Can the ‘Hawks Make Big Plays?

By Anton at September 20th, 2009.

Once again (see here and here), Frank Gore shredded the Seattle Seahawks defense on Sunday. Basically, the Hawks lost because Gore broke two long touchdown runs – one for 79, one for 80. Two big plays offensively for the 49ers, and they defeated an NFC West rival with more overall talent. The big question for the Hawks is this: Who can make big plays?

Over and over, the common refrain in the NFL is ‘make big plays’. It’s universally acknowledged among football players, coaches and fans that having ‘big play’ ability on one’s team is, perhaps, what separates the good from the great. After two weeks, ‘big play’ ability is noticeably absent for the Hawks.

The point I made in my first half analysis was that the Hawks were victimized by the big play today (Gore’s 79-yard touchdown run) and had no answer.

Nate Burleson is happy, healthy and, apparently, faster than ever. Yet, over the first two weeks – including a week one match up with, perhaps, the worst team in the NFL – the Hawks have managed only one ‘big play’ (Julius Jones’ touchdown run against the Rams). If Burleson is our ‘big play’ threat, why is he rarely targeted vertically? On Sunday against the 49ers, quarterback Matt Hasselbeck threw a deep post to Burleson for a potential ‘big play’. Unfortunately, he was draped by two defenders and the ball was picked off. The thing is, a true ‘big play’ guy has the ability to outrun coverage down field and ‘make a big play’. So, is Burleson a consistent ‘big play’ guy?

Without a big play threat, the Hawks offense – no matter how diverse or well structured – will be consistently stymied by any defense adept at stopping the run and providing good coverage underneath.

On Sunday, the Hawks were victimized by two ‘big plays’, one in each half. They never responded with a ‘big play’ of their own. If Burleson isn’t the answer, one must be found.

Tags: Matt Hasselbeck, Nate Burleson