Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Knicks Beat Lakers With Familiar Strategy

The Road Back, Part 3: Healing the Rushing Attack

I recently fixed my internet connection after four months of spotty service. An intermittent internet connection is frustrating. It's not tragic or life-altering. It doesn't happen all at once and it's not worth complaining about, but it's frustrating. Frustration rooted in wanting something or attempting something and not truly failing but falling short. Repeatedly. The cumulative effect is angering and discouraging. Suffer enough frustration and one becomes enervated. Suffer enough frustration and one becomes stressed - and stress is a killer. So simple frustration, of little day-to-day significance and never enough at once to complain about, accumulates into something debilitating and dangerous.

Frustration is the Seahawks running game. Since 2006, Seattle has struggled to run the ball. Shaun Alexander was disastrous in 2006 and 2007, and though Julius Jones was comparatively better in 2008, much of the rest of the team began falling apart. Seattle lost Rob Sims in week one, Mike Wahle faded and eventually Wahle and Walter Jones joined Sims on IR. At no point, from 2006 through 2009, did Seattle consistently run the ball effectively.

The difference between an effective run and a poor run are slight but cumulative. Over 30 rushes, the total difference between a back that averages 4.5 yards per carry, very good, and a back that averages 3 yards per carry, very bad, is only 45 yards. 45 yards can be gained in one play. 45 yards is the equivalent of one interception. It's meaningful, but seemingly not so meaningful. What matters is how those yards are ceded: One carry at a time; one more play run from a disadvantageous down and distance; one more play you have to pass, that play-action doesn't work and that the opponent can gun for the quarterback.

In the modern game, the pass rules. If Seattle could upgrade its entire passing game with a player or a draft class, that would be preferred. That won't happen though. As high as I am on Russell Okung and Golden Tate, two rookies are not going to transform what was a terrible passing attack into a great one. Football is sometimes called the ultimate team sport, and though that's essentially sloganeering, there is something meaningful in the cliché. Two players can't fix a team, but the differences between a good team and a bad team can be very subtle. It's not always the difference between a Manning and a Carr, but instead the difference between a Kuper and a Unger, a Stroud and a Cole. Though a team can improve in leaps, it typically does so through incremental upgrades throughout the roster. There's maturation, development and better scheme fits. There are debilitating weaknesses overcome and breakout seasons.

Fixing the run is a means to an end. Fixing the run is like fixing the special teams. If the NFL grouped all its players into a pool and repopulated teams through a fantasy draft, players that contribute to the pass offense and pass defense would certainly go first. A team can't prioritize fixing the run. That's losing football. And the Seahawks haven't. Schneider's draft concentrated resources into passing and pass defense.

However, between the moves to rebuild the pass and pass defense, Seattle has quietly begun rebuilding its run game. Okung is a better run blocker than the revolving door of replacement level talent Seattle fielded in 2009. Ben Hamilton is built for Gibbs system. Chris Spencer is so close. Max Unger should grow in his second season. Sean Locklear should replace Ray Willis on the right and that's both a talent upgrade and a better scheme fit. Zone blocking will be taught by its innovator and not Mike Solari. Justin Forsett should start and receive a greater percentage of touches.

In 1983, Chuck Knox was able to build the Seahawks offense around Curt Warner and the run game. It's a very different game in 2010, but if de-emphasized, the run game still matters. Some of its value is hidden by play-action passing. Some of its value is hidden by how it facilitates and simplifies an offense for a new quarterback. Mostly though, building a good run game is about building a complete football team, squeezing value out of every possible player and leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit of fielding the best team possible. Seattle won't relive the magic of 1983 through a superstar draft pick. There is no Curt Warner on the 2010 roster, but a Seahawks team that is competent to good in every phase of the game, from kickoffs to killing the clock, can steal wins, upset better teams and maybe just maybe make a little noise in January.

Comment 34 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Football is all about getting value for your resources.

So far, Carroll and Schneider have done a decent job of that. Some early gaffes, but that draft made up for it. Can’t wait to see how it shakes out.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Jun 13, 2010 1:54 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm hoping too

He and Forsett could be a nice duo, even he comes back strong and Forsett can handle being the main guy. I don’t like the idea of trading any draft picks for someone who’s kind of good, like Lynch or whoever

by seattl on Jun 13, 2010 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he stays healthy...

…I predict that Forsett will be one of the leagues top rusher/receivers in 2010. If I am reading the tea-leaves correctly, with an improved o-line, a coach that should start the best player, an improved passing offense, a healthy Hasselbeck, then Forsett should do really really well. Even better than most Seahawk fans believe.

In the top ten, maybe top five in combined rushing/receiving, that’s my prediction.

That is, as long as he stays healthy, and as long as he gets the majority of the touches. If J Jones is still on the roster, he can be the back-up, and if Washington healthy, the change-of-pace, 3rd down back (on occasion) but Forsett should be the primary 3-down back.

by Hawksince77 on Jun 13, 2010 2:36 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Here is how it might fall out:

Forsett is currently the 31st ranked fantasy RB according to Fabiano. Here are the RBs that will gain more total yards, or about the same as Forsett, IMO:

Chris Johnson
A. Peterson
Jones-Drew
Ray Rice
Frank Gore
Jamal Charles
and maybe Felix Jones,

And that’s about it. RBs such as Turner, Mendenhall, Ryan Mathews, S. Jackson, Cedric Benson, Shonn Greene, D. Williams, Ryan Grant, J. Stewart, Beanie Wells, Moreno, Addai, Ronnie Brown, Matt Forte, Pierre Thomas, Cadilac Williams, Clinton Portis — all rated above Forsett will likely have good seasons, but they either don’t catch many balls, or share the backfield with another fine RB to gain as many as Forsett likely will. Many of these guys will score more touchdowns, making them more attractive for fantasy, but that’s not the point I am trying to make. I think Forsett has an excellent chance to finish in the top dozen or so in total yards.

by Hawksince77 on Jun 13, 2010 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sure, if he gets 300+ the carries, he might, simply because so few backs still get that many carries (just 6 in 2009)

But except for fantasy purposes, what does that matter?

I’m more interested in knowing where the Seahawks rushing attack will rank then where Force individually will rank. And any prediction of the rushing attack overall ranking top 10 would make me guffaw.

by Thomas Beekers on Jun 13, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

At second glance let me amend

If ZBS works well there’s no reason we couldn’t end up “above average”, and since average is teams #16-17, top 10 isn’t actually that inconceivable.

Inconceivable!

by Thomas Beekers on Jun 13, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Me, too. I'm almost pulling for him the most of all the lineman.

He’s got a lot to prove, and I think it’s now or never, honestly. He’s got a lot of reps and a lot of years behind him.

"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM

by Nick Andron on Jun 14, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Here's a question for you: why is Washington not considered an every-down back?

While watching him play, he always seemed to run much better than Thomas Jones in any given situation: any down and distance, between the tackles, whatever. Why can’t he play all three downs?

I really don’t know. I found it strange in any given game to watch Washington run very effectively for a series, than watch the Jets bring Jones back in, and where Washington was tearing off 5, 7 12 yard runs, Jones would plod for 3 or 4, behind the same line in the same game. Why? Was Washington tired?

by Hawksince77 on Jun 13, 2010 4:15 PM PDT reply actions  

Seems to me that Washington was pretty boom or bust.

As a lot of those little speed backs are. Thomas Jones won’t win any races, but he’ll bang it up there like no one’s business. He reminds me a lot of Terrell Davis (a lot of good, “decent” backs do, actually) in that he doesn’t appear to get caught for losses or short gains very much.

by djafrot on Jun 13, 2010 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure the problem was that Washington was not considered an every-down back

The question is more: what represents higher value for the Jets?
1. Leon Washington getting the most carries, Thomas Jones as a change-of-pace bruiser
2. Thomas Jones getting the main carries, Leon Washington to catch passes, change-of-pace, and special teams playmaker

I can definitely understand why the Jets would opt for 2, which makes the issue “is he an every-down back/better than Thomas Jones” irrelevant to them.

In our case, he’s just coming back from injury so the question won’t come up this year, I don’t think.

by Thomas Beekers on Jun 13, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Same reason Forsett isn't likely to get 80% of the carries at running back.

They’re not built for the punishment a running back takes getting 25-30 touches per game. Washington is better used as an edge weapon and change of pace where he can go sprinting past the gassed linebackers who have been banging heads against the starting running back all game. Run him between the tackles 20 times a week and you’re gonna break him.

Forsett has some physicality to his style which makes him effective but doesn’t change the fact that he’s a small dude. In collisions with bigger dudes he takes a lot of punishment, and all those hits add up.

It’s the reason teams are going to running committees — if you want your talented RB to make it through the season and be effective in the playoffs, you can’t give him the ball 30 times a game unless he’s a freaking tank or you’re fine with him diving to the turf to avoid the hit.

by sev79 on Jun 13, 2010 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Also consider Washington was their punt returner and kick returner on special teams

That alone should tire him out and limit him to a specialist role

I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus

by EequalsMc2 on Jun 13, 2010 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

How has the team attempted to improve their pass defense?

I’d say that drafting Thomas and Thurmond still leaves them at a net loss with the decisions they’ve made on the defensive line. Even if Clemons is a pass rushing upgrade over Tapp you still have Colin Cole starting, Mebane at the three and a defensive end group that consists of Jackson, Wilson and maybe Red Bryant. Losing Hill and Grant won’t help them either.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 13, 2010 8:25 PM PDT reply actions  

well

We can’t fix everything in one year, but it is clear that we have addressed it

Thomas, Thurmond, Chancellor as well as Clemons and then Davis, Foley, and all the other random “Leo” players we’ve brought in. Not to mention using Curry to attack the QB now. All of those moves are solely addressing the passing defense.

I think they’ve done what they could have for now without overspending for a mediocre stop-gap via FA or trade (so glad they didn’t do that). We still have youth that can improve and get better over time while still adding future studs…rather than declining stop gaps that eventually stiffle the team.

Can’t expect every single position to be filled in one draft/FA period (Cole, starting DE). Also Hill isn’t their fault….that’s Hill fucking up and screwing the Seahawks because he seems to be a dumbass.

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Jun 14, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's unlikely Thurmond or Chancellor will crack the starting lineup or get many reps

outside of special teams (in this upcoming season).

"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM

by Nick Andron on Jun 14, 2010 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

think long term

just because they’re young and developing and may not start doesn’t mean they weren’t brought in to address the pass defense

once again, choosing developing talent over stopgaps…I’m sure if it werent for this whole CBA fiasco, FA would have been stronger and more immediate moves may have been made. But that isn’t the way things rolled this year across the entire league (for the most part)…

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Jun 14, 2010 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Chancellor is likely going to be an in the box safety like Milloy, not exactly a force against the pass.

Clemons, Davis and Foley are replacement level specialists. As far as Cole goes they could move Mebane back to the 1 and play Bryant at the 3 but they’re instead going to run with the same run stuffing line that Mora used last year, except instead of Redding it’s going to be Bryant and Wilson at end. It’s not like upgrading over Cole to allow Mebane to go back to his natural position would have been hard.

Hill’s not their fault at all but losing him could still hurt the pass D.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 14, 2010 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'd still like us to get another back instead of Jones.

Someone that won’t demand a lot of touches or come overpriced. Someone like Fargas. I’ve just lost trust in Jones. He is a mediocre back at best. Unless his role is diminshed to mop up duty, I think we can find someone better.

by FisteeFisterer on Jun 14, 2010 2:27 AM PDT reply actions  

for the Raiders

He had a +1000 yard season. He looks like he’s a good zone back too. Once he started splitting time I believe the Raiders opted to go with speed and youth. I’d favor him with Washington and Force over Jones. I think he’s faster than Jones too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Jun 14, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can't speak to Fargas' ability as a zone back.

But he hasn’t averaged over 4 yards a carry since 2007. And he hasn’t caught many balls, so I wonder about his versatility.

Others here have talked about him as a potential “big” back, maybe this could be his role.

by djafrot on Jun 14, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

The success of the teams rushing attack has little to do with how we use our current RBs

My point is that we have enough talent in the backfield to be average to above average running the ball this year. Three RBs with different styles, but all who have proven successful in the past. The only question is the line. It appears that our OL will be improved based on personnel and on scheme. If that holds, we will be average to above average running the ball. Its hard to say better than that because we still have a rookie LT who will make mistakes and some undersize issues which will depend on the scheme to make up for. If the horses up front get it done, any of the three RBs will look good.

by stufr on Jun 14, 2010 3:50 AM PDT reply actions  

agreed,

The line is the determining factor. I just like the way Fargas hits the hole, and the fact that he’s gotten less carries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI

Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!

by jubelthebear on Jun 14, 2010 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

RB by committee is PC's MO

Trying to figure out how the percentage of carries will get split up is pointless. He with the hot hand will get the rock.

by hazbro24 on Jun 14, 2010 10:31 AM PDT reply actions  

Upgrading the running game

is one way that Seattle seems committed to doing some (relatively) low cost (potentially) high-yield things.

Another, that involves Washington interestingly, is upgrading the return teams. Good return teams set up the run game with field position. When you’re starting every drive from your own 20 yard line you’re practically already in passing downs on 1st and 10. Washington and (hopefully) Stanback are players who were presumably targeted to help with that.

I must say that my impression of the front office is pretty good so far. Their developing modus operandi is to place a premium on upgrades at the roster’s margins that are low cost. They’re really thinking carefully about 3rd/4th string players at each position, and how they add value. They’re also thinking through where they should add veterans at the tail ends of their primes, and at what cost.

And although they’re not addressing the biggest roster issues just yet (i.e., the futures of Hill and the QB position long-term), the Whitehurst deal at least demonstrates that they know where they’ll need to spend if not for whom.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Jun 14, 2010 11:01 AM PDT reply actions  

Field position affecting run/pass mix

I’m not sure that starting with poor field position (say, within a team’s own 20 yard line) militates in favor of passing. If anything, I would think it would tilt things in favor of the run because turnovers are less likely on runs than passes and the team would be concerned about giving up a pick-6 or an interception leading to very good field position for the intercepting team. I recall Holmgren talking about how he was much more conservative toward his end of the field for that reason.

I think it is probably true that poor field position probably leads to worse outcomes for rushing attempts. That would be because the defense could rely upon conservative playcalling by the offense, shading the defenders toward the line of scrimmage.

But then, none of this is based upon anything other than anecdotal observations.

by jeager on Jun 14, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

If you have more yards,

then you can run more often in a drive if you’re looking to kill the clock or just rack up ToP.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Jun 14, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows

Recent FanPosts

8b0726ecf3b3e299b1fbdfefb4ec9922_small
Interview with TE, John Nalbone from ProInterviews
Photo_on_2011-10-14_at_23
Jim Harbaugh Vs. Pete Carroll
Small
Nation Wide Mock Draft
Small
Could Dre Kirkpatrick be the key to our 2012 draft?
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
Seahawks QB Situation: Not a Defense for Tarvaris Jackson
Small
Team Needs - The National Perception of Seattle
Small
2012 Mock Draft, Version 1.0
Walshrun_small
Super Bowl XLVI Reaction: New England Patriots
Small
My Friend has a Friend who works for Nike...
208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Easleystreet2_small ChadDavis45

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill