to show line play with this, due to the perspective.

by djafrot on Sep 25, 2009 1:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only difference between this and JMs is that he turned his picture.

I think the skewed perspective just threw everyone off.

by Groundhog on Sep 25, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really like that

John, can we do that, please?

by Strictnine on Sep 25, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the suggestion.

It is an idea I can work with. I don’t know how I would illustrate line play, though.

by John Morgan on Sep 25, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would it be too much effort to do two?

Show the above image for routes, and a top down (using your old look) view for line play?

by GarethLewin on Sep 25, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Effort is not a problem

but it would take too long. Clearly, breaking down a game in detail is already a lengthy process and I don’t want to be stuck in the first quarter on Friday. I am sure a hybrid can be accomplished that takes advantage of the best of both.

by John Morgan on Sep 25, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I would to say that runs would be bad from this perspective.

by Groundhog on Sep 25, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe a cold thread now, but my 2 cents':

1. I think the old-fashioned way has a couple advantages. First, it doesn’t make anyone seasick. Second, I think the old-fashioned way has the benefit of being more generic, meaning you can recycle it as necessary. Relatedly, using the generic system might make it more clear how frequently the Knapp offense is running a particular kind of play.

2. I would love to see actual yardline numbers on the background if you stick with doing it the old-fashioned way. Dunno what kind of application you’re using, but if it uses layers, it seems it would be easy to create the field as two layers (green below, hashlines and transparent above), then simply slide the hashline layer up or down as needed to give you the correct field position. That should only take a few extra seconds for each play you display.

Thanks.

by dagraham on Sep 26, 2009 12:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs