The Openfaced Mako Quarter
The third quarter was full of bad football. Not, good defense but low scoring, I judge my football by the frequency of points, bad football. That is often good football, just an unpopular style of good football. No, this was sloppy, slow, poorly orchestrated, and, particularly, poorly orchestrated by the quarterback, football.
The difference between Jay Cutler and Matt Hasselbeck, besides tools and age and surrounding talent, is that Cutler ceases to look down field when under pressure and Hasselbeck keeps his nerve. Cutler also, and I don't know if this started with Martz but it fits the stereotype, will not pass underneath even to wide open receivers. It's odd, kind of Rex Grossman-esque, and leads to sacks, scrambles, mistake passes into coverage, and stalled drives.
Anyway, this isn't comprehensive. It is, to be blunt, what I feel like writing about.
- The first drive started with Marshawn Lynch battling Matt Toeaina in the backfield and wound down with back-to-back drops by John Carlson and Golden Tate.
- Carlson's drop was made possible, so to speak, by two linebackers biting on a rather weakly executed play action.
- Between the beginning and the end, the Seahawks did something they did throughout the game: run a quick slant against pressure. On the third play of the drive, the Bears rushed six and Mike Williams slanted in front of Charles Tillman for seven and the first.
Here's how the safety happened. As with most of the good things in life, it was equal parts preparation and execution.
- Step one: Jon Ryan pins the Bears at their ten.
- Step two: Red Bryant and David Hawthorne stop a run off right end. Seattle was swapping its strong side and weak side personnel in ways I have not previously seen.
- Step three: Chicago runs a play action, seven step drop. The play action forces Matt Forte out of position to block Jordan Babineaux and the seven step drop puts Cutler in the end zone when the nickel blitz arrives.
- Step four: Babineaux comes unblocked off left end and catches Cutler from behind, forces a fumble and Cutler recovers in the end zone for the safety.
The ensuing Seahawks drive was: stuff, good coverage on Lynch by Brian Urlacher, and then a double clutched screen pass that Matt backhanded incomplete just before Henry Melton could close and wrap. There was some controversy over whether this was a fumble or grounding, but it was neither. It was an incomplete pass with negative style points.
Not really the way you want to take advantage of a free possession.
Bears ball.
- Cutler completes to Devin Hester in front of Walter Thurmond and behind Lofa Tatupu in what looks like a no pressure/well negotiated zone. Seahawks rush five.
- Timeout.
- Seahawks rush five, Chris Clemons attempts an edge rush around left end and Will Herring attempts and edge rush around right end, but both are pushed clear and Cutler steps up into a good looking pocket.
- Except
- He freaks the fuck out, and not for any evident reason.
- He steps up, begins to move right, turns around completely, sees Clemons recovering and running up behind him, pinballs often backwards and surely around with not intention of passing, and finally throws the ball away.
- Hawthorne shoots off right end, knocks back a lead blocker and strings the Forte rush wide right. Lofa Tatupu and Jordan Babineaux close to complete the tackle for a loss.
- Freak Out No. 2: Seahawks rush five. Cutler stops looking down field and opts to scramble madly to and fro. Milloy puts down the rabid Bear.
- Punt.
Seahawks ball.
- Linebackers stay inside to contain the run. Matt finds Williams on a slant for six.
- Bears sell out run and are rewarded with a run. Lynch pushes forward for two.
- Toeaina slaps away a pass intended for Justin Forsett aaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnndddddddddd we punt.
Bears ball.
- Freak Out No. 3: Seahawks rush five. Cutler rushes up the right sideline for 14.
- Menacing looking screen develops offensive left, like a slowly organizing cyclone. Ten Seahawks are not prepared. Marcus Trufant is. He runs an arc from the right flat over the middle of the field and almost into the left flat and shoots in and drops Chester Taylor after four. This is one of those no one saw it highlights that I love to find. Just an incredible play by Tru.
- Knox drop.
- Seahawks rush four, including Milloy and Milloy comes untouched off right end and chases down and sacks Cutler.
This next drive is pretty good actually, if, uh, only comparatively.
- Toeaina knocks back Chris Spencer, Peppers does likewise to Sean Locklear, but Lynch battles for three.
- Play action, seven step drop, Williams catches a deep dig route and continues his one-man assault on the man called Peanut.
- Very similar looking play, right down to Beck's drop step and William's route. The spacing is a little different and the Seahawks opt out of running play action, which is smart, because the Bears rush six and Justin Forsett makes a critical block on an otherwise free blitzer.
- Tate drops another pass, but this time, the suckiness of dropping the pass is a component of Tate's inability to gain separation. He runs up to and curls in front of Tillman and Tillman is on him like a DEA dog. Peanut closes and slaps it away incomplete.
- Force runs for six on an inside zone behind right guard. Locklear turns the left defensive end, Spencer controls the left defensive tackle and Stacy Andrews pulls into the second level and takes on a linebacker. Forsett runs behind his blockers and takes what's given.
- Butler motions into a kind of loose trips and then runs a whip route in and then towards the left sideline. The combined action of motioning in and then slanting in and then running out, the whip route, fools Bowman and he is lost on the inside, sort of doubling Brandon Stokley with D.J. Moore, sort of in no man's land. Hass finds him for 15.
- Remember that failed play action in which Matt outstretched the ball towards Lynch but Lynch was running a hard angle right and was clearly too far to receive the hand off? Well, that happens again and this time, Israel Idonije closes on Matt and forces a hurried outlet towards Lynch. Who, in his lovable, kind of bumbling way, catches, spins around Chris Harris and turns up field for five. Gotta love it when talent trumps execution.
- The line pulls right, Carlson loops around and seals the left end (by blocking Peppers) and Forsett runs between Carlson and Okung off left end for 13.
We'll pick this up a bit later tonight.
111 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah I vote for a transition from commas to dashes.
You’re a wonderful writer, Morgan, but the multi-word adjectives have gotta be dashed instead of… Well, William Shattnered. I spent a solid five minutes deciphering that sentence.
Take that as the most minor of criticism. You pump out well-written content like some sort of well-written comment machine.
It's the opposite of Berkowitz at UW Dawg Pound.
No commas, whatsoever. Sometimes I wanna offer to edit for him, cause his content is just so damn good; even his writing is good. The lack of proper copy edit sheds some of his cred though, y’know?
Once more, not a knock. Both JM and JB are content machines, and stylistic content machines at that.
Yeah - my comment wasn't meant as a knock either...
I have a habit of using trip dots… to transition between thoughts… not sure where it came from, but boom… there it is.
I had thought John was following in theme with a previous post that included somewhat lengthy discussions on the use of punctuation…
I love the "..."...
Such a guilty pleasure. I know it’s wrong, but it just feels so right.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions
It's kind of like a cliff-hanger ending...
It leaves you thinking that there is more.
"Ellipsis" is the word you're looking for.
“Trip dots” sounds like acid tabs.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Could I have some trip dots please.
Now available at McDonald’s.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 22, 2010 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Except what he's doing isn't a proper ellipsis, either
so he might as well coin a term for them . . . in which case, why not call them something that sounds like acid tabs?
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
An ellipsis
looks . . . like . . . this . . .
What dassler10 was talking about… it may have its uses, but it isn’t an ellipsis.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions
You're saying there have to be spaces between the periods?
Citation needed there, Coleridge.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
In lieu of the works currently in my office
(I don’t keep the Chicago Manual of Style at home, after all), I’ll direct you to St. Martin’s Handbook, 1992, 491-93.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't have that to hand either, and my Chicago is packed away.
MLA (via wikipedia) suggests that’s an outdated convention though. Interesting, I’d never heard that it ever made a difference.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
The interesting possibility here
would be to keep the proper form of the ellipsis for its original purpose (noting excisions in quoted material) and use a form without spaces to denote sentences trailing off and all the other things for which we also tend to use ellipses — essentially, creating a new form of punctuation and clarifying usage.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 23, 2010 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Do you mean hyphens? Hyphens connect compound adjectives. Em dashes can be used for parenthetical thoughts, but, unless necessary, I find them kind of tacky and distracting.
And what sentence?
I don’t mind correction, but I do not understand what exactly you are criticizing, and that feels kind of, eh … annoying.
I agree.
I use them only when necessary, which, for me, is never. I just change my sentence structure. Hyphens, on the other hand… I’ve been known to string together quite the compound adjective.
Perhaps he is referring to “low-scoring” in the second sentence?
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Or
“I-judge-my-football-by-the-frequency-of-points” shortly thereafter. That must be it, ‘cause the other one doesn’t really cause any confusion. I admit, I had to read and re-read that sentence.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
That second sentence could be written with a compound adjective
but compound adjectives that long look like nonsense to me. Or showy, overbearing grammar.
I think it would need commas with or without hyphens. At least, with the way I intended the sentence to sound.
I don't disagree.
For what it’s worth, I was referring only to the lack of hyphens. The commas were cool with me.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, frankly, your intent is what matters.
But how it’s read is important, too. Keep in mind that I view your writing as artistic enough to make comments like these.
Making the written word read like spoken word
can really clash with grammar. When I vocalize some of your sentences, they seem great. My inner grammarian winces and wonders if that could be done better but honestly I prefer this sentence the way you composed it.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
But, that's exactly my problem.
It would be much easier for me to “vocalize” the sentence with the hyphens, regardless of the grammar. I could have read it once, instead of twice. However ugly it looks. For me, at least.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 22, 2010 12:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed,
I wouldn’t have had to read it twice either. I think once in awhile that’s okay though, even though ideally blogs are composed for quick, pop-culture-American reading.
Hah! I just did it.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
Oh, Definitely.
It’s a pretty minor point when put in context.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 22, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
You're right re: commas vs. hyphens
Personally — and this is mostly a matter of stylistic preference — I probably would have written it this way:
Not “good defense but low scoring, I judge my football by the frequency of points” bad footballbecause I think the quotes make it a little clearer, and you are effectively quoting/citing someone else’s position, if in generic terms; but your mileage may vary.
FWIW — and I did major in English and I do spend a lot of my working time writing, so I know a little about this, anyway — I think you’re quite a good writer and have a good ear for style. (And I have to agree with THolt on JB; but blogging can be the enemy of editing. You’re a remarkable exception to that.)
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I appreciate that
and both through your commenting and the content of your comments, not to mention your handle, I know that you’re an English buff.
I thought about quotes, but I am also not a fan of hypothetical quotes—to pull a phrase out of thin air.
by John Morgan on Oct 22, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
For what it's worth (probably not much), I find the quotes make it easier to read/understand the intent
I too love John’s writing, and had trouble reading the original. I had to read the sentence a few times to grok it.
Interesting.
Because a hypothetical quotes is like pulling a phrase out of thin air.
You're welcome
and thanks; and as I said, it’s a subjective thing (though fortunately not subjunctive).
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I like em dashes...
Tom Clancy influence. Parentheses seem distracting, unless you’re talking about an actual parenthetical, which my English profs hate. That’s when I just restructure.
Ahhh, yes.
Another of my faults is the overuse of the parenthetical. Perhaps that is related to my disdain for the em dash.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions
They're one and the same, really.
Just another curiosity of the English language. Or am I missing some nuance here? I use the “em-dash” as it’s apparently called for shorter interludes. Parentheses I save for the random tangential bullshit that I’m too lazy to otherwise include, yet for some reason deem important. Oh and I’m drunk.
That's funny.
I could echo every single element of your comment. Except I don’t use em-dash. And I don’t know the difference, honestly. I took the min(English) and max(math).
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that was in reference to school....
I’m pre-law, so I got my calculus out the way senior year of high school and gave math a middle finger roughly equivalent in size to the Washington Monument.
I think about the difference in how they're read
It’s not a technical difference, but the eye is trained to move quickly past a horizontal line and stop at a vertical line. Or, if not trained, it’s what we do. So a dash is used for an aside and parentheses are used to truly break something out of the text.
Again, that’s just me. I’m more a descriptive than prescriptive person.
I like the way you said that, actually.
Next time a prof gives me shit for dashes, I’m throwing that one at him/her.
Also we agreed-,…(yay!)
by THolt on Oct 21, 2010 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Random quiz since we're on the subject:
name James Joyce’s most detested punctuation mark.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Well he can chew on this ;;;;;
in his grave.
by John Morgan on Oct 22, 2010 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's a cut on his lip from where some kid from his childhood beat him up.
Read Portrait of the Artist because it was on my shelf.
Worst. Read. Ever.
I’m a former high school English teacher, have great appreciation for reading, but man I thought that was a waste of time.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 22, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I loved it, but I know that a lot of people share your view.
I must have been subjected to the tyrannies of indoctrination in a Medieval Catholicism in a past life.
By the way, you shouldn’t let that stop you from tackling Ulysses. Dedalus has a more minor role in that one.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Yeah, it's still on the list.
I didn’t wipe it after Portrait simply because I realize how significant it is lit circles. Your right, not being Catholic nor all that religious in general didn’t help either.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 22, 2010 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Oddly enough
I actually like Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, though I’m not a fan of Joyce in general.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
For a lot of women, it's the period.
I’m sure their spouses/boyfriends dislike them as well.
Agreed -- dashes move faster
which can also make them feel more urgent, and parentheses more reflective, depending on context.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions
John, I must admit that I had a difficult time following the second sentence.
I didn’t make any ‘real’ comments about it because I figured it was the fact that I was sipping on Natty Light tonight (tough admission to make). I made the comma comment because I thought you were adding lots of commas after the discussion from an earlier post. After a reread I had no trouble following the 2nd sentence, by the way.
Hyphens, sir.
I and do not mean to annoy. I thought I made it clear that I admire your writing, and that I could never do what you do, not on day-to-day basis.
Wasn't meant to seem defensive
just to distinguish the kind of criticism I find helpful and the kind that, well, I don’t.
Totally understood my man.
I’m a party boy, honestly. Grammatical discourse is an aside for me. I kind of enjoyed it. Plus in the future it’s going to make your writing that much easier for me to interpret. I love being able to sit down with a friend—during a game—and totally pwn them in arguments thanks to your little gems of knowledge.
Hyphens, yes.
Sorry, I us MS word and to Word dashes are double hyphens. I’m by no means a grammatical expert.
Fucking tiered reply system...
Sorry; hope my point was made. And to the many post above… the triple-dot is an ellipses, I believe. My God, back to football. Sorry to have started this nonsense.
Not nonsense
Indeed, one of the side reasons I love this blog is the number of commenters here who have an English-nerd side to them. (Can you imagine this sort of discussion on a Yankees blog?)
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL!
Oh, well played, sir, very well played.
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
LOVE what you did here, even if others didn't see it.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 22, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Disagree. Love the commas, love, love, love them.
I want commas, not Emily Dickenson.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 22, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
The answer:
Times in which Stephen Jackson’s groin was mentioned.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
NFL.com made this their drive of the week.
Find here:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks/09000d5d81b6ede3/Drive-of-the-Week-New-look-Seahawks
You have to listen to Bucky Brooks, but otherwise it’s pretty cool
by Badical Turbo Radness on Oct 21, 2010 6:05 PM PDT reply actions
Good stuff.
That ‘whip route’ from Butler was awesome!
Start Charlie Whitehurst. / #24 = Beast Mode! Welcome, Marshawn
Believe it should be 'concussive wave', not 'concussion wave.'
I can’t wait to see what Bradley dials up for blitzes. I hope he doesn’t revert to the ole Let’s Throw Them All Off With Dropping Everyone Into Coverage plan. I can’t stand DCs who outsmart themselves.
Do you have a good wine to go with that?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
by Cheddar28 on Oct 22, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't get it.
If you’re implying I was whining, I was only riffing on the “nothing to lose but your chains” maxim
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
You're a great writer.
The nitpicking, in my mind, is why Field Gulls is imminently more readable than Dawg Pound or some of the east coast SB Blogs. How some of those guys make editor, I’ll never know.
As long as we're nitpicking
you meant “eminently.” :)
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe you should censure yourself if you never before censored yourself on that one.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 22, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
By the way
With this game/these sacks Lawyer Milloy entered the 20/20 club. Pretty nice accomplishment.
When I had Sirius radio
I listened to the Barber bro’s show. Ronde’s goal was to be the first 30/30 guy. Looking at his career stats, it looks like he has 39 ints and 25 sacks now.
JOHN MORGAN IS A FANTASTIC WRITER, AND AN EVEN MORE ASTUTE FOOTBALL ANALYST.
Capitalization for capitalization’s sake.
The 3rd quarter was so boring
That we have over two dozen comments pertaining to John’s use of commas and hyphens.
Cardinals game can’t come soon enough.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Indeed
and on matters of hope, I hope my body can finally kill, or whatever it is that happens to viruses, this cold I thought I was over last week.
He should be fine after this thread.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude, we cured AIDS in this thread.
Africa will unite into a super-country and dominate us all. Which in all likelihood we kinda deserve.
I can't wait!
I haven’t looked forward to attending a game this much since the first game of last year. And I attend them all.
by It's Good To Be King on Oct 21, 2010 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Feel better man
I just got over a cold and I had a hell of a fever on the day of a class exam and I passed out as soon as I got home.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Hey, at least we're grammatically astute football fans.
Anyone this intelligent reading this in-depth a site has got to have something to contribute. Or I’m drunk.
I was about to ask :P
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
After this thread, I don't think anyone would blame you.
Although this was one of the most ridiculous football-related threads—if you can call it that—I’ve seen.
And no, the dashes/hyphens were NOT ironic. Back to real life.
"Culter doesn't look downfield under pressure."
Interesting & damning observation. I didn’t quite make that connection. Just watched him screw up…..And speaking of QB’s at the end of a long thread….
They say Colt McCoy stood tall and had that leadership charisma thing going on last Sunday. Could be the Walrus made a good move drafting him. A move that was criticized widely at the time. Like Houston passing on R. Bush was supposed to be such a gaffe.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Oct 21, 2010 10:44 PM PDT reply actions
Always like some more competition in the AFC North
gotta keep Pittsburgh permanently dethroned.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
In combination
with the observation that “Cutler also . . . will not pass underneath even to wide open receivers,” it gives you a strong sense that the dude’s probably doomed — because if you pressure him, what options does he have?
by The Ancient Mariner on Oct 22, 2010 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions
John, any chance we get a more indepth breakdown of this?
Just like a paragraph or so. I don’t get to rewatch the games and i’m very curious as to what exactly Seattle was doing differently and if it worked. How the coaching staff adjusts to the past can be pretty telling.
Seattle was swapping its strong side and weak side personnel in ways I have not previously seen.
I think he meant putting Hawthorne on the strongside
with Bryant. Usually it’s Curry and Bryant on one side, Hawthorne and Clemons on the other. I feel like Hawthorne’s been really quiet this season… like more-so than his linebacker brethren. Darn Herring and DBs taking snaps I suppose.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".
Its also a completely different scheme
Danny O’neil was saying that it looks like they’re using the Heater more for run defense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 22, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
That's the long and short of it
matching Hawthorne with Bryant and Herring with Bryant and putting Curry on the weak side on occasions.
by John Morgan on Oct 22, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
If the TE were to motion to the Clemons/Curry side
could you see a reason for Hawthorne/Herring to follow, showing some kind of 46 look?
by SmartAssCoug on Oct 22, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I still wish we had Hill back.
He’d be awesome depth if nothing else.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion... Over the Hawks that is. May they reach unadulterated glory and earn the metonym of "Phoenixes".

by 


































