Examining the Seahawks' First-Half Run Game

by Davis Hsu on Oct 5, 2011 8:49 AM PDT in Seahawks Game Analysis

A lot of criticism has been leveled at the Seahawks run game, currently ranked 31st in the NFL after four weeks.
Did the Seahawks truly have a chance to run versus Atlanta? I examine below:

DRIVE 1 (1st Quarter)
Seahawks receive the ball and open at their own 20 with a 7-yard completion to Michael Robinson on 1st and 10. On 2nd and 3 they, of course, run the ball with Lynch for a 1-yard gain.

On 3rd and 2 the Seahawks bootleg Tarvaris Jackson - sprint right - and no one is open so Tarvaris throws it away. Punt.

So, one failed run so far.

DRIVE 2 (1st Quarter)
Seahawks Defense just surrendered a twleve-play, 72 yard, 7:40 minute drive where they gave up two 3rd and 1 conversions early. Seahawks trail 7-0.

The Hawks start on 1st and 10 with a 23-yard completion to Sidney Rice. On the subsequent 1st and 10 Tarvaris fires incomplete to Mike Williams. On 2nd and 15, following a penalty, Tarvaris fires complete to BMW for 11 yards.

It's now 3rd and 4. Is Seattle really going to run here? I think not. Tarvaris scrambles for 3 yards. Punt. I have no problem with opening up this drive firing to Sidney and BMW, personally.

DRIVE 3 (2nd Quarter)
Seattle still trails 7-0 early in the 2Q when they receive a punt and start a drive on their own 11-yard line. Atlanta just ripped off an eight-play drive to nowhere and ate up 4:39 off the clock.

You are backed up on your goal line. What do most teams do? They run. And the defense knows it.

Lynch runs on 1st and 10 for 2 yards but gets a 15 yard facemask penalty. Play doesn't count but the chains move.

Lynch runs again on 1st and 10, this time from the 28-yard line and Lynch get's stuffed for -3 yards. Not good.

So, two failed runs so far.

Seattle gets an interference penalty on Grimes on 2nd and 13 and gets a first down. On 1st and 10 they run a failed toss to Zach Miller for 1 yard. Now, are you going to run here on 2nd and 9? Nope. They pass to Ben Obomanu for 5 yards. On 3rd and 4 are they going to run? No.

But then Tarvaris throws behind BMW for an interception.

DRIVE 4 (2nd Quarter)
Seahawks now trail 14-0 after the turnover and bad run defense.

They still open with a run on 1st and 10 from their own 16 yard line. Lynch gets stuffed for a 2 yard gain. Three failed runs. (Designed runs are now: 1 yard, 2 yards (penalty), -3 yards, 2 yards. Yeesh.)

On 2nd and 8, Tarvaris fires complete to Doug Baldwin before Doug gets blown up. Was he really supposed to run on 2nd and 8? On 3rd and 8 Tarvaris throws, of course, and hits Doug for a 30 yard gain. Huge play. Next play is the go route to Sidney for the 52 yard TD on the offsides.

DRIVE 5 (2nd Quarter)
Now the Seahawks trail 21-7 after the defense gives up an eleven-play, 5:58 minute, 72 yard drive. Sigh.

Seahawks open with 2:48 left on the clock down two touchdowns on their own 17-yard line. Are you going to run here? I wouldn't.

They fire incomplete on 1st and 10 and then on 2nd and 10 fire complete to Sidney Rice for 4 yards. On 3rd and 6 are you going to run? No. Tarvaris fires incomplete to Justin Forsett. Punt.

"DRIVE 6 (2nd Quarter)"
Seahawks receive the ball on their 23-yard line down 24-7 with 0:25 before halftime and they run the ball for no gain. Does that really count as a run?

Sure, the Seahawks need to be more successful running the ball in the first half, -- especially on 1-10,-- but in this game they really didn't have a chance because they were trailing and finding some success with the pass. The O-line is finding itself in very predictable running situations, without a lead nor good field position -- it makes running difficult.

More on the 2nd half later.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

They need to be a pass first mentality

Pass, pass, pass, pass, pass (repeat a few more times)
Now that they don’t have 8 in the box anymore, now run. We ALWAYS run when they think we will, and that’s why we can’t.
We need to erase the predictable play calling.

Side note. Baldwin is un0coverable. So shifty getting off the line he makes everyone look silly

by sluggo on Oct 5, 2011 9:09 AM PDT reply actions

Speaking of Baldwin

Did the Falcons DB get a fine yet for his clear helmet to helmet hit on Baldwin?

by dudeitscool on Oct 5, 2011 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions

No word yet.

I actually posted on Sando’s facebook page about it. Should hear tomorrow or Friday

Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"

by Bobby Cink on Oct 5, 2011 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Speaking of fist half runs,

that first drive was the most frustrating of the game for me. 3rd and 2 and on the play TJ rolls right and is around the LOS when he throws it out of bounds.

With one man to beat between him and the first down marker. I couldn’t understand that one. Mobile QB and an easy first down run in front of him and he chucks it out of bounds.

I was worried that was how he would play the whole game, but thank god he got better.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Oct 5, 2011 9:09 AM PDT reply actions

fist half runs?

Gross!

I respect your opinion even though it's wrong.

by SSreporters on Oct 5, 2011 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

You saw it too?

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Oct 5, 2011 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions

Lynch needs his carries reduced

Seattle runs much better when the carries are split.

Forsett is invisible and Leon gets no more than two touches on offense, which as usual are highly productive.

if Bevell can’t get through his head that Lynch isn’t Adrian Peterson then this run game will continue to stay in 31st.

I respect your opinion even though it's wrong.

by SSreporters on Oct 5, 2011 9:33 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Lynch is angeringly slow acceleration wise

In this style of zone blocking or one cut, he hits the line so slow that the holes are either closed or start to close and he doesn’t do much against good tackling teams because he has zero shiftiness or speed.

by dudeitscool on Oct 5, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

It's definitely a style that requires excellent, efficient run blocking.

One unblocked guy and BAM, he’s toast in the backfield. Forsett and Washington can make up for that in quickness.

by djafrot on Oct 5, 2011 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Really couldn't think of anywhere else to post this.

Apologies. I was wondering if a tutorial on getting screen caps may not be a good idea. This is one of the more educated readerships I’ve seen on a blog, and there’s so much material (like this post, a reaction to a reaction) from any one game that I, for one, wanna get in on the action with fanposts.

Again, sorry for the off-topic post.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Oct 5, 2011 9:39 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

More on-topic: what was the Falcons front seven giving us?

Wouldn’t that more dictate if we really had the opportunity to run? I mean, you gotta call the dives to set up play-action, even if they’re stacking eight, especially in the first half. To me, going to the run even when it’s not working is the mark of a smart coach, provided he does so for a reason, of course.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Oct 5, 2011 9:42 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

Running Game Analysis

This is a good list of the plays, but doesn’t really give much insight into why our first half running plays failed.

The comments are true that we are running on predictable downs – short yardage and 1st and 10. Of our 13 planned running plays, ten were on 1st and 10 or 1st and goal. Interestingly, we didn’t use a halfback on any planned run play. That said, we mixed up the blocking schemes and directions.

For a detailed analysis, read this post: http://www.nwsportstalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3266&sid=e4551e2155d2dbf6a98004d528fa7bc8

by Jon Fairhurst on Oct 5, 2011 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

I'm not sure it was meant to explain.

I think he was looking more deeply into the stats informing a popular sentiment, i.e. that we tried to run but failed miserably.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Oct 5, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

Running Game Analysis (cont.)

…of the five planned running plays, our line had failures on two. On one, McQuistan got turned and the DT got to Lynch. Didn’t make a huge difference, as a free LB was unmatched and waiting at the line, but Lynch probalby would have had another two yards, and might have broken the LB’s tackle attempt.

On another, we tried to run to the right end with the line stringing the defense along. Our wall was breached, however, and an LB came through to get Lynch in the backfield. I fault the inexperience of our line more than any individual player. This is a blocking scheme that demands coordinated teamwork.

On the other three runs, credit the D. They simply had more defenders than we had blockers at the point of attack. Can’t blame the players when they’re all blocking well, but a couple more defenders are uncontested in the lane.

In the second half, we ran well (4.4 ypc) but only got eight touches, coming from behind.

by Jon Fairhurst on Oct 5, 2011 9:56 AM PDT reply actions

Why is it that ZB schemes are so hard to learn?

I get that it requires some quick decision making, but it’s not the entire defense you have to read. Is it that the line has to think as one? Meaning they all have to make the SAME right decision.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Oct 5, 2011 12:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Those runs to nowhere are hard to watch.

But they need the reps. It’s how they will learn & this young line will learn. With patience & practice they will be very good. GO SEAHAWKS!!!

by Richard fg7 on Oct 5, 2011 10:01 AM PDT reply actions

This was a bit of a tough game to grade because the team went down early and the running game didn't get any of those late-game 7 yard gains off of exhausted defenses that good teams often get.

I kind of agree that I’d prefer to see Lynch rotated out early and often instead of later on in the game. This has its issues as well (chiefly, that the line is pretty young and has to block differently for Forsett and Washington) but I think Lynch is more effective in a #1 back in a committee situation than as a featured back.

Also, hate to sound like a broken record on this, but the old paradigm of using the run to set up the pass has been completely reversed in the modern game. You pass to set up the run: complete balls over the heads of safeties a few times and you compell them to drop out of the box on early downs, finding receivers downfield on run blitzes prevents teams from calling those plays in the future, and so on. There’s still a bit of feedback going back the other way but I think the balance of power has firmly moved in the direction of the pass, especially this season.

Sunday was the first time all season – really, just about the first time in the last 3-4 years – that the passing game looked like something teams actually need to game-plan against. Hopefully that has a positive effect on Lynch and company over the next few weeks (maybe not precisely vs the Giants, as I think their front 4 will, sadly, wreak havoc with Seattle’s young line, but later, after the bye).

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Oct 5, 2011 10:39 AM PDT reply actions

The "pass to set up the run" thing is a little too sweeping.

Good teams with good QBs do that way more consistently than the rest of the pack, I’d wager. It’s more situational for lesser teams. Granted this just an impression.

Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.

by THolt on Oct 5, 2011 1:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

True that it's more to the point that they both set up each other.

However, even mediocre teams’ offenses will live and die a good chunk of the time by how efficient their passing offense is, and this holds up for pretty much everyone but teams with truly elite backs (and even then, I think, in those specific years in which the RBs are at that truly elite level).

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Oct 5, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Choice of running plays

Has anyone noticed the amount of stretch plays we run and what are success rate is on those runs? I wonder if the Seahawks would be better served to run in-between the tackles with Marshawn until our run game improves. I notice our blocking isn’t as efficient on those particular plays.

by Nicoya on Oct 5, 2011 10:55 AM PDT via mobile reply actions

Lack of audibles

Wether this is on Bevell or Tjax it does not seem that we ever audible out of a doomed play. If the D is showing more men in the box then we can block you should change to a quick hitting pass play.

by eohawkfan on Oct 5, 2011 4:25 PM PDT reply actions

That might be the downside of not letting TJax audible much in preseason.

My guess is that the young O-line in particular is just not familiar enough with the audibles to ensure that audibling into a quick pass or a screen doesn’t turn into audibling into a broken play. Also, remember that our previous QB was one of the best in the game at audibling into a good matchup.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Oct 5, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

whats with all the hate towards lynch

he gets hit in the backfield alot. if its our other rb’s they will mostly like get negative yards per run instead of positive gains

by genax on Oct 6, 2011 1:12 AM PDT reply actions

What makes you say that?

Forsett and Washington are both quicker to the hole and shiftier by far, so it’s at least equally as likely they get more out of it than Lynch does.

Afterall if you look at YPC Forsett and Washington both have had higher ypc than Lynch pretty much every game, and all year last year.

You can argue scheme, and usage or whatever is affecting negatively Lynch’s YPC, but there’s no way to prove that, certainly no way to prove Forsett and or Washington would do even worse.

IMO they are both better RB’s, and both would do better. (Just my opinion, and unproveable of course).

by fargomonkey on Oct 6, 2011 6:23 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

Additionally, Forsett is just as hard to tackle as Lynch.

by bewrong on Oct 6, 2011 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions

Forsett and Washington also carry the ball far, far less per game.

Teams match up against Lynch. They don’t necessarily match up against Forsett and Washington. The word on Lynch is that it takes a little while for him to build up a head of steam so if you can run blitz on him you can slow him down enough to give the secondary and weakside players enough time to get over and make a play on him. That attack plays right into the hands of Forsett/Washington, but if you started one of those two it wouldn’t be long before teams realized that they best gameplan would be to read and react, knowing that it only takes one guy in space to make a play on one of those guys.

I am all for a RB by committee approach but looking at nothing but yards per carry to justify it or for that matter justifying starting Forsett/Washington over Lynch is just not wise.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Oct 6, 2011 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Lynch also has the characteristics of an old-school lead back

He often talks about getting a feel for the game and what the defense does and wears them out by the 4th quarter. You see it in hard-hitting types like AP and Hillis, when they get a lot of carries, they get stronger as the game goes along. I think the idea is that Lynch is far more valuable when we have a lead, which is something Leon and Force don’t provide.

Unfortunately, we don’t often play with a lead.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Oct 6, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions