Seahawks Insider

Carroll presser

Post by Dave Boling / The News Tribune on Dec. 13, 2010 at 2:58 pm with 36 Comments »
December 13, 2010 2:58 pm

Some quick-hitters out of Pete Carroll’s Monday press conference:

–Deon Butler had surgery to insert a rod into his broken leg on Sunday night. He will stay in the Bay Area another few days, Carroll said, calling it a “very serious break” with two cracks in one bone. He said that Mike Williams and Ben Obomanu will return to practice this week and could help ease the injury issues at receiver.

–Carroll used the term “very disappointed” a number of times. He thought the defense played very well on 50 plays but had “horrible” breakdowns on six plays. The problem was not wrapping up on tackles (especially on third downs) and taking bad pursuit angles, he said.

–Matt Hasselbeck’s four interceptions were the result of a combination of factors, he said, but at least two were bad decisions. He said he thought Hasselbeck was “trying to make plays that weren’t there … he got a little careless with his decisions.”

–He said that he’s frustrated, but remembers his first season at USC, when the team went 6-6 and it “took a year to really pay the price” of getting the foundation built.

–How to get the message of taking care of the ball across? “Just keep hammering … try to find new and creative ways to make a point.”

–Why does the team not play close in losses? Carroll said it’s a matter of momentum. When things are going well, the team picks up momentum. When they’re not, it goes the other way. He used that as a springboard to reiterate the importance of the home crowd at Qwest Field.

–Tight end John Carlson hasn’t been abandoned by the offense, but was being eased back into action after being sidelined with a hip injury, Carroll explained.

–The Hawks again failed on a 4th and 1 fade route that appeared to have little hopes of success. Carroll said again that it was not the first option and the primary route was covered.

Leave a comment Comments → 36
  1. Dukeshire says:

    Of SF’s 56 snaps, 50 went for 109 yards, as Carroll eluded to. The other 6 went for 227.

    4th and 4 toward the end of the first half (there was no 4th and 1)? They went with 5 wide and I call B.S. on Ruvell not being the primary. It was 3 steps out of shotgun and Hass looked nowhere else but Ruvell. Bates has to take the heat on that. A terrible call, period.

  2. Big plays like the Seahawks have given up all year would be prevented by a Pro Bowl FS. Until the Seahawks develop one, its just something we will have to suffer through.

  3. “4th and 4 toward the end of the first half (there was no 4th and 1)? They went with 5 wide and I call B.S. on Ruvell not being the primary. It was 3 steps out of shotgun and Hass looked nowhere else but Ruvell. Bates has to take the heat on that. A terrible call, period.”

    Yeah, I agree with you.

  4. “Big plays like the Seahawks have given up all year would be prevented by a Pro Bowl FS. Until the Seahawks develop one, its just something we will have to suffer through.”

    Yeah, he’s had his good and bad moments this year to be sure, but I’m very glad to have ET on the team.

  5. Dukeshire says:

    Laying all the blame at the feet of a rookie FS for all “big plays like the Seahawks have given up all year…” in an effort to make the anti-case for him being in the pro bowl is ridiculous. To begin with, you’re using an arbitrary measure for what you believe to be a pro bowl player without taking into consideration any measure of other FSs around the NFC.

    In addition, I don’t believe one person said he ought to be in the pro bowl this season, but rather a case could be made for him. I would venture a guess you have very little idea what Thomas’ responsibilities are on a give play, let alone how each big play is achieved and his specific role in each.

    It’s become quite clear (to me in any case) that you revel in this teams failings in a way I consider irrational. Your lack of objectivity is on par with the same Hass apologists you take issue with on a weekly basis. God help you when and if this team ever wins on a consistent basis.

  6. nidhighe says:

    Even with a perfect defense, it would be hard to overcome 5 turnovers by the QB.

    –Danielle

  7. Got to cut him a little slack on the INT that bounced off Robinson’s hands, and the fumble on the blindside hit, don’t you?

  8. chrisj122 says:

    The first INT absouletly was not Hass’s fault, the ball bounced off of Robinson’s hands. The fumble you can blame on a bum hand and not being able to secure the ball with both hands. Of the four INT’s I say two of them were Hass’s fault the other two were not. However you can’t deny Hass had a horrible game but I think people focus on the quarterback and hold him responsible over all for the dismal performance of the intire offense.

    These calls on 4th down, (long fade routes), have to stop. How many 4th downs have we seen this year that have low percentage of working? Too many, on 4th down please call a boring high percentage plays that have somewhat of chance of working instead trying to hit the home run. I know trying to run just to get stuffed on 4th and short is frustrating but isn’t there some kind of happy medium between run up the middle or throw the ball down the sidelines 30 yards?

  9. hawkfan777 says:

    I am extremely frustrated with most fans right now. Everything is being blamed on Matt when the reality is the whole team is playing poorly. There is too much on Matts shoulders. If he played for a good team like the Patriots, Falcons, Steelers or Jets I wonder how much better he would be doing.

    Plus, he is in his 3rd offense in as many seasons. Guys like Payton Manning have been playing in the same offense for 12 years. That makes a huge difference. Look back at Matts play when he had consistency in receivers and was running the same offense for Holmgren.

    Matt has a poor line. No healthy receivers and a new offense. No quarterback could be successful in this same situation.

    I do think he made some poor decisions but it is only because he is trying to compensate for a lack of talent around him.

    I wish more fans could see the big picture.

  10. Dukeeee, lol. I think it’s very possible that Hass read the coverage presnap and knew where to go based on the read. Don’t dismiss that possibility.

  11. Dukeshire says:

    I’ve rewatched the play several times and based on the preset motion and the very little time Matt look in calling for the snap, it’s unlikely he checked off, but yes, it’s a possibility, quellyyyy. No, I believe Ruvell was the primary and think Carroll was trying to deflect from his OC and his QB.

  12. I don’t have a copy of the play. Are you saying there was motion by the offense or defense? If it was offensive, the motion itself probably exposed the coverage and that’s all it takes for him to make his read.

  13. Dukeshire says:

    I’m referring to offensive, and yes of course. But it wasn’t motion while Hass in the shotgun and they were set. They gave a bunch look left out of the huddle and before the line got to the ball they broke and motioned 3 to the right. By all appearances it was designed to get Martin, the split-end, isolated on the corner, which they did.

  14. chuck_easton says:

    I’m going to agree with Duke on this one. I have the game on tape and Hass threw that ball within 1 second of the snap. There was no look off. He got the snap and launched it. He never even looked another direction.

  15. nidhighe says:

    Speaking of defense, Josh Wilson had a pick-six in overtime tonight.

    –Danielle

  16. Wow, pick 6 for Pistol in OT! Matt Shaub throwing from his own end zone, and Josh Wilson snagged it and took it home. Josh isn’t the best cover corner, but he has an unbelievable knack for making those big plays. I miss the little man.

    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010121300/2010/REG14/ravens@texans/recap#tab:watch

  17. We cannot be sure who the primary reciever was based on the information given. It is possible that Hass made a presnap read and threw it to ruvell without looking at the “intended” primary receiver which carol is referring.

  18. The thing you have to remember with regards to the 4th down fade route… When a QB breaks the huddle in that situation he already has several options and they are based off the defensive read.

    On the call (from Bates) they are, based on SF’s tendancies, expecting a certain defensive alignment. This initially means the call has a primary reciver based on what they know about SF. On the huddle break the QB has to make an initial read. If the read says “Ok, just what we expected”, then the primary receiver is the go-to guy. However, if the read is something different, both he AND the receivers have to make the same read, and this means the primary receiver changes to a secondary guy but the play esentially stays the same in terms of the called routes.

    Now, all that said, if on the initial read the QB doesn’t like what he sees he has three options depending on the play clock.

    1. “Break color” – Typically this is an option to change the snap count and possible the motion. It is an effort to expose a hidden defense. It means the team has a “hot color” that is part of the pre-snap call. Say the color is “Blue”…the QB would say something like “Blue 42″ to the left and again to the right, so everyone hears. If he wants to change the snap count he simply changes the color. “Red 42″ or whatever. This signifies a snap count change to something that was agreed on during the week of practice. It may also signify a motion change to see if the defense changes or exposes something. .

    2. His second option is an audible checkdown play. It can be done in many different ways. It could be a pre-snap number change. Instead of “Blue 42″ the audible indication is a number change, say maybe “Blue 18″. This type typically changes the entire play. A second type is simply a hand signal. Typically that signifies to the receiver a route adjustment or “hot read”. A lot of this depends on whether you are home or away and other crowd noise factors.

    3. The QB can simply decide he doesn’t like what he sees or is confused or doesn’t have time to audible, or any other reason and calls a time out to reset everything.

    Bear in mind this is a very simplified example and many team do these things in many different ways and a lot more sophisticated that I described, but eseentially it is the same thing. So the point is that on the huddle break Matt had a minimum of three options (and really 4).

  19. Dukeshire says:

    Skavage – That is a simple explanation and the basics. However, in this particular scenario, Hass called for the snap almost immediately upon the offense being set. There was simply no time for him to check off or audible into another play or routes. And he was not being rushed by the play clock either, the ball was snapped with 6 seconds left.

    And while all those options were available to him, it doesn’t appear he exercised any of them. Remember, there was no motion after they were set. The receivers acted as if they were going to set left, then broke 3 right as the line got to the l.o.s.. Of course it’s quite possible SF didn’t give them the look they wanted. But considering how quickly the ball was snapped from the time they broke the huddle, that seems a bit unlikely.

    I believe (and the more I re-watch the play the stronger I feel this way) that Carroll’s comments were intended to deflect criticism from Hass and Bates. I think they wanted an iso on Martin (would have been BMW had he been active) which they got and take their chances with a jump ball. And the wild-card here, is that we’re seen this identical play out of different formations, in similar situation throughout the year.

  20. yakimahawk says:

    Just to throw in my 2 cents on ET (its probably not worth much more)..Is ET a GREAT player? Not even Close..Is he a Good player? Very much so..I have been a critic of late of his play, especially his tackles or lack there of but in his defense on the first long TD to Davis he was on the left side of the field it was the linebackers cover first and Milloy on the deep (Not Earl)..We have crap for cover people right now (Milloy included) and Earl is being asked to cover more than his fair share right now. Having a slower older Strong Safety is really hurting Earl a bit.. Also, who cares if the INT’s AND fumbles were Hass’s fault or not..It is UNEXCUSABLE for a vet QB to play like that..And with 5 turnover’s (Diff) on the road you lose the game like 95% of the time and over 70% at home. BTW, we ran more plays than they did..If we do not turn the ball over we win the game. Also, I have called every seahawks W-L this year accurately except for the SF game..And I am going to get back on the winning track this week by predicting a SEA-30 ATL-24 score!! Also, ET will be in the Pro Bowl by next year and in acouple more years this team will win many many many games. They are getting the players to fit this system , it takes 3-4 years! GO HAWKS!

  21. Dukeshire says:

    *we’ve* seen…

    And BTW, I didn’t intend for my initial sentence to sound condescending. It was a good and simple breakdown of QBs pre-snap options.

  22. Dukeshire says:

    yakima – Hard to argue with any of that. BTW, love the prediction for Sunday! lol. I hope you’re right.

  23. The Seahawks can beat the Falcons, as long as BMW is back, Hass doesn’t make mistakes, the running game works and Leon gives them good field position. The Seahawks have beaten two superior teams this year: the Chargers and the Bears. They can do it again.

  24. GeorgiaHawk says:

    The way I see it with Matt and the Seahawks, (from this 3 degree windchill morning in north Georgia is), Matt has what it take’s to get us to the big game,however that window is closing, and some of the ???’s that keep popping up in my head are.

    1-Can the Seahawks provide for Matt a line that is at least average or better within the next year or two ?
    Let’s say even if we drafted the two or three best o-linemen in the draft,unlike any other position’s the o-line needs more time to gel.
    In that case perhaps it would better to pursue quality free agent linemen If we can?

    2-Will Matt have a group of reciever’s that can stay healthy?
    It just seem’s like we have been so unlucky with injury’s.I hope that turns around in the future.

    3- Can matt himself stay healthy ?
    With the rebuilding of our line and the constant injury’s to our reciever’s it would be hard for any quarterback to remain healthy much less an injury prone one like Matt.

    4-Why is Matt having one good game then the next one he is horrible ?
    I think this is just a reflextion of the team overall and the high player turnover. Add to that the constant injury’s,and the rebuilding of the offensive line and that just seem’s to magnify Matt’s weaknesses, and get’s him out of his comfort zone.

    5-Are these just excuse’s for matt’s poor performance?
    Perhap’s to a small degree, however Matt has had to work with three differen’t system’s in three year’s with a never ending revolving door of player’s to work with.
    It’s no wonder Matt is seeing headlight’s before the ball is even snapped! No qb can perform consistently well under these condition’s.

    6- So moving forward what should the Seahawks do with Matt?
    I think that the Seahawk’s will be a very good team and it probably won’t take too long.Look at what Atlanta has done in a short time.
    As much as I want matt to be our qb, he deserve’s better at this stage of his career. Seahawks will be good, however I can’t help but think how Matt would do with a team like the Viking’s next year.

    Also,for those who think that Luck is way more NFL ready than Locker consider this.
    Put Luck on one of the wors’t team’s in college football and see how well he he can do?
    Take away his two all Pac ten offensive linemen and give them to Locker and see how well he can do?
    Put him in a situation where he isn’t up by 30 or 40 point’s at the end of the game and ask him to win 4 game’s on the last drive and see what he can do?

    I ask how can he be way more ready than Locker for the NFL just because of better stat’s?

  25. yakimahawk, Its true that fans get too high on ET because of his INTs. Same was true of Boulware as a young safety, and same was true of Josh Wilson when he was here. INTs show up in highlights while 80% of what a free safety does during a game goes unnoticed by most fans. ET will be better than either of those guys I mentioned, but he’s young and learning.

    Earl has the huge advantage of being incredibly fast and nimble, and also the disadvantage of being tiny for a safety. I remember a coach commenting on Earl the day after the draft saying if he played against the Seahawks he would send TEs and RBs on crossing patterns toward ET all game long because Thomas would be too little to stop them.

    Unfortunately, we saw some of that last Sunday, especially when ET took on Westbrook, couldn’t wrap him up, dangled off him and fell without even slowing Westbrook down on his way to a TD. That’s a tackle that a RB expects to break against a small CB once in a while, but not a S.

    When I saw that play, I thought “that’s a guy who is not going to the pro bowl this year.”

    But I think he’s a good one and will keep improving. FS is a hard position for anyone to learn. I found that out in college when only the most experienced DB on our team could handle the FS position well. FS and MLB are mentally the most difficult positions on defense. Earl will never be big enough to make every tackle, but he will likely improve in instincts and techniques a lot through next year.

    I’m also concerned that Milloy looks like he’s about done. He was a stud the first few games, and now he seems to be slowing up. Time to retire. I’m concerned that we need a new starting SS for next year. Chancellor can replace Milloy’s role in the box on rushing downs, but I’m not convinced Chancellor won’t be a liability in coverage. We still need to add another SS and another CB in the offseason.

  26. GeorgiaHawk – good questions. But I think the thread of “Are these just excuse’s for matt’s poor performance?” gets really overplayed by some on this blog.

    Judging a QBs performance – good or bad – without linking it to his O line, RBs and receivers is naive. Every QBs performance is always set up to succeed or fail by the team around him. In Matt’s case, some weeks he sucked because his O line protection was crap and he’s running scared. Other weeks (like at SF) he sucked because his WRs were not open yet he kept forcing the ball to them. In either case, a great running game to rely on would save him from those fates, but with our current O line, Matt doesn’t have that either.

    The dude is clearly at the end of his career, but not done yet. When he has a strong supporting cast, his veteran skills and accurate short game are still stellar. Without strong support, he’s just another old QB in over his head. I’d still feel more comfortable having him on the team next year as a veteran backup or starter until a younger guy is ready. But the more important thing is finding the younger guy to groom next year.

  27. @Stevos – well stated re Hass, agree with all of that.

  28. If Matt plays well the last three games, he may become unaffordable for the Seahawks. Teams like the Cards and Vikings will outbid them.

    Matt is in the twilight of his career, but he could start in this league for another three years. I just don’t know if it will be with the Seahawks.

  29. “If Matt plays well the last three games, he may become unaffordable for the Seahawks. Teams like the Cards and Vikings will outbid them.”

    If we want him, we’ve got the $ to pay him. And I guess it will also depend on his relationship with Carroll, which seems to be a good one.

    Got to give Carroll credit for never ever selling out his players to the media – if anything, he bends over backwards to shoulder the blame himself, and deflects criticism of his guys. I’m sure the players note and appreciate that.

  30. No offense taken on my end at all Duke. I guess the main overall point I was trying to make is that it is entirely possible that Matt’s decision made because he liked what he saw.

    They know the SF corners love to play tight. They know they love to jump routes. A quick out (or in) or even a slant can spell disaster against the type of play the SF corners like to play. But a double-move (game 1 is a fine example), or a head-bob/should-dip and upfield route can work well against them and I suspect that was what Matt saw as an opportunity. Is it high risk? Yup. But it’s also high reward. Ultimately it likely failed because of the lack of co-hesiveness between the passer and the receiver. And too many in this league can go vertical for a jump ball like MW. I can think of three or 4 tops.

    On the other hand, I agree that the call was terrible. After the way we ran the ball against the Panthers I would have liked to see them line up in an old school I-formation and let Beast Mode take over. That’s why we got him right? And having Robinson back is a huge plus. And while many people would argue that it would have been too conservative if we’d been stopped, today we are arguing that the fade route was too risky. So either way if you don’t make it, you (as in Bates) are going to be second guessed.

  31. Dukeshire says:

    Stevo – I take exception to the notion Thomas couldn’t wrap Westbrook up. He didn’t, but that’s not quite the same thing. He tried to bring a runner at full speed down by his jersey rather than running through him. (Likely due to a shallow angle and was a hair behind BW by the time he got his hands on him.) I saw poor technique rather than too small, on that particular play. He’s shown (to me in any case) that generally, he’s a sure tackler and definitely hits harder than his size would indicate. But being a sound tackler is not as much about size as it is technique, and to agree with you, I believe this will improve.

    As for the rash of missed tackles that is plaguing this team; to me, the offensive equivalent are dropped passes. They’re indicators of a lack of discipline and poor fundamentals. They are also contagious. Just like a few dropped passes, a few missed tackles and failure to wrap up spread throughout a team. I’m not quite sure why this is exactly, but I’ve seen it at every level and throughout my own playing experience.

  32. Dukeshire says:

    Skavage – Yeah. I agree too, that they got a matchup they liked. Like I mentioned, I believe they wanted all along to get Martin (6’4″) isolated on a corner for a jump ball / miss-match situation. (One thing that hasn’t been brought up is how poorly the ball was thrown. Martin had no shot at it. But that’s another story…) But I didn’t believe at the time and don’t now, think the reward outweighed the risk.

    And speaking of a double move, Stokley in the slot on that side, dropped one on the nickel. He was never open and Matt never looked in his direction anyway, but I thought that was a odd route for him in that situation. In retrospect, a simple out, behind Martin’s fade would have been a better option. 20 / 20.

    And I also agree about putting Lynch in the I and running inside leads, as they did vs Carolina. They ran single back from their 311 formation several times on 3rd and short, which I found puzzling. In any case, we’re all expert play-callers after the fact.

  33. kinger12 says:

    How ever does it make sense even if our run game is average to poor to think that a fare route on 4th and one is the best option. Okung is back and playing well – run left and get that yard! “RUN LEFT”

  34. kinger12 says:

    FARE ROUTE = FADE Route

  35. Well regardless of that single play or any of a few others this year, I like Bates playing MUCH better than what I have seen in the past couple years, especially last year. But as with the rest of the team and coaches, Bates has room for improvement.

    From my perspective I’d like to see this team focus on the O-line and QB in the offseason, with a couple of decent back-ups on the D-line so the injury dropoff isn;t as bad as it has been this year. But it’s pretty hard to have a full turn around in one year, especially given the personnel rollover and the lack of talent at key positions (O-line).

    Let’s face it, when it comes to offense the buck stops at the O-line…period. Even Brady would get killed behind this line. We need to add some mean, nasty, kick-yer-butt and then beat you up on the way down kind of guys. The glimpse of Okung pancaking that LB last week just gave me a taste of what I’d like to see everywhere. I mean wouldn’t it be beautiful if we could run the ball 40+ times a game and pass only 20 to 25 and hold a ToP edge of over 30 min a game? Imagine our defense if they were only on the field 25 minutes a gaime instead of 35. Wow….fresh legs on D!

  36. Skavage, I have to agree with you about Bates at least being preferable to the play calling we saw in 2008 and 2009. I also agree that some of his calls vs SF were crap and he needs to believe in his running game and 2-TE formations here because that is what we brought to SF and he needs to use it. Still, I’m glad to have Bates instead of Knapp, and things are on the improve here.

    Skavage, good to see all your posts here these days adding some meat to the discussion.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0