Lynch tied a career record last night!

For lowest rush attempts as a Seattle Seahawk...


Lynch inexcusably had just 6 carries yesterday which was probably the biggest factor of why we lost that game since we made no effort to establish our dominant run game to help keep the Defense off of that 100 degree frying pan of a field...

I finally got tired of not knowing the stats of how many carries Lynch has had per game throughout his career so I looked it up:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LyncMa00/gamelog/

I'm putting the Conclusion up top since it's kinda hard to read the season by season analysis I did for this kind of thing...

CONCLUSION:

With the Bills Lynch only had 6 games (out of a total of 48) with 6 or less rush attempts. This means Lynch ran for 6 or less attempts in only 12.5% of his Buffalo Bills games. Of those 6 games they lost 4 times and it seems they were preparing to trade Lynch which would explain his low attempt totals. None of those games came in his 1st 2 seasons where he had a low of 18 his Rookie season and 9 in his 2nd.


With the Seahawks Before the Chargers game yesterday Lynch had only 1 game (out of a total of 59 games) with 6 or less rush attempts (he had 6). This means Lynch ran for 6 or less attempts in only .0179% of Seattle Seahawks games...

Including the Chargers game from yesterday Lynch has rushed for 6 or less attempts in 2 games (out of a total of 60 games). This means Lynch ran for 6 or less attempts in only .0333% of Seattle Seahawks games...

The result of those 2 games:

2011 Week 2: 0-24 loss @ Pittsburgh
2014 Week 2: 21-30 loss @ San Diego in a game we have less than 18 minutes time of possession...

What does it mean? What we saw yesterday was a historically low amount of carries for Lynch as a Seahawk, it tied his lowest carry total with us... I don't know why we did it, but it was a very bad decision.


And here's my sloppily organized analysis of each of his seasons, it's so bad I put conclusion at top

2007 Buffalo Bills:

Lowest carry total was 18, happened twice they lost both those games.


2008 Buffalo Bills:

Lowest carry total was 9, happened once and they lost.


2009 Buffalo Bills:

Lowest carry total was 1, happened once and they won. He also had other notable lows of 3 carries (twice), and 6 carries (once).


2010 Buffalo Bills:

Lowest carry total was 3, happened once and they lost. In his final game for the Bills he had 4 attempts and they lost.


2010 Seattle Seahawks:

Lowest carry total was 7, happened twice and they lost.


2011 Seattle Seahawks:

Lowest carry total was 6, happened once and they lost. He also had a game with 8 carries that they lost. Out of the Seahawks 7 wins that season, 6 of them came in games where Lynch ran the ball 19 or more times.


2012 Seattle Seahawks:

Lowest carry totals were 10 and 11 both of those happened in one game. These games were blowouts 50-17 and 58-0 so we were clearly resting him in gauranteed wins. His next lowest total was 12 carries when we lost. Lynch had 18 or more carries in 12 of our games that season.


2013 Seattle Seahawks:

Lowest carry total was 8 which happened once. In 15/16 games Lynch ran at least 16 times in our Super Bowl Season...


2014 Seattle Seahawks:

Lowest carry total so far was 6 and we lost... let's hope we don't make the same mistake :les:

Still say poor defense was the biggest reason we lost the game, especially the 3rd down defense. But this did not help in any way, shape or form and was definitely a large factor.

Feed the Beast and good things happen, if you do not feed him, games like yesterday happen

Diezel Dawg":3cr5m959 said:

Feed the Beast and good things happen, if you do not feed him, games like yesterday happen

Click to expand...

i totally agree!! bevell needs reeled in a little and we need to play seahawk football which is run the damm ball. lynch sets the tone for whole team and at 6 yrds a carry yesterday and only get 6 rushes wow come on bevell.

Incorrect. Our OTs and our D lost this game.

When Beast was out early on, I remember one of the reporters asked PC why that was? His response (paraphrasing here) was along the lines of, "We need the ball to have him in the game." It's really as simple as that, they just didn't have the ball enough and they were playing from behind against the clock later in the game.

I doubt they planned on that. They just didn't have enough snaps. He did get the ball 10/40 times though.

Lynch only had 8 touches in the first half against Green Bay, that didn't stop us taking a 17-10 lead into the half (compared to

He had 10 touches last night (6 rushes, 4 receptions), or 25% of our total plays.
That compares to 21 touches last week, 32% of our total plays. Do you think if we increased his touches by 7% that we would have won?
6 of those 21 touches were in the final drive to kill the clock - i.e. Lynch had a total of 15 touches to help us get ourselves into a 29-9 lead.

At the end of the day, our offense scored 21 points in limited opportunities. Between Harvin's TD run and Wilson's 1 minute drive we ran 3 offensive plays (one of which was a sack) and possessed the ball for 2 minutes and 21 seconds compared to San Diego's 14 minutes and 6 seconds.
We simply didn't have the opportunity to use Lynch in the first half, and come the second half, 1st play we false start and have a 1st and 15, second play we feed Lynch, third play... another Miller penalty.
Before you know it, we're down 27-14, we can try a big clock killing drive with Lynch, but if we fail to score we've chewed up our own clock, and given SD were driving down the field at will, if they score another TD it's game over, so instead we score quickly, we get the ball back, and if Wilson converts that 3rd down we're probably not having this conversation, as Lynch would have got the ball multiple times on that drive.

Good breakdown Munn!

Tokadub, you can't just read a stat line to determine the result.

Causation and correlation are to be distinguished here.

Lynch ran less because we had the ball less. He'd have run the ball more if the D could have stopped a very strong offense, which it could not.

Ad Hawk":kpvel5i1 said:

Causation and correlation are to be distinguished here.

Lynch ran less because we had the ball less. He'd have run the ball more if the D could have stopped a very strong offense, which it could not.

Click to expand...

You could also argue that we had the ball less because Lynch ran it less.

If Lynch has more carries early, the O has a little more TOP and the D has a little more rest. By the time we were down multiple scores, it's less likely we slow the game down with power rushing. I think it's a catch 22. Definitely a correlation, but not a one way causation. Each one casues the other and it snowballs as the game goes on.

My guess is that DBev thought they'd have an advantage with a fresh ML late in the game. Then it got out of hand and we didn't have time to run it. Chargers dictated the tempo when they were on O. They had a good gameplan, good execution, a few good bounces and overall they outplayed the Hawks. Perhaps this is an indication of more to come, or perhaps we adjust and realize that we can't out think ourselves. A dominant D can win games almost singlehandedly. A dominant O can, up to a point, but not when the D is on the field that long in those conditions. Either the D isn't as good as last year or they weren't as prepared. On this one, we were out played and out coached.

Broncos up. Frankly, Manning will know every play from this game and will also have some new ideas of his own from playing us twice in the last 7 games. We'll need a great week of practice to come back from this loss. I think next week will tell us what to expect for the rest of the season.

I also read Lynch missed one series because he had an issue with his helmet....we also scored too quickly when we did have good drives. We cant apologize for that. And our D couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs limiting our time of possession. We know our offense is built first around Lynch.....we prefer to run it like we have every year since PC took over. Sometimes the game dictates how you call it.

I do wish we would have used Beast better in the final minutes....I don't like a fly sweep inside our 20 with 3 minutes to go. We had time to pound it at the Chargers. Or, swing pass to Beast outside like the TD pass. It seemed to me the Chargers weren't picking up him our Turbo on those swing passes.

themunn":3jush8x8 said:

Lynch only had 8 touches in the first half against Green Bay, that didn't stop us taking a 17-10 lead into the half (compared to

He had 10 touches last night (6 rushes, 4 receptions), or 25% of our total plays.
That compares to 21 touches last week, 32% of our total plays. Do you think if we increased his touches by 7% that we would have won?
6 of those 21 touches were in the final drive to kill the clock - i.e. Lynch had a total of 15 touches to help us get ourselves into a 29-9 lead.

At the end of the day, our offense scored 21 points in limited opportunities. Between Harvin's TD run and Wilson's 1 minute drive we ran 3 offensive plays (one of which was a sack) and possessed the ball for 2 minutes and 21 seconds compared to San Diego's 14 minutes and 6 seconds.
We simply didn't have the opportunity to use Lynch in the first half, and come the second half, 1st play we false start and have a 1st and 15, second play we feed Lynch, third play... another Miller penalty.
Before you know it, we're down 27-14, we can try a big clock killing drive with Lynch, but if we fail to score we've chewed up our own clock, and given SD were driving down the field at will, if they score another TD it's game over, so instead we score quickly, we get the ball back, and if Wilson converts that 3rd down we're probably not having this conversation, as Lynch would have got the ball multiple times on that drive.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Saying we needed to give Lynch the ball more totally misses the situations the offense was in, especially in light of the fact that the Offense rarely had the ball. Basically it's lazy evaluation of the game to say we needed to give him the ball more and we would have been better off.

Also seen that his back had tightened up on him as well, again heat can cause that.