Mitch
Crawled Through 5 FB Fields
Interesting that Coach Whisenhunt said that he abandoned the no huddle offense because the players were making too many mistakes---and that the first-half success in the no huddle was basically "lucky."
My questions are these:
(1) If the no huddle allowed Fitz to get open and be double teamed less---why change it under any circumstance? If you are getting lucky, why change it?
(2) What is halftime for? Getting the players on the same page---addressing first half mistakes, anticipating what the Seahawks will do and what adjustments they will make.
(3) If the coaches scrapped it because of too many mistakes, how well coached has it been in the first place? Why wouldn't the hurry-up offense be very well coached up and prepared by now? It's not rocket science.
What the No Huddle Was Accomplishing:
(1) No personnel changes for the Seahawks.
(2) A steady diet of zone coverage and far fewer mixed coverages.
(3) Far fewer blitz schemes.
(4) Tiring out the pass rushers.
(5) Moving the chains.
(6) Giving the team a psychological advantage, especially when the WR they are bracketing and desperately trying to take away is having success.
Over-reaction on the coaches' part to Trufant's late first half interception in the no huddle. What happened is this:
(1) Trufant made a savvy veteran play backtracking from his "under" zone to pick the pass off...much the way Daryl Washington did on his interception of Cam Newton in the second half of Game 1.
(2) To throw a deep out of that distance, it behooves the QB to do three things: (a) not camp out too deep in the pocket, thus making it an even longer throw; (b) step into the throw---it has to be thrown on a rope; (c) the ball has to be thrown in advance of Fitz's break to the designated yard marker on the sideline.
None of the above happened on the play, which caused a later than desired throw that was underthrown behind Fitz's cut, not ahead of it.
These are what sideline and half-time adjustments are. There is NO reason why Kevin Kolb can't make that throw if the adjustments are made.
Second Half Brain Farts---in the Coaching:
(1) Abandoning the no huddle, especially after a series of woeful three and outs.
(2) Allowing the Seahawks to dictate to the Cardinals' offense by bracketing Fitz and taking him out of the game. Thus the coaches gave the Seahawks the total psychological advantage back...and thus giving them more and more confidence as Fitz was getting shut out...and the other receivers were not posing any serious threats for them.
(3) Calling plays like WR hitch passes that are extremely difficult to get positive gains out of from a pressing man into zone defense---the defenders are right there---they were not giving cushion. That play should have not even been in the plans this week, let alone called on one of the most critical plays in the game.
How Could the Coaches Have Adjusted?
In my Seattle Prep Week post last Monday---I knew exactly what the Seahawks were going to do and said so (press coverage with mixture of man and zone and bracket combos on Fitz). How did I know? it's what they did to us in BOTH games last year---and this is what frustrates me so much about Whisenhunt and the offensive coaches because they should have had the right plan in place---and yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that there was any semblance of the right plan (just as there was NO evidence of the plan the SECOND time we played them at home last year and they whomped us again). How do i know there's no evidence? Here are a few reasons:
(1) Keeping Fitz on an island and never motioning him---if there is ANY WR in the NFL who could beat a double team, it is Fitz---but not when he has to fight off the jam. By motioning him, it gives him a running head start and makes it almost impossible for the Seahawks to jam him---in fact, they wouldn't have even tried. And now, Fitz could run his patented double moves, like the fake slant, plant and dig route, or the opposite.
(2) Motioning Fitz also causes defensive assignment switches on the fly---which often causes confusion and opens things up for other WRs and TEs. if CB Browner chases---YOU KNOW IT'S MAN COVERAGE and the opposite safety has to switch his attention to Fitz. Thus you are creating man isolations away from Fitz...AND...best of all, do you think Fitz could beat Browner on a motion out pass? It would have been there anytime they went man and Fitz would have remained a constant threat in the offense.
(3) The other thing is occasionally YOU HAVE TO TAKE DEEP SHOTS downfield---otherwise their safeties like Chancellor can read the QB's eyes and cherry pick like he did all day long.
(4) As for beating man coverage---you have to run twin and trip rub-offs and crossing routes---the Cardinals tried to run zone gap routes all the time---and their routes were so predictable, stopped short and close together that two defenders could cover three---and the LBers and CBs could hang in the lower zones because there was never any deep threat.
(5) Lastly, the spread no huddle opens up a plethora of big opportunities for the single RB. the delay handoff that they ran so well last week versus the Redskins---what that does is totally slow down the pass rush, which is EXACTLY what you want. Plus it makes the linebackers play up---which is EXACTLY what you want in order to keep the middle wide open. And if your RB is faster than the LB, you have pass receiving options galore on circle, out and flare passes. AGAIN---after having such success with the 1 RB handoff plays out of the spread---it was inexplicably abandoned last week and we never saw it this week. What---are we going to hear they weren't prepared to run it? That they got "lucky" with it before?
Now you see more specifically why these coaches have me and others at our wits' end. I am not criticizing them for the sake of criticizing. But this has been going on for far too long---it's a disturbing pattern of being grossly under-prepared---and it is the reason why it is so difficult to garner any confidence in the way they prepare the team and manage the personnel. It's very discouraging, to say the least.
My questions are these:
(1) If the no huddle allowed Fitz to get open and be double teamed less---why change it under any circumstance? If you are getting lucky, why change it?
(2) What is halftime for? Getting the players on the same page---addressing first half mistakes, anticipating what the Seahawks will do and what adjustments they will make.
(3) If the coaches scrapped it because of too many mistakes, how well coached has it been in the first place? Why wouldn't the hurry-up offense be very well coached up and prepared by now? It's not rocket science.
What the No Huddle Was Accomplishing:
(1) No personnel changes for the Seahawks.
(2) A steady diet of zone coverage and far fewer mixed coverages.
(3) Far fewer blitz schemes.
(4) Tiring out the pass rushers.
(5) Moving the chains.
(6) Giving the team a psychological advantage, especially when the WR they are bracketing and desperately trying to take away is having success.
Over-reaction on the coaches' part to Trufant's late first half interception in the no huddle. What happened is this:
(1) Trufant made a savvy veteran play backtracking from his "under" zone to pick the pass off...much the way Daryl Washington did on his interception of Cam Newton in the second half of Game 1.
(2) To throw a deep out of that distance, it behooves the QB to do three things: (a) not camp out too deep in the pocket, thus making it an even longer throw; (b) step into the throw---it has to be thrown on a rope; (c) the ball has to be thrown in advance of Fitz's break to the designated yard marker on the sideline.
None of the above happened on the play, which caused a later than desired throw that was underthrown behind Fitz's cut, not ahead of it.
These are what sideline and half-time adjustments are. There is NO reason why Kevin Kolb can't make that throw if the adjustments are made.
Second Half Brain Farts---in the Coaching:
(1) Abandoning the no huddle, especially after a series of woeful three and outs.
(2) Allowing the Seahawks to dictate to the Cardinals' offense by bracketing Fitz and taking him out of the game. Thus the coaches gave the Seahawks the total psychological advantage back...and thus giving them more and more confidence as Fitz was getting shut out...and the other receivers were not posing any serious threats for them.
(3) Calling plays like WR hitch passes that are extremely difficult to get positive gains out of from a pressing man into zone defense---the defenders are right there---they were not giving cushion. That play should have not even been in the plans this week, let alone called on one of the most critical plays in the game.
How Could the Coaches Have Adjusted?
In my Seattle Prep Week post last Monday---I knew exactly what the Seahawks were going to do and said so (press coverage with mixture of man and zone and bracket combos on Fitz). How did I know? it's what they did to us in BOTH games last year---and this is what frustrates me so much about Whisenhunt and the offensive coaches because they should have had the right plan in place---and yet there is NO evidence whatsoever that there was any semblance of the right plan (just as there was NO evidence of the plan the SECOND time we played them at home last year and they whomped us again). How do i know there's no evidence? Here are a few reasons:
(1) Keeping Fitz on an island and never motioning him---if there is ANY WR in the NFL who could beat a double team, it is Fitz---but not when he has to fight off the jam. By motioning him, it gives him a running head start and makes it almost impossible for the Seahawks to jam him---in fact, they wouldn't have even tried. And now, Fitz could run his patented double moves, like the fake slant, plant and dig route, or the opposite.
(2) Motioning Fitz also causes defensive assignment switches on the fly---which often causes confusion and opens things up for other WRs and TEs. if CB Browner chases---YOU KNOW IT'S MAN COVERAGE and the opposite safety has to switch his attention to Fitz. Thus you are creating man isolations away from Fitz...AND...best of all, do you think Fitz could beat Browner on a motion out pass? It would have been there anytime they went man and Fitz would have remained a constant threat in the offense.
(3) The other thing is occasionally YOU HAVE TO TAKE DEEP SHOTS downfield---otherwise their safeties like Chancellor can read the QB's eyes and cherry pick like he did all day long.
(4) As for beating man coverage---you have to run twin and trip rub-offs and crossing routes---the Cardinals tried to run zone gap routes all the time---and their routes were so predictable, stopped short and close together that two defenders could cover three---and the LBers and CBs could hang in the lower zones because there was never any deep threat.
(5) Lastly, the spread no huddle opens up a plethora of big opportunities for the single RB. the delay handoff that they ran so well last week versus the Redskins---what that does is totally slow down the pass rush, which is EXACTLY what you want. Plus it makes the linebackers play up---which is EXACTLY what you want in order to keep the middle wide open. And if your RB is faster than the LB, you have pass receiving options galore on circle, out and flare passes. AGAIN---after having such success with the 1 RB handoff plays out of the spread---it was inexplicably abandoned last week and we never saw it this week. What---are we going to hear they weren't prepared to run it? That they got "lucky" with it before?
Now you see more specifically why these coaches have me and others at our wits' end. I am not criticizing them for the sake of criticizing. But this has been going on for far too long---it's a disturbing pattern of being grossly under-prepared---and it is the reason why it is so difficult to garner any confidence in the way they prepare the team and manage the personnel. It's very discouraging, to say the least.
Last edited:
