Tweet
As Forrest Gregg might say about today's Bear Seahawks matchup: "You saw it."
So, what did you see? You saw a gameplan that featured a reliance on the running game - counting on Lynch to play ball control and give the Seahawks third downs that were manageable. So inflexible was the gameplan and the scheme, that the Seahawks came out of the halftime, down 21-0 still running the same scheme. Of course, Seattle was also going to rely on their tight end Carlson, so once he was lost, it was a huge blow to Seattle. But this game was already lost before it started, due to the gameplan and the rigid playcaller. So what should Seattle have done? First, they should have Done a better scouting job of Chicago, and Second they should have devised a game plan to counter Chicago's strengths, and Finally they should have called plays that took advantage of their strengths versus Chicago weaknesses, not vice versa. In the Seattle game-planning sessions: "Let's see, Chicago is #2 against the run and #20 against the pass. Let's see, we won last week because our Pro Bowl QB got hot and used the pass to set up the run. Let's see, we have one guy on our roster who is an absolutely sure handed slot receiver in Stokely, and we have a guy who was a major weapon just two years ago for the Jets in Leon Washington - a guy who can catch out of the backfield and be an option for a QB under pressure. Let's see, that must mean we should run, run, our "Big RB" right at the Chicago defensive line and then throw to our slow, large WR, who is being mugged" "Oh, and once we figure out that Lynch can't run and that Williams has no interest in the game, we should keep feeding these two guys until down by four TDs late in the third quarter." So if you ever want to see what abysmal, incompetent game-planning, playcalling, and adjustments (or lack thereof) looks like, just roll out the tape of the Seahawks at Chicago.
So, what did you see? You saw a gameplan that featured a reliance on the running game - counting on Lynch to play ball control and give the Seahawks third downs that were manageable. So inflexible was the gameplan and the scheme, that the Seahawks came out of the halftime, down 21-0 still running the same scheme. Of course, Seattle was also going to rely on their tight end Carlson, so once he was lost, it was a huge blow to Seattle. But this game was already lost before it started, due to the gameplan and the rigid playcaller. So what should Seattle have done? First, they should have Done a better scouting job of Chicago, and Second they should have devised a game plan to counter Chicago's strengths, and Finally they should have called plays that took advantage of their strengths versus Chicago weaknesses, not vice versa. In the Seattle game-planning sessions: "Let's see, Chicago is #2 against the run and #20 against the pass. Let's see, we won last week because our Pro Bowl QB got hot and used the pass to set up the run. Let's see, we have one guy on our roster who is an absolutely sure handed slot receiver in Stokely, and we have a guy who was a major weapon just two years ago for the Jets in Leon Washington - a guy who can catch out of the backfield and be an option for a QB under pressure. Let's see, that must mean we should run, run, our "Big RB" right at the Chicago defensive line and then throw to our slow, large WR, who is being mugged" "Oh, and once we figure out that Lynch can't run and that Williams has no interest in the game, we should keep feeding these two guys until down by four TDs late in the third quarter." So if you ever want to see what abysmal, incompetent game-planning, playcalling, and adjustments (or lack thereof) looks like, just roll out the tape of the Seahawks at Chicago.
Comment