What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hutchinson broke his leg on 9/29 2002 against the (1 Viewer)

This_Is_Not_VRR

Footballguy
First off, I thought that it was a little ironic that Hutch broke his leg against the Vikings of all teams....

Anyway, let's take a look at how Shaun performed with and without Hutch in the 2002 season.

Shaun finished the year with 295 carries (career low, not including rookie year), 1,175 yards (career low, not including rookie year), a 4.0 YPC average (career low), 16 rushing TD's (tied for second best career numbers), 59 receptions (career best), 460 receiving yards (career best) and 2 receiving TD's (tied for second best of career), and lastly 1 fumble on the year (tied for career best).

Here is Shaun's gamelog from 2002:

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187382/gamelogs/2002

He struggled in the first 3 games of the season, but it's important to note that Walter Jones was not with the team for the first 2 games of the year because he was holding out. Alexander obviously had an incredible performance against the Vikings in week 4 when he rushed for 139 yards and 4 TD's, and 80 yards and a TD through the air. That was the last game he had Hutch blocking for him, as Hutch broke his leg in the 3rd quarter.

As you can see from the gamelog, his numbers after Hutch went down were only decent (if that)....That is until the last 6 games of the season, when his production really picked up. Over those 6 games he had 3 rushing games over 100 yards (145 yards, 123, and 127) he scored 2 TD's in a game 3 times, and had a 77 yard receiving game to boot.

Not only that, over those last 6 games of the year, the Seahawks offense lead the entire NFL in both points and yards. Without Hutch.

So for all of you SA owners who are worried his numbers next season, don't worry. SA and the Seahawks offense will be just fine without Hutch. They proved that without question at the end of the 2002 season.

Some other things to consider about that season:

-Matt Hasselbeck only started in 10 games in 2002. He started in the first game of the season, and then Trent Dilfer started in the next 6 games before Matt took over for good on 11/03.

-Hasselbeck was nowhere near the QB then that he is today.

-The Seahawks WR/TE corps wasn't as good as there current group is today.

-Shaun Alexander was not the complete back that he is today.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stillers Jr.

Footballguy
sounds like you're trying to kid yourself into thinkin the Seahags are better off without Hutch?!?

Best of luck with that...

 

Banger

Footballguy
Agreed. Hutch is a player Seattle definitely wanted back but can live without. Will they have a better line without him? No. They won't be as dominant but they will still be top 5 and SA will still be top 2-3. Plenty of talent on both sides of the ball.

Seeing what Seattle is doing on defense the Hutch loss may be a blessing in disguise since they can spend that $ on the defensive side of the ball. Considering the division they play in they are a shoe-in for the playoffs and probably a top 2 seed again next year.

 

This_Is_Not_VRR

Footballguy
sounds like you're trying to kid yourself into thinkin the Seahags are better off without Hutch?!?

Best of luck with that...
Nice reply, Jr. :rolleyes: Better off offensively? Hardly. But they can certainly get by without him. They've already proven that. The loss of Hutch is certainly not going to derail their offense, or result in a sharp decline in SA's numbers. Do you disagree?

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
no guard is worth that much scratch. they'll survive, and will use that money to upgrade their defense.

nice post.

 

DoctorDetroit

Chocolate Thunder
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.

 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
Ask Brett Favre how much it hurts losing Pro-Bowl guards. I hope the Hawks have a better plan than the Packers did last year.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
No guard, even Hutch, is worth $7 million per year IMHO. But if the Seahags had the money, they were clearly better off with him than without him.

 

This_Is_Not_VRR

Footballguy
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.
You're right about the defense in 2002. It was absolutely terrible. Every game in the second half of the season was basically a shoot out. Fortunately for SA owners, the Seahawks defense is in excellent shape now. If the Seahawks defense makes the jump to elite status this year, I expect SA to get all the carries he can handle...And then some.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.
It will be interesting to see how the loss of Hutch affects (if at all) Holmgren's playcalling in the redzone...Will the left side of the line still be dominant enough to run it down the throat of a defense that knows the run is coming right at them? Will we instead see more goal line runs to the right as a change of pace? Or will Holmgren resort to more passing deep in the redzone?And I agree with you about SA not matching his record setting TD totals from this past season. I don't think that would have happened again even with Hutch.

 

sho nuff

Footballguy
Ask Brett Favre how much it hurts losing Pro-Bowl guards. I hope the Hawks have a better plan than the Packers did last year.
Difference is...he lost two. Second...the fact that Flanagan was never healthy all year long magnified the loss of the guards.
 

B-Deep

Footballguy
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.
But before the hawks signed Alexander all I ever heard was that anyone from Brandon Toefield to Dominic Rhodes could do fine with that line, as long as Hutch stayed. I am confused, are hawks fans now saying that Alexander is worth 20 TDs even without hutch????For what it is worth I agree, Hutch is great but Alexader is also. Does it hurt, sure, but an elite back can excel even if he loses an elite lineman.

 

This_Is_Not_VRR

Footballguy
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.
But before the hawks signed Alexander all I ever heard was that anyone from Brandon Toefield to Dominic Rhodes could do fine with that line, as long as Hutch stayed. I am confused, are hawks fans now saying that Alexander is worth 20 TDs even without hutch????For what it is worth I agree, Hutch is great but Alexader is also. Does it hurt, sure, but an elite back can excel even if he loses an elite lineman.
I think the Seahawks went from having the best O-line in football (at the very least, the best left side), to merely one of the best. I'd say that's the difference between having Shaun putting up NFL rushing records, to finishing the season as "just" a top 3 back.As for plugging another RB back in for Shaun, I think any back with ***talent*** could rush for close to 1,200 and 10-15 TD's with the Seahawks current line and Hasselbeck at QB. But that's just me talking out of my ###....And the Seahawks put an end to that debate by locking him up for good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

B-Deep

Footballguy
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.
But before the hawks signed Alexander all I ever heard was that anyone from Brandon Toefield to Dominic Rhodes could do fine with that line, as long as Hutch stayed. I am confused, are hawks fans now saying that Alexander is worth 20 TDs even without hutch????For what it is worth I agree, Hutch is great but Alexader is also. Does it hurt, sure, but an elite back can excel even if he loses an elite lineman.
I think the Seahawks went from having the best O-line in football (at the very least, the best left side), to merely one of the best. I'd say that's the difference between having Shaun putting up NFL rushing records, to finishing the season as "just" a top 3 back.As for plugging another RB back in for Shaun, I think any back with ***talent*** could rush for close to 1,200 and 10-15 TD's with the Seahawks current line and Hasselbeck at QB. But that's just me talking out of my ###....And the Seahawks put an end to that debate by locking him up for good.
That makes sense. It is my mission to get seahawks fans to embrace alexander. And no, I don't own him in any leagues. I'd like nothing more than for Alexander to drop 2000 this year sans hutch and see what the reaction is. I have a hard time thinking of a super star MVP caliber player that seems to get less love from his team's fans than Alexander and I don't understand it. If I could get one player from the Hawks on to my team it would be Alexander, hands down no question.
 

nygiants56

Footballguy
First off, I thought that it was a little ironic that Hutch broke his leg against the Vikings of all teams....

Anyway, let's take a look at how Shaun performed with and without Hutch in the 2002 season.

Shaun finished the year with 295 carries (career low, not including rookie year), 1,175 yards (career low, not including rookie year), a 4.0 YPC average (career low), 16 rushing TD's (tied for second best career numbers), 59 receptions (career best), 460 receiving yards (career best) and 2 receiving TD's (tied for second best of career), and lastly 1 fumble on the year (tied for career best).

Here is Shaun's gamelog from 2002:

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187382/gamelogs/2002

He struggled in the first 3 games of the season, but it's important to note that Walter Jones was not with the team for the first 2 games of the year because he was holding out.  Alexander obviously had an incredible performance against the Vikings in week 4 when he rushed for 139 yards and 4 TD's, and 80 yards and a TD through the air.  That was the last game he had Hutch blocking for him, as Hutch broke his leg in the 3rd quarter.

As you can see from the gamelog, his numbers after Hutch went down were only decent (if that)....That is until the last 6 games of the season, when his production really picked up.  Over those 6 games he had 3 rushing games over 100 yards (145 yards, 123, and 127) he scored 2 TD's in a game 3 times,  and had a 77 yard  receiving game to boot.

Not only that, over those last 6 games of the year, the Seahawks offense lead the entire NFL in both points and yards.  Without Hutch.

So for all of you SA owners who are worried his numbers next season, don't worry.  SA and the Seahawks offense will be just fine without Hutch.  They proved that without question at the end of the 2002 season.

Some other things to consider about that season:

-Matt Hasselbeck only started in 10 games in 2002. He started in the first game of the season, and then Trent Dilfer started in the next 6 games before Matt took over for good on 11/03.

-Hasselbeck was nowhere near the QB then that he is today.

-The Seahawks WR/TE corps wasn't as good as there current group is today.

-Shaun Alexander was not the complete back that he is today.
last year he had 109 more yards running away from Hutch,( i.e, to the right side) but scored only 3 (THREE) tds on that side..he scored 14 tds running left behind Hutch.

in 2003, he ran for 200 more yards to the left, averaging a full 1 yard more per carry, and TWICE as many rushing TDs than he did running right..

in 2004, he ran for 295 MORE yards to the left side than the right side, averagin a whopping 2.6 MORE yards per carry (6.5 vs. 3.9) and again,twice as many rushing TDs to the LEFT..

in 2002, he ran for about the same left and right, but funny how it happens, he scored twice as many TDs to the left (8) than the right(4) AGAIN...

don't you kid yourself into thinking Hutch's departure will NOT affect SA, because it most certainly will..Walter Jones is great, but if they don't pair him up with a decent OG, you'll see a measurable drop in SA's #'s in 2006, particularly in rushing TDs..

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mad sweeney

Footballguy
There are a few more factors here. One Walter Jones played hurt most of the year, Matt Hasselbeck was just getting into the grove, and the defense was terrible (especially the secondary).

They were behind a lot that year and when they did run, 4.0 a carry is not all that bad. The thing is, they didn't run.

They attempted 47, 31, 30,31, 44, 36, 36, 55, 46, 31, 32, and 53 passes! That is not what that team should have been doing but they were getting behind, turning the rock over, and it was Holmgren's worst effort at calling plays.

I remember saying to fellow Hawk fans that year, "why the hell don't they give Alexander the ball more? Why was he only getting 12 and 15 carries a game?" It was not a pretty year but those last four games Hasselbeck came into his own and started to look like a good young NFL quarterback. He's just gotten better since along with the rest of the team growing up together.

I think going back that far with all of the changes in the NFL is speculative but this question does have merit. You won't know the answer until week six or seven but I do think the loss of Hutchinson will hurt. It won't hurt to the tune of 500 yards though and I don't think it will affect his TD total at all. Alexander will not have another 28 TD anyway (I stated this in early FEB) but he will get 20. Bump this after week six or seven and we'll see what the outcome is.
But before the hawks signed Alexander all I ever heard was that anyone from Brandon Toefield to Dominic Rhodes could do fine with that line, as long as Hutch stayed. I am confused, are hawks fans now saying that Alexander is worth 20 TDs even without hutch????For what it is worth I agree, Hutch is great but Alexader is also. Does it hurt, sure, but an elite back can excel even if he loses an elite lineman.
Hutch was 1/6 of the blocking crew. You might have heard of Jones, TObeck and Strong who were all in Hawaii a few months ago. Losing a cog in between 2 probowlers is not enough to get derailed. It's not like we're putting Bobby Boucher in there to replace him. We have talented backups and still have more FAs and the draft to fill the need. Last year's 1st rounder could fill in at guard for a while too. So instead of going into the season with the best line we go in with one of the best lines.
 

This_Is_Not_VRR

Footballguy
First off, I thought that it was a little ironic that Hutch broke his leg against the Vikings of all teams....

Anyway, let's take a look at how Shaun performed with and without Hutch in the 2002 season.

Shaun finished the year with 295 carries (career low, not including rookie year), 1,175 yards (career low, not including rookie year), a 4.0 YPC average (career low), 16 rushing TD's (tied for second best career numbers), 59 receptions (career best), 460 receiving yards (career best) and 2 receiving TD's (tied for second best of career), and lastly 1 fumble on the year (tied for career best).

Here is Shaun's gamelog from 2002:

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187382/gamelogs/2002

He struggled in the first 3 games of the season, but it's important to note that Walter Jones was not with the team for the first 2 games of the year because he was holding out. Alexander obviously had an incredible performance against the Vikings in week 4 when he rushed for 139 yards and 4 TD's, and 80 yards and a TD through the air. That was the last game he had Hutch blocking for him, as Hutch broke his leg in the 3rd quarter.

As you can see from the gamelog, his numbers after Hutch went down were only decent (if that)....That is until the last 6 games of the season, when his production really picked up. Over those 6 games he had 3 rushing games over 100 yards (145 yards, 123, and 127) he scored 2 TD's in a game 3 times, and had a 77 yard receiving game to boot.

Not only that, over those last 6 games of the year, the Seahawks offense lead the entire NFL in both points and yards. Without Hutch.

So for all of you SA owners who are worried his numbers next season, don't worry. SA and the Seahawks offense will be just fine without Hutch. They proved that without question at the end of the 2002 season.

Some other things to consider about that season:

-Matt Hasselbeck only started in 10 games in 2002. He started in the first game of the season, and then Trent Dilfer started in the next 6 games before Matt took over for good on 11/03.

-Hasselbeck was nowhere near the QB then that he is today.

-The Seahawks WR/TE corps wasn't as good as there current group is today.

-Shaun Alexander was not the complete back that he is today.
last year he had 109 more yards running away from Hutch,( i.e, to the right side) but scored only 3 (THREE) tds on that side..he scored 14 tds running left behind Hutch.

in 2003, he ran for 200 more yards to the left, averaging a full 1 yard more per carry, and TWICE as many rushing TDs than he did running right..

in 2004, he ran for 295 MORE yards to the left side than the right side, averagin a whopping 2.6 MORE yards per carry (6.5 vs. 3.9) and again,twice as many rushing TDs to the LEFT..

in 2002, he ran for about the same left and right, but funny how it happens, he scored twice as many TDs to the left (8) than the right(4) AGAIN...

don't you kid yourself into thinking Hutch's departure will NOT affect SA, because it most certainly will..Walter Jones is great, but if they don't pair him up with a decent OG, you'll see a measurable drop in SA's #'s in 2006, particularly in rushing TDs..
Yeah, and I can count on my hands the number of times the Seahawks ran the ball to the right at the goal-line. The attempts simply weren't there. So stop pretending like they tried running the ball to the right and got shut down. They didn't. They ran the ball over and over again to the left because opposing defenses couldn't stop it. Holmgren's mindset was why mess with perfection? With Hutch gone, perhaps they will have to mix things up a bit.
 

DoctorDetroit

Chocolate Thunder
First off, I thought that it was a little ironic that Hutch broke his leg against the Vikings of all teams....

Anyway, let's take a look at how Shaun performed with and without Hutch in the 2002 season.

Shaun finished the year with 295 carries (career low, not including rookie year), 1,175 yards (career low, not including rookie year), a 4.0 YPC average (career low), 16 rushing TD's (tied for second best career numbers), 59 receptions (career best), 460 receiving yards (career best) and 2 receiving TD's (tied for second best of career), and lastly 1 fumble on the year (tied for career best).

Here is Shaun's gamelog from 2002:

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187382/gamelogs/2002

He struggled in the first 3 games of the season, but it's important to note that Walter Jones was not with the team for the first 2 games of the year because he was holding out.  Alexander obviously had an incredible performance against the Vikings in week 4 when he rushed for 139 yards and 4 TD's, and 80 yards and a TD through the air.  That was the last game he had Hutch blocking for him, as Hutch broke his leg in the 3rd quarter.

As you can see from the gamelog, his numbers after Hutch went down were only decent (if that)....That is until the last 6 games of the season, when his production really picked up.  Over those 6 games he had 3 rushing games over 100 yards (145 yards, 123, and 127) he scored 2 TD's in a game 3 times,  and had a 77 yard  receiving game to boot.

Not only that, over those last 6 games of the year, the Seahawks offense lead the entire NFL in both points and yards.  Without Hutch.

So for all of you SA owners who are worried his numbers next season, don't worry.  SA and the Seahawks offense will be just fine without Hutch.  They proved that without question at the end of the 2002 season.

Some other things to consider about that season:

-Matt Hasselbeck only started in 10 games in 2002. He started in the first game of the season, and then Trent Dilfer started in the next 6 games before Matt took over for good on 11/03.

-Hasselbeck was nowhere near the QB then that he is today.

-The Seahawks WR/TE corps wasn't as good as there current group is today.

-Shaun Alexander was not the complete back that he is today.
last year he had 109 more yards running away from Hutch,( i.e, to the right side) but scored only 3 (THREE) tds on that side..he scored 14 tds running left behind Hutch.

in 2003, he ran for 200 more yards to the left, averaging a full 1 yard more per carry, and TWICE as many rushing TDs than he did running right..

in 2004, he ran for 295 MORE yards to the left side than the right side, averagin a whopping 2.6 MORE yards per carry (6.5 vs. 3.9) and again,twice as many rushing TDs to the LEFT..

in 2002, he ran for about the same left and right, but funny how it happens, he scored twice as many TDs to the left (8) than the right(4) AGAIN...

don't you kid yourself into thinking Hutch's departure will NOT affect SA, because it most certainly will..Walter Jones is great, but if they don't pair him up with a decent OG, you'll see a measurable drop in SA's #'s in 2006, particularly in rushing TDs..
What's a measurable drop for a RB that ran for 27 TDS last year? :popcorn:
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
No guard, even Hutch, is worth $7 million per year IMHO. But if the Seahags had the money, they were clearly better off with him than without him.
Are you saying that based on 2005 salaries, or 2006 salaries? What I mean is this... a $7m salary under the new structure takes up the same percentage of a team's cap as a $5.8m salary did last season.

So if asked last season, would you have said he was worth $5.8m?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top