A theory about Marshawn Lynch's back problems (vs AZ)

All year long, we've seen games where Lynch was held out of games or sidelined. In KC, he didn't enter the locker room because he had trainers working on him. Marshawn has had back problems going back to at least 2011. But before 2014, it had never really made much of an impact.

This post doesn't intend to make light of the situation. The back issue for Lynch is teetering on the edge of being a crisis for the Hawks and for Lynch's future. However, in light of an Arizona game where Lynch had trouble seeing the field for what feels like the umpteenth game in a row, it occurred to me just now that there is actually a very good reason other than back issues why Lynch missed so many snaps in the Cardinals game yesterday.

Seattle plays AGAIN on Thursday. Against a very physical defense. That's nowhere near enough time for players to recover after a game, especially after facing a physical run D like Arizona's. Seattle knows that Lynch has a very good history against SF, even in their own building. It could very well be that all the bench time for Lynch yesterday was not forced, but calculated.

That helps explain why Lynch only had 15 carries and 2 receptions, and why Turbin saw the field surprisingly often (mostly as a decoy). Russell Wilson had 10 carries, almost as many as Lynch had. There were even some QB keepers Wilson kept that were never good reads, almost as if RO QB keeper was called in the huddle. Wilson isn't going to get worn down from running, and his tendency to surrender sacks without too much of a fight against Arizona at times also hinted at preserving his health for the Thursday game.

I think it also explains why Arians committed so heavily to running the ball despite it being such an obviously bad matchup for him. He realizes that Seattle has a better chance to catch Arizona for the division than SF does, so wearing down Seattle's D-line before a game against Gore-Hyde is very much in his best interest. Maybe Seattle wins on Thursday anyway, but it definitely would have been nice if Arizona had aired it out and given our run D a better chance to recover. Clever coaching by Arians. Beating Seattle in their house with Stanton is a pipe dream, but he had the attainable ability to wear our team out for SF.

Pete has said twice now that although Lynch has had back issues for a long time, he was held out of part of the game against arizona because he had a stomach bug of some kind that was to the point that he felt like he was going to throw up.

I have had my long term concerns over Lynch's back for years, but he continues to be very consistent in his play. I wouldn't read too much in his missing some time against Arizona.

His usual rest days are Wednesday and Thursday, so it will be interesting to see how he does not getting those rest days this week, but I fully expect Lynch to be very Lynch-like come Thursday

Arians has stuck with the run all year. Despite a run game that is mostly a bit wimpy.

I do think partway through the game, when the D looked great, Pete may have decided Lynch didn't need to do as much on this day.

He was either or sick or it was back problems.

Im all for him being limited to keep him fresher for SF, but if that was the case, Pete would just say that. Theres no reason to hide or pretend he has an ailment when you are just keeping him fresh. No one would question the decision. Pete said he was sick, Im gonna go with he was sick. If it was just to keep him fresh, then pete would have said that.

Ill add that I think Arians most likely wasnt trying to wear us down for SF. He had a 3rd string QB, so running more was already going to be a high point. On top of which, he just watched KC gash us and assume the loss of Mebane was bigger then we could handle.

Ill add one more thing, I dont know this as fact, but I would think that its more exhausting for a D-line constantly sprinting off the snap and fighting the o-line to get to the QB then it is to pull with the line and try and stop the run. I dont know for sure and would love a former D-lines opinion on this.

If the Cardinals game wasn't so big .. I would probably give this theory a little more credence.. but I have a hard time believing Pete would limit our best players touches simply because of the shorter week. I could see if we played the Raiders or something yesterday.. a team you should dispose of easily even with a few injuries/backups playing.. the Cardinals game was basically our season.

As far as Arians.. I don't buy that idea at all. He's been trying to get the running game going all season. They just put in a claim for Ben Tate because they are that desperate to kick start the running game. Not to mention, we saw how Stanton looked when it was apparent they would have to throw.

So it's a fun theory, but I disagree that that is what was going on.

Well, I can see the reasoning, but a few things don't make sense:

Lynch getting 15 carries. He averages what, 20-22 a game ? So saving 5 carries isn't going to do a whole lot for him. I can see it if he's getting 10 carries.

Pete said he had a stomach thing going on. Why even say that unless it's...A. true, or B. you're trying to hide that injury. If you're trying to hide that injury, you'd also come out and say you're trying to keep him fresh for the next stretch of games (it doesn't have to be specifically for SF, but yea, I agree that if you're resting him, it probably is).

Turbin would've gotten more carries. He was pretty effective when he was in there, pushing the pile and exploding through holes.

Lynch didn't look right. He broke maybe one tackle that I can remember, the first defender was getting him down easily, and he rarely even pushed anyone backwards. Even if Lynch is disinterested or pissed, he still goes out on that football field and causes havoc and creates punishment. It's what he relishes. When you're looking at Turbin getting more push, and running more effectively, then there's something going on.

I do think though that the RO keepers that were failing miserably ( and they kept inexplicably going to) lends credence to your theory Kearly.

I honestly think they rested Lynch as much as they could, he was sick, and they knew they could rest him even more once they saw how the defense was playing. Lynch would've had 100 yards if he was right; the holes were there in the 2nd half but he just seemed a step slow and a bit weak.

I think this is exactly what happened, Kearly.

I think it took Pete exactly one series' worth of fourth-string C Patrick Lewis to decide that Lynch seeing the field on that day, against ARI's defense, was bad for his health.

I absolutely thought they were resting Lynch in prep for the Thanksgiving game. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the whole "stomach issue" thing was just a red herring. While Lynch did end up getting a decent number of carries, he got very long breaks throughout the game. Just from my general sense of that game, it definitely felt like they leaned on Russell a bit more (whether it was pass or RO keeper).

Not sure where it fits in theory wise, injury wise, Pete and Marshawn relationship wise, etc.... but just before the 2 minute warning at the end of the game it looked like Lynch asked Pete if he could go back in, and Pete sent him out onto the field. Even gave him one more carry after the 2 minute warning in a game that was already decided when, by most accounts ,A) Marshawn is hurting, B) Marshawn was sick, C) Marshawn and Pete's relationship is strained.

Seemed an odd sequence of events to me. Not sure if anyone else noticed it, but if there was any strain between Marshawn and Pete, it looks like it mighta been alleviated in some way during the week. I can't imagine why a hurt, sick Beast Mode would be asking to go back into the game in garbage time, or why Pete would give the thumbs up to such a request.

Of course, I always entertain the notion that I was imagining things and it was a perfectly normal occurrence.

I like your theory Kearly.

imnKOgnito":r4w2wkop said:

Not sure where it fits in theory wise, injury wise, Pete and Marshawn relationship wise, etc.... but just before the 2 minute warning at the end of the game it looked like Lynch asked Pete if he could go back in, and Pete sent him out onto the field. Even gave him one more carry after the 2 minute warning in a game that was already decided when, by most accounts ,A) Marshawn is hurting, B) Marshawn was sick, C) Marshawn and Pete's relationship is strained.

Seemed an odd sequence of events to me. Not sure if anyone else noticed it, but if there was any strain between Marshawn and Pete, it looks like it mighta been alleviated in some way during the week. I can't imagine why a hurt, sick Beast Mode would be asking to go back into the game in garbage time, or why Pete would give the thumbs up to such a request.

Of course, I always entertain the notion that I was imagining things and it was a perfectly normal occurrence.

Click to expand...

Good observation. That's a moment in the game that stands out to me, too, and doesn't really jive with the theory posted. I mean, why put Lynch back into a decided game if they wanted to save him for Thursday?

Recon_Hawk":od63ntp5 said:

Good observation. That's a moment in the game that stands out to me, too, and doesn't really jive with the theory posted. I mean, why put Lynch back into a decided game if they wanted to save him for Thursday?

Click to expand...

Maybe just to accommodate the player's request. I think Lynch just personally wanted to go back in for another series, and Pete might have thought the upside of appeasing Beastmode outweighed the harm in a few more carries. All told, he still saw fewer carries than normal, especially in a game where Seattle had a lead from start to finish.

I think it was multitude of factors including Lynch's back, him not feeling well, Arizona's defense being stout against the run, and short week until the next game. What I was surprised about was there was no sign of Christine Michael...why was this guy drafted? Wasn't it for these type of situations?

DavidSeven":2nsrzfhn said:

Recon_Hawk":2nsrzfhn said:

Good observation. That's a moment in the game that stands out to me, too, and doesn't really jive with the theory posted. I mean, why put Lynch back into a decided game if they wanted to save him for Thursday?

Click to expand...

Maybe just to accommodate the player's request. I think Lynch just personally wanted to go back in for another series, and Pete might have thought the upside of appeasing Beastmode outweighed the harm in a few more carries. All told, he still saw fewer carries than normal, especially in a game where Seattle had a lead from start to finish.

Click to expand...

That's possible. Lynch is a gamer, so I could see him wanting to go back into the game to secure the victory.

i don't think pete would hold out a player because of a game next week. it would be against his philosophy of always compete. i'm pretty sure the only thing on pete's mind was beating arizona.

I actually had this same thought during the game. We knew the run wasn't going to work against AZ, and with the short week coming up on the road, against a team Marshawn usually does well against, it just makes more sense to try to spare Lynch from getting gang tackled on every two yard run.

sedrohawk":13ak3lmb said:

i don't think pete would hold out a player because of a game next week. it would be against his philosophy of always compete. i'm pretty sure the only thing on pete's mind was beating arizona.

Click to expand...

He openly stated in his presser tonight that he held James Carpenter out of this game so that he would be good to go against SF and going forward, and that he probably could have played.

MidwestHawker":146a7er3 said:

sedrohawk":146a7er3 said:

i don't think pete would hold out a player because of a game next week. it would be against his philosophy of always compete. i'm pretty sure the only thing on pete's mind was beating arizona.

Click to expand...

He openly stated in his presser tonight that he held James Carpenter out of this game so that he would be good to go against SF and going forward, and that he probably could have played.

Click to expand...

Carp has been a lot better this year, but I have seen nothing bad about Bailey. He's playing like he wants to start on that line and hasnt shown me a reason why he shouldnt. If it was McQuistin in there, Carp would have played. So I think the always compete mantra is safe as it wasnt really a drop off in talent to have Bailey out there.

Teams never admit it but on these sun-thurs game weeks, they have to prepare for two games at once.
I remember one RB that killed it on sunday do the same thing
on thursday. That was Adrian.

4 day game weeks are hell on RBs, O lines and D lines.
It really tests your depth.

Cartire":10fb480l said:

Carp has been a lot better this year, but I have seen nothing bad about Bailey. He's playing like he wants to start on that line and hasnt shown me a reason why he shouldnt. If it was McQuistin in there, Carp would have played. So I think the always compete mantra is safe as it wasnt really a drop off in talent to have Bailey out there.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Pete seemed to play it really conservatively last year when it came to injuries so that he could play the long game. I think it's perfectly reasonable to think he was doing it again here.