What's Wrong With John Carlson, Part 2
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2010 5:30 PM PDT
Email
PrintThrough 25 targets and 13 receptions, I have the plays broken down into four buckets. 13 passes, no player is at fault. These are the receptions. Eight passes, Matt Hasselbeck is at fault. Three passes, fault is undefined. These are the route confusion passes. I didn't include Hasselbeck's wide open miss against the 49ers because even if we assume some level of route confusion, missing a wide open receiver in the middle of the field still strikes me as a mistake by the quarterback. Matt isn't a machine, he can adjust his target. And only one pass -- the drop on a pass thrown against his momentum, justifiably so, into a tight window and above a fallen defender -- can I truly blame on Carlson.
That would certainly imply nothing is wrong with John Carlson, but let's look at the final 14 targets.
St. Louis
1. Carlson aligns in the right slot, tight, and runs a slant. Hasselbeck throws to avoid a sack by James Hall. The pass is near Mike Williams feet but is marked as targeting Carlson. This is an erroneous stat.
2. Carlson motions in from left tight end and then out to the left slot. He runs an in-breaking pattern but Hasselbeck throws it wide left and out of the end zone. Na'il Diggs is called for illegal contact on Carlson.
3. Carlson motions from tight right to the left slot and then runs an out. Hasselbeck throws it left but the ball is tipped at the line by Eugene Sims and sails high and to corner Bradley Fletcher, who intercepts it and runs it back to the Seattle three.
4. Carlson is split out in the left slot. He runs a 15 yard curl and receives for 15.
Chicago
1. Carlson runs a crossing pattern from left tight end towards the right and receives and makes a shoestring catch before falling backwards and being touched down for 14. Hasselbeck boots right and tosses the underthrown pass under pressure.
2. Carlson runs a ten yard curl from right tight end. The pass flies wide right and Brian Urlacher slaps it down attempting to intercept it.
3. From right tight end, Carlson crosses over the middle and settles down in the soft spot of the zone, a china pattern. He catches and turns up field but is tackled short of the first. The play results in a seven yard gain on third and nine.
4. Carlson runs a deep cross from right tight end. Matt throws a perfect pass but Carlson drops it. That's his final target of the game.
Arizona
1. Carlson runs a short curl from left tight end. He's covered. Hasselbeck throws the pass to the turf, incomplete. I think this pass slipped out of Matt's hand.
2. Carlson starts in trips on the left. He runs behind the line and towards the right flat. This is another ill-fated roll out. Clark Hagans pressures Hasselbeck into a very low pass towards Carlson's feet. He attempts to scoop it but Adrian Wilson tips it away. Speaking of scoops, I don't think the roll outs are working, Jeremy Bates. Feel free to take note of that sometime this season.
3. Carlson runs a drag route from left tight end and receives in front of Daryl Washington for, wait on it, three yards.
4. Carlson runs a speed out from trips right. Hasselbeck pumps and pumps until he's under pressure and finally throws it away towards Carlson's feet.
5. Carlson runs a 15 yard out from right tight end. Hasselbeck hits him as he breaks, but the pass is wide right, not terribly, but wide right and into double cover. It's possible it's also early, because Carlson just stabs a hand at it, kind of like "what the hell?" Rashad Johnson pops him after the pass falls incomplete.
6. Carlson runs a curl from right tight end and shields Wilson out of coverage. Hasselbeck is hit by Alan Branch as he releases and the ball skips in front of Carlson's feet. He's visibly frustrated. And he should be. Before the skipped pass, Hasselbeck cocks and looks down Carlson before pulling down and restarting his throwing motion. The delay allows Branch to fight in and hit Hasselbeck.
40 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Without getting into the Inceptive Limbo that is questioning the extent that the QB and Receiver make each other,
we’ve definitely seen some strong examples recently where a QB’s preference makes and breaks a receiver. I have thought for a couple years now that Hasselbeck seems substantially more picky (for lack of a better term) about his receivers than most QBs. Chemistry is questionable as an impactful team dynamic, almost always. But whoever is at fault, here (I know the common denominator is Hasselbeck but that makes nothing conclusive), a lack of chemistry development has been repeatedly damaging (Branch, Housh, Carlson? “The screen,” initially Mike Williams, and I contend Jordan Kent’s development was stunted by it) in a way that I’ve never seen elsewhere.
When I say strong examples recently,
I mean the “control group” validation that comes from the likes of Sidney Rice/Bernard Berrian, Branch with Brady vs. here, the Colts with Garçon and then Collie, and so on.
by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2010 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Are we talking about the same Jordan Kent
that played 2 years of organized football before entering the NFL as a late 6th-round pick? Its Matt’s fault that he’s not playing in the NFL now?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
How could you ever know if a player's development was stunted?
And what could a quarterback do that would stunt a WR’s development?
Jordan Kent was a gamble of a project pick. The fact that he’s not currently employed by an NFL team isn’t surprising. Blaming it on one of the QBs he played with is pretty confusing.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
He think Kent's development was stunted because Hasselbeck didn't trust him and so didn't pass towards him.
It’s speculation to be sure, but it’s logical speculation.
Where's the logic?
If I sacrifice a goat and the sun sets a few hours later, am I responsible for making the sun set? Is it logical to speculate that I am?
Kent was a late-round project player and found it difficult to find a starting job for a team desperate for WR help in 2008. He was cut and then signed by another team desperate for WR help (the Rams). He still isn’t a starter.
Matt played 7 games in 2008 and Jordan played 9. How can you have a rational expectation that Matt’s play hurt Jordan? Its just a giant leap of speculation.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
The logic is that Matt didn't trust Kent and that cost Kent opportunities early in his career and stunted his development.
The argument that Kent sucks is neither here nor there. Even if Kent could not have developed into a good player under any conditions, it doesn’t change the argument that if Hasselbeck didn’t trust Kent and so didn’t target him early, at a critical point in his development, it might have stunted Kent’s development.
Just because a thing is possible doesn't mean its likely.
jacobstevens said:
I contend Jordan Kent’s development was stunted by [a lack of chemistry]
Apparently, you’re taking exception (or disagreeing or playing Devil’s advocate) to my natural skepticism of that statement. I suggested a number of reasons why this statement is incredibly unlikely. You’re suggesting its a possibility. I think we’re both right.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Your original response was
Are we talking about the same Jordan Kent
that played 2 years of organized football before entering the NFL as a late 6th-round pick? Its Matt’s fault that he’s not playing in the NFL now?
and I pointed out that this was non sequitur, because he never argued anything to the point that Matt was at fault for Kent’s eventual exit from the league, only that Matt’s lack of trust could have stunted his development. You can say you are skeptical that Kent could ever develop, which is what you did say, but that doesn’t really have any bearing on whether Hasselbeck’s inability to develop chemistry with Kent, or, his speculated inability, would damage Kent’s development. Obviously, the assertion that Kent could not develop is equally speculative, but, again, not the point.
You are talking about Kent, when the comment is about Hasselbeck. Latching on to Kent, when the comment is almost entirely not about Kent, is chasing a red herring in lieu of actually arguing the point, that maybe Hasselbeck struggles to develop trust with new receivers.
by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2010 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I certainly agree that Matt may struggle to develop trust with new receivers
I tried to make that point several times in another post. I never tried to argue that because I agree with it. The question is: What kind of receiver can Matt build rapport with easily? I think his success with Stokely suggests that he may have an easier time with veteran WRs with precise route-running. He may also build rapport with players he has a longer time to work with (such as Nate, who took a few years to catch on).
On Kent: I never said he couldn’t develop. Not once.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
But to even make that claim...
Hasselbeck and Kent had to be on the field together. And I question how much that actually happened (if at all) in 2008. Kent’s Wikipedia page (which may be inaccurate) states that Kent “lined up as a receiver against Miami in week 10.” Hasselbeck didn’t play in that game, and he may not have been active for any other games (if there were any) that Kent got snaps at WR in. Maybe one of you can refresh my memory as to how much time Kent saw the field at WR. I honestly don’t remember.
The only non-special teams memory I have of the vaunted Hasselbeck to Kent connection is Hasselbeck throwing a TD to Kent in a preseason game against the Chargers. And then Hasselbeck hobbled off of the field with “back spasms.”
Unless I’m dead wrong about the number of snaps that Kent had on offense, saying that Hasselbeck stunted Kent’s development is just as ridiculous as saying that Hasselbeck is ruining Jameson Konz’s development.
Maybe so.
I think he was actually targeted 5 times against Buffalo, or maybe between the Buffalo game & the 2nd game (SF? This is all by memory), notching 0 catches in 5 targets. The offense was a mess, we thought we could develop some 6th & 7th round guys for a couple weeks while waiting for Branch & Engram to return, Obomanu was already out, and I think Burleson went down in the 2nd or 3rd game.
Anyway, Kent looked beyond lost against Buffalo. In no way would I not hold the player responsible for his own development or his own performance. I can recognize that he didn’t necessarily deserve volume, in snaps or targets, in games or in practice. They gave up on him, but brought him back next offseason. He was given targets, like Obo & Taylor were, in the offseason, to see what the team had in these guys. He did well. Gametime, he did poorly and was looked to no further.
Now that I break it down, I’m willing to back off it somewhat. I think maybe the team gave up on him too early. Circumstantially they had to. But that indicates what poor personnel response they had re: the WR situation to begin with. More the team than Hasselbeck. But it looked familiar: new/relatively new wideout on the team, and with some lack of success early, seeming distrust onward.
by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
No because you haven't sacrificed a goat on any other day that you were alive and the sun still set
ridiculous does not make an argument. Its just ridiculous
What exactly are you agreeing with?
How did Hasselbeck stunt the development of project player like Kent? Kent spent his first year on the practice squad and his one stint on the active roster coincided with Hasselbeck’s injury plagued 7 game season.
This guy knows what I'm talking about
Heh? Heh? High-five.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
That's still not a logical response to his comment.
If I said, if you don’t teach a kid to read, it might stunt his development, a counter can not be, well the kid’s just stupid.
Kent certainly did suck, but Hasselbeck could have still played a part in stunting his development. Maybe, with a more trusting quarterback, Kent could have sucked less.
And, frankly, I am not even in agreement with this notion, but the level of distortion and piling on bothers me. It’s as if people saw the name “Jordan Kent” and their brains started to malfunction.
For a more constructive criticism
How often does the 1st string QB even matter in the case of a developmental WR? Isn’t it more likely that he would be working more with the 2nd and 3rd stringers?
It’s understandable that he could have had his growth stunted a bit, but in the case of Kent, it seems more likely he simply wasn’t developed enough to deserve chances on the field. Hard to attribute his lack of playing time to Hasselbeck. It seems logical that his lack of playing time would make Hass shy away, sure, but that any less true of any other young unknown receiver?
It seems to me (via my Jordan Kent=sucky comment) that Kent just didn’t make the best of the few chances he got. Some of that may be placed on Hass, but I’d bet it tells more about Kent.
And to clarify, I absolutely agree with that I think Hass is damn picky.
It seems like he latches onto one guy and has trouble focusing on anybody else. BMW seems to be latest example, going on a tear since Branch has gone. Carlson seemed to be the clear beneficiary two years ago. Now he seems to be an afterthought.
It does seem that Hasselbeck’s preferences have had a meaningful impact on the receivers he trusts and doesn’t trust. I don’t know what to do with that point exactly but it does seem to be in pointing to the fact that chemistry and Hass have played a larger role to Carlson’s decline than Carlson has.
That's a valid point.
I’m with everyone else in Kent being the main factor in Kent not working out. I don’t really want to try and quantify to whatextent any other factor might have had an impact. The Hasselbeck angle is pure speculation. Only for the purpose of considering a separate point. Which I see you get.
I will say, on the point of what makes a prospect bust or not work out, I think Doug Farrar said it best when he wrote that we’ve seen time and again that players come into the league to learn they “got the right key baby but the wrong key hole” (Doug quoted Aerosmith). They might have the tools or the skills or the brain, or all 3, and it might not work out. 32 teams in constant flux with varying approaches to personnel, coaching, scheme and so on, can’t be consistently successful in developing players.
So, to an extent, it’s never NOT at least partially the fault of the player. Teams can do a disservice to their prospects. And have. Still can’t say if Kent is one of those cases, but that is the context of understanding that I came from in considering whether Hasselbeck’s tendencies played a role.
by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2010 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Carlson did well until BMW emerged
First three games:
Carlson – 13 catches, 145 yards
BMW – 7 catches, 106 yards
Last three games (mostly the last two, nobody did well against STL):
Carlson – 4 catches, 39 yards
BMW – 25 catches, 242
I think this shift has led to better play by Hass as he’s avoided throwing picks in the last two games. Early on, quite a few targets to Carlson resulted in picks.
The arrival of Lynch also has meant the team has more weapons, hence less focus on Carlson.
The tipped passes at the line are on the OL
They need to hit the DL low to keep them from getting their hands up on a regular basis (as they did in the Rams game).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 27, 2010 6:31 PM PDT reply actions
I'm starting to develop quite the bias, but it seems pretty clear where the majority of the problem lies.
When a guy is missing on bubble screens to Butler and missing or double-clutching dumpoffs, that looks pretty bad.
I'll admit I want a change at QB
But I do love Hasselbeck’s willingness to put his best foot forward. He cares, and plays his ass off. I hate being critical of him, for I’d love my son to grow up and be like him.
That being said, I cannot wait to watch someone else try to lead a 3 and out for Seattle.
I invite everyone to re-watch the Arizona game. Hasselbeck is brutal. 5 turnovers and 22 points total. Two drives in the red zone with negative yardage. Brutal. 30 yards with two minutes left in the second quarter. Brutal.
Watching Seattle’s offense get credit for wins they played no part in. Brutal.
It is what it is...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
