One, Two, Three and Out
by John Morgan on Sep 15, 2010 3:48 PM PDT
Email
Print
1-10-SEA 6 (13:36) 20-J.Forsett right tackle to SEA 5 for -1 yards (90-I.Sopoaga).
Chris Spencer single blocks Aubrayo Franklin, but Franklin commands direction and position and eventually closes Justin Forsett's hole. Sean Locklear turns Isaac Sopoaga so that his back faces the right sideline. Though Sopoaga eventually escapes and tackles Forsett, Locklear does his job . Forsett needs to hit the hole. He doesn't help his blockers by picking around in the backfield. Franklin forces Forsett to move wide of the hole and into Sopoaga, but there was a hole, ever so briefly, and if Forsett were quicker to and through it, a run might have developed.
2-11-SEA 5 (13:01) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete short left to 17-M.Williams [94-J.Smith].
Bang-bang play. Matt Hasselbeck finds Mike Williams curled under Shawntae Spencer and zips it wide. Williams reaches for and slaps it away. Williams indicates afterward that he wanted the ball in, as in towards center, and it's true that would have made for a more catchable pass. But you gotta grab that, Mike. Not every reception is a gimme.
3-11-SEA 5 (12:57) (Shotgun) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass short right to 20-J.Forsett to SEA 8 for 3 yards (52-P.Willis, 98-P.Haralson).
Botched screen.
Hasselbeck looks right and then finds Justin Forsett curling underneath on the left. Problem is, Spencer, Max Unger and Mike Gibson are all way out of position. The three pull forming a vertical line of blockers wide of center. So, instead of Forsett running behind this:
Blocker-Blocker-Blocker
He is running beside this:
B
L
O
C
K
E
R
|
B
L
O
C
K
E
R
|
B
L
O
C
K
E
R
Which, I might tell you, is not how a screen is supposed to work.
Forsett evades Ray McDonald and attempts to arc right and towards and behind his blockers, but it's just too circuitous, too sloppy and 49ers swarm before the play can start.
Boos rain down from the Qwest bleachers.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wait... are there bleachers outside the Hawks Nest?
Thorough analysis as always… I have learned a lot about how football really works reading this blog. Particularly this year, I have noticed how I watch more and more of the line play from the bleachers in the Hawks Nest now that I better understand what is going on. Thanks for helping me be a more knowledgeable fan!
I would like to point out that there was a lot more BOOing coming from outside the bleachers of the Hawks Nest. And there were more than a few of the faithful in my section telling the BOOers to shut the f up, being the first quarter of the first game and all. It was one thing for the fans to lose heart and show some frustration by the end of the last couple years, but so quickly on game #1??? Out of line.
I fully recognize that the last line of this blog post wasn’t actually talking about the people in the bleachers, like me. But this just gave me a little opportunity to get a couple thoughts out on fan-dom. I recognize that as a Seattle carpet bagger and season ticket holder for a measly 7 years, that I haven’t seen the really hard times of Seahawks football (come talk to me about the Lions). That said, I was surprised at how quickly and forcefully people condemned many FO moves (and personnel that made them). There shouldn’t be a lot of sacred cows after the last couple seasons of craptastic performance. I recognize that fan-dom does not mean blind faith, but I was really surprised and actually a little ashamed of the whining going on from people that, you know, have no actual professional experience as a football coach or GM… before even seeing the first game. I know the season is not a success yet, but maybe the FO knew a little bit more than the software engineers, boat builders, and teachers on this blog? If we can be successful (8+ wins) after picking up extra draft picks for next year, I would be pretty darn happy.
Since the rest of the game went well and I’m sure the rest of the season will go absolutely positively for the rest of the season, I wanted to get this out during the last downbeat post of the year. //rant.
Go Hawks!
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 15, 2010 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
A zillion ways to respond to this...
…one of which being WHAT’S THE GODDAMN POINT OF A DISCUSSION BOARD? To sit there and go OH BOY I HEART DA HOX?
zing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Sep 16, 2010 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions
OK, so please clarify for me what we're doing here.
Since there’s obviously no discussion going on.
In form, these are comments on articles.
It sounds like a “discussion board” most of the time, but it is what it is.
by purplepansy on Sep 16, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
It's a blog. Not a discussion board or a forum.
Be careful, repeated attempts to coerce the unknowing public into calling this a “discussion board” or “forum” may result in people getting their panties in a wad.
"At the movie she's the feature, the Bremerton creature,
Ya' wear a life jacket if ya ever try and freak her"
-Sir Mix a Lot "Bremelo"
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Sep 16, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Excuse for being net-illiterate... but what the hell is the difference?
I’m not saying there isn’t one, I just don’t get it.
Yeah, me either.
But hey, here’s this:
"At the movie she's the feature, the Bremerton creature,
Ya' wear a life jacket if ya ever try and freak her"
-Sir Mix a Lot "Bremelo"
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Sep 16, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
The more I watch it, the more I'm sure Russell can defy gravity.
He seems to hang there WAY too long.
Liked your point about the boos.
Didn’t agree with you about the discussion. That’s part of why intelligent (and not) fans gather here, to both discuss and take in opinions. The proof is in the pudding, and it’s clear that no matter how many of us were mad during the offseason, partial validation (a win) of the overall movement has been satisfying. It is clear that the Seahawks have improved in certain areas, and have improvement needed in certain areas, but for at least one game looked far better than most expected.
Fans all have something in common...
They want their team to be the best they can be. Sometimes fans disagree with the way a front office goes about trying to make the best team possible. That’s where the vehement condemnation comes from. No one really knew whether this front office ACTUALLY knew what they were doing or not. Honestly, the verdict is still out.
by Bildo on Sep 15, 2010 6:26 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough
And I totally agree… I really have no idea whether it will turn out great or not just from one game. I just didn’t personally agree with BOOing in the first quarter or calling the FO a bunch of idiots that were taken as the rube’s of the NFL during the off season. I am more of a results oriented kind of guy. And there were a number of comments that essentially said, “even if it works out well in the end, it doesn’t mean the FO made smart moves.”
I often like to say that “it is better to be lucky than good” when things go my way, but I don’t say that people got lucky when things go well for them… especially when I might not have as much insight into their job as they do.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 15, 2010 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure what's so complicated about that.
The Hawks could go 12-4 and win the superbowl this year. Even so, that doesn’t automatically mean every move they made in the offseason is genius.
Trading Josh Wilson for a 5th is crap, no matter how you try and justify it.
by djafrot on Sep 15, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think he's referring to the tendency of some here to make the following argument:
1) I hate this move the FO just made because X.
2) Even though X is opinion, I declare it as fact.
3) I declare this move to be “bad process” because X is undoubtedly true.
4) Even if the Seahawks don’t noticeably suffer because of this move, the move still sucks because it’s “bad process.”
Number 1 is legitimate. It’s what message boards are for. Share your opinion.
Number 2 is obnoxious, but understandable in a passionate debate.
Number 3 is using the phrase “bad process” as an intelligent sounding phrase which replaces “wrong because I say so.” Any definition of good or bad process would obviously be debatable. Calling a move “bad process” isn’t a new reason against it, it’s just a rephrase of #1 — you disagree with it for reason X. But now you sound fancy.
Number 4 is a preemptive declaration that even if the move works out okay, you’ll still hate it and will call others stupid for pointing out that it worked out okay. Which is kind of like saying, “Even if your plan works, you’re an idiot because I didn’t like your plan in the first place.”
This line of argument tries to anoint one opinion as truth, which is clearly counter to the idea that the message board is a place for debate and discussion.
by sev79 on Sep 15, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
2) is where you argument kind of falls down
Yes, X is opinion. But X might be a well-reasoned opinion, it might not be. It might be easy to structure an argument for, it might not. It might be based on proven performance, it might not.
“Yeah, well, that’s just like, your opinion, man” as if that makes all opinions equal is an attitude that always bugs the hell out of me. If I can make a well-structured argument then hell yes, I can say it’s bad process without it meaning “wrong because I say so”.
I don’t get the point of your post. You seem to be in favour of debate and discussion yet all it does is create a gigantic strawman fallacy and then attribute rather devious motives to all these posters in #4. That’s just not false, it’s downright insulting.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2010 5:01 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Better response than I was crafting, Sev
Whether step #2 is distinct from #1, Vasilii, there was a lot of group think and momentum going in a negative direction. The movement became a self-reinforcing certainty that did not need, or encourage, analysis. The strong reaction was it’s own justification. Anyway, that is what it seemed like, but I am open to someone just saying it wasn’t so.
Step #4 was the most frustrating and disappointing to me. I am fine with having an opinion… the stronger the better. But if someone tells me, in advance, that they will never admit they were wrong just because the end results inconveniently don’t fit the initial judgment, it is pretty hard to take the "discussion" seriously.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 16, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Group-think, spin, spiral, Through the Looking Glass
Yes. I agree.
However, the base problem with Sev’s response is that it deligitimizes all arguments by default. It’s telling us “if you structure your argument to lead up to a claim of bad process, then you’re a) presenting opinion as fact and b) covering your own ass when you’re proven wrong”. That is:
- one awful big assumption to make about anyone who mentions “bad process”
- a rather facile way to simply ignore all “bad process” arguments surrounding these moves, no matter how well argued they are
Heaping all arguments thought-out or not into one big pile and then dismissing them all on a shoddy premise is no way to go around encouraging discussion.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can’t put words in Sev’s mounth, but here is my interpretation.
A process can legitimately be judged as "bad" and the decision makers to be idiots, but it is best to have results to base that on. Presupposing bad outcomes (opinion) may be helpful for shortening the timeline, but an opinion about future outcomes doesn’t "prove" that the current process is bad. Declaring that eventual positive outcomes are invalid for judging current process seems to exclude the one true measure.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 16, 2010 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Results are a good measure of process, but they are very far from definitive
In any field.
You’re also ignoring what I’m saying. It’s not about “presupposing bad outcomes” being helpful, I was talking about how it’s not fair to dismiss a wellstructured argument because “it’s just opinion”, let alone lumping all arguments together and dismissing them, nevermind how presumptuous #4 on his points list is.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I realize that by replying this late no one is likely to read this...
… but my intent was not to delegitimize any claim of bad process. Yes, you have a reason for your opinion, and if that reason is good then your opinion is sound. But “bad process” doesn’t sound like opinion, it sounds like something you could look up in a “How To Build A Successful Football Franchise” textbook and objectively use it to evaluate a FO move. But that book doesn’t exist. By itself, “bad process” just dresses up a negative opinion and makes it sound better.
What’s the difference between these two hypothetical posts:
“That move was bad.”
“That move was bad process.”
There’s no difference. At times recently, “bad process” was being thrown around every time someone didn’t like a move. Some of those instances were well supported arguments. Sometimes the entire post was “Yeah man, that moved sucked, and the worst thing is, it’s bad process.” End post. In that case, I guess we’re all just supposed to assume that the poster knows what he’s talking about, you know? Because 1) he’s said nothing specific or substantial and 2) he’s phrased that nothingness in a way that implies than anyone who disagrees doesn’t know what good process is.
For the record, I hated the Josh Wilson trade.
The problem with the #4 is that "works out okay" isn't exactly an easy conclusion to achieve.
The Seahawks could have a successful season, but that doesn’t mean every move they made was successful.
Some things are easier to figure out than others. For example, the move that bothers me the most this offseason was the trade of Wilson for a fifth rounder. No matter what Wilson does in Baltimore, he was a capable starter and certain playmaker here in Seattle that was worth far more than a fifth rounder.
Jennings could turn out to be the next Deion Sanders, Thurmond the next Antwoine Winfield… hell, Cox could be the reincarnation of Kenny Easely, and still that wouldn’t mean we got what we could have out of Josh Wilson’s trade.
The Wilson argument
1) I like Wilson.
2) He was the 2nd/3rd less sucky DB in a terribly performing corps
3) If we could have gotten a 5th/4th for Jennings, that would have been great. Unfortunately, the market (and Seahawk fans) see no trade value for Jennings. The FO obviously sees more value than others (results TBD)
4) Wilson would be a FA next year. We didn’t trade a 2nd round pick for a fifth round pick… we got a 5th/4th round pick for a guy who could never absolutely win the starting job that we could have had the pleasure of negotiating with at the end of the season.
5) People often pose the argument in terms of getting a 5th for Wilson. In reality, if we only get a 5th (not 4th) it is because he is not good enough to start on a team with an injury depleted secondary (admittedly on an otherwise very good D. In that case, we get a 5th round pick for a guy the Ravens get to use as a B/U for 1 year. If Wilson is good, we get a 4th rounder for a guy that starts for their injury depleted secondary… for 1 year. People conveniently leave this part out of the discussion.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 16, 2010 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
See? Now these are reasoned counter-arguments to an argument
See how that works much better than just dismissing it all out of hand?
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
That's valid
I really do enjoy this blog (discussion board?) and being part of it. I am happy to have participated and been part of a reasoned discussion now that things have settled down a little. Thanks for the inclusion.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 16, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I should have added this point on Wilson…
If we really really love Wilson, we have the same chance of signing him for 2011 now as we did before the trade. Looking at it that way, we got a 5th/4th for a guy that we lent to the Ravens for a year. I personally think that sticking with Jennings/Thurmond/Cox for this year is worth getting an extra pick in the 2011 draft. If we love Wilson, get him a Seahawk contract for 2011 and beyond.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Sep 16, 2010 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, and I am man enough to admit that I have this tendency.
Not always, though. I show restraint at times.
The key is, you have to know what the process is to judge it. We only see the manifestation of a presumed process. We know the ultimate goals and objectives, and we know most all strategies feasible to reaching those goals. We try to judge the process according to that criteria. But we don’t know fully the strategies chosen. We don’t know fully the detailed objectives. So we don’t know the process for certain. If it is what we think it is — and we could be right; FOs have proven to not always make good decisions or follow good process — then we can judge accordingly. But it’s a big if, and sometimes more discretion is warranted than we demonstrate as a whole.
by jacobstevens on Sep 17, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
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.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
