OP
OP
SomersetHawk
New member
Chawks1":qq3bd8jo said:
Where are you getting this info from? NFL, ESPN and Seahawks.com all have it as one fumble.
Rewatched the game... a few thoughts
- Thread starter SomersetHawk
- Start date
Where are you getting this info from? NFL, ESPN and Seahawks.com all have it as one fumble.
Tical21":1ndv71x3 said:
I was going to ask folks that had the All 22 if Michael was still carrying the ball in his right hand exclusively. It's funny, Tical, but I noticed on that Beast Quake run just how damned fast and fluidly he switched the ball to his offhand. You miss it in real time the first time through.
Pete's huge on turn overs. Carrying the ball in one hand all the time is a recipe for disaster (there was a player that did that this weekend and it was called out why he fumbled it....can't remember the game). I'm guessing this is one of the biggest reasons he hasn't seen playing time.
DavidSeven
New member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,742
- Reaction score
- 0
As Tical noted, Michael got the ball punched out because he failed to switch the ball away from the defense. His inability to switch hands has been brought up by the coaching staff. It's a fundamental aspect of ball security. Even Russell Wilson is able to do it. Michael also put the ball on the ground a couple times during the preseason.
Didn't see it mentioned, but I thought Turbin ran just as well as Michael, if not better. There was actually a point in that game where it seemed like Turbin would be better option against Arizona than the ailing Lynch.
Didn't see it mentioned, but I thought Turbin ran just as well as Michael, if not better. There was actually a point in that game where it seemed like Turbin would be better option against Arizona than the ailing Lynch.
Ozzy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 9,301
- Reaction score
- 3,824
I agree Turbin ran very well and probably better than Michael(against AA). Some of that might of been a result of what was given to them but for this game I would be ok saying Turbin ran better. Michael is much more talented to me and I love his movement but Turbin looked fantastic too. Still don't love his ability to absorb contact and get positive yards from it but he did a better job against AZ. It will never be a strength of his though.
Turbin gets north and south faster than Michael does. He's never going to be Lynch, but lately he's trucking the first defender and at least getting extra yards after contact.
As for RIchardson, like others have said, the explosion will come as the game slows down. When he doesn't have to think about what the right route is, what the defense is doing, how deep/fast to run the route, then he will play a ton faster. It's typical of guys on defense: when the can just react and not think, they play faster.
I've never plyaed WR, but playing LBer, sometimes our coach made us run simple routes to not only get a better understand of what the offensive player does, but also to get used to breaking on the ball, getting timing down and actually catching the ball.
It's amazing what WRs have to do to be truly good. You have to know what route, in what situation to run, as it will change depending on what the defense shows you. You have to know how deep certain routes go, and whether to option out of it based on what (if any) zone look the defense is getting to you. Imagine running a 10 yard out (breaking towards the sidelines). You have to have your footwork down exactly: on that 12th step (or whatever your stride is) you need to be on your left foot (if on the right side of the offense and breaking right) so you can explode into that break. If you get wrong footed, you have to stutter step it, run an extra stride, or otherwise change that route. This causes you to slow down to think about what you need to do. Stutter stepping is a tell that good defenders will read.
Baldwin is such an underrated WR because of this. He's explosive out of his breaks, even though he isn't that fast, and it gets him open. He has those routes DOWN exactly, and it shows. Stevie Johnson, when he was giving Sherm and Revis trouble in Buffalo, is the exact same way.
Add all this in to WIlson's scrambling ability, and you have a lot to learn. Richardson will be fine. IMO he's ahead of the curve.
As for RIchardson, like others have said, the explosion will come as the game slows down. When he doesn't have to think about what the right route is, what the defense is doing, how deep/fast to run the route, then he will play a ton faster. It's typical of guys on defense: when the can just react and not think, they play faster.
I've never plyaed WR, but playing LBer, sometimes our coach made us run simple routes to not only get a better understand of what the offensive player does, but also to get used to breaking on the ball, getting timing down and actually catching the ball.
It's amazing what WRs have to do to be truly good. You have to know what route, in what situation to run, as it will change depending on what the defense shows you. You have to know how deep certain routes go, and whether to option out of it based on what (if any) zone look the defense is getting to you. Imagine running a 10 yard out (breaking towards the sidelines). You have to have your footwork down exactly: on that 12th step (or whatever your stride is) you need to be on your left foot (if on the right side of the offense and breaking right) so you can explode into that break. If you get wrong footed, you have to stutter step it, run an extra stride, or otherwise change that route. This causes you to slow down to think about what you need to do. Stutter stepping is a tell that good defenders will read.
Baldwin is such an underrated WR because of this. He's explosive out of his breaks, even though he isn't that fast, and it gets him open. He has those routes DOWN exactly, and it shows. Stevie Johnson, when he was giving Sherm and Revis trouble in Buffalo, is the exact same way.
Add all this in to WIlson's scrambling ability, and you have a lot to learn. Richardson will be fine. IMO he's ahead of the curve.
canfan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
- Messages
- 454
- Reaction score
- 0
HawkerD":ubenc6xv said:
This :13:
Sgt. Largent
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2012
- Messages
- 25,560
- Reaction score
- 7,612
canfan":3anwlltl said:
Lynch and Turbo should be buying C-Mike dinners and Rolex's, cause all he's doing is putting money in their pockets.
OP
OP
SomersetHawk
New member
Forgot to mention that even though they called Bailey on the false start it was actually Luke Willson to the left of him who moved first.
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
Turbin has looked good this year. I'm surprised his YPC is so average. Against Arizona, he finally looked like the Frank Gore type I thought we'd be getting when the Hawks drafted him out of Utah State.
Michael has never lost a fumble. The fumble on Sunday was his career first in regular season play, and it rolled out of bounds. 1 fumble in 33 rushes this year. 0 fumbles on 18 carries last year. He also had one fumble-free reception. For his career he's had 52 total touches, with one fumble which was not lost.
In the preseason, he's had two fumbles that were both like 6 inches off the ground with two hands on the ball as the defender got a helmet in the perfect right spot.
Really though, it's too small a sample size to know if Michael's fumble problems from college have followed him. I don't blame him for the two preseason fumbles which were freakish in nature. The one on Sunday I do blame him for.
Lynch has a career fumble rate of 1 fumble per 90 touches. Right now Michael is at 1 fumble per 52 touches. We probably need to see him get up to 1000 touches before we really know for sure how good or bad of a fumble problem he has, but yeah, this was a bit sooner than I was hoping for his first career regular season fumble.
Chawks1":3giphayh said:
Michael has never lost a fumble. The fumble on Sunday was his career first in regular season play, and it rolled out of bounds. 1 fumble in 33 rushes this year. 0 fumbles on 18 carries last year. He also had one fumble-free reception. For his career he's had 52 total touches, with one fumble which was not lost.
In the preseason, he's had two fumbles that were both like 6 inches off the ground with two hands on the ball as the defender got a helmet in the perfect right spot.
Really though, it's too small a sample size to know if Michael's fumble problems from college have followed him. I don't blame him for the two preseason fumbles which were freakish in nature. The one on Sunday I do blame him for.
Lynch has a career fumble rate of 1 fumble per 90 touches. Right now Michael is at 1 fumble per 52 touches. We probably need to see him get up to 1000 touches before we really know for sure how good or bad of a fumble problem he has, but yeah, this was a bit sooner than I was hoping for his first career regular season fumble.
kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,975
- Reaction score
- 0
To the OP, I agree 100%.
I drafted Emmanuel Sanders with a mid-round pick this year in FF and have watched most of his games this season. He is the epitome of a truly great #2 receiver, the kind that can make any play you need him to, he makes spectacular plays and really the only bad thing you can say about the guy is that he doesn't make it look easy very often. But at the end of the day, a big play is a big play.
I started to get the same vibe as you with Sanders and Richardson about a month ago. I think it has to do with their build and how they catch the football, both are outstanding at catching the football outside of their body. Like Richardson, Sanders can cut on a dime too, and he actually torched Seattle's secondary when they faced him.
The difference between them is that Sanders is an excellent deep threat with top end body control. Richardson isn't there yet, but I think it's really just a matter of time for him. I think if Richardson ever becomes a decently productive WR it won't be long before you hear a lot of national pundits comparing him to Sanders. The similarities are pretty striking, even if the production is not.
I drafted Emmanuel Sanders with a mid-round pick this year in FF and have watched most of his games this season. He is the epitome of a truly great #2 receiver, the kind that can make any play you need him to, he makes spectacular plays and really the only bad thing you can say about the guy is that he doesn't make it look easy very often. But at the end of the day, a big play is a big play.
I started to get the same vibe as you with Sanders and Richardson about a month ago. I think it has to do with their build and how they catch the football, both are outstanding at catching the football outside of their body. Like Richardson, Sanders can cut on a dime too, and he actually torched Seattle's secondary when they faced him.
The difference between them is that Sanders is an excellent deep threat with top end body control. Richardson isn't there yet, but I think it's really just a matter of time for him. I think if Richardson ever becomes a decently productive WR it won't be long before you hear a lot of national pundits comparing him to Sanders. The similarities are pretty striking, even if the production is not.
fridayfrenzy
New member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 0
It seems that CM is so energized to be getting a carry that he tries to take it to the house every time instead of taking the yards given to him. I believe that once CM is getting more carries he'll calm down.
When CM is in the game you can almost look at his body language before the snap to know if he is getting the ball or not. He's like a little kid on Christmas knowing he is about to touch the ball. You can sometimes see him get upset if they don't get the play off in time, call a timeout or audible out of it etc.
When CM is in the game you can almost look at his body language before the snap to know if he is getting the ball or not. He's like a little kid on Christmas knowing he is about to touch the ball. You can sometimes see him get upset if they don't get the play off in time, call a timeout or audible out of it etc.
