Why did Charbs suck and Walker feast vs Pitt?

[olyfan63]

Somehow Pitt had Charb's number. 15 carries for 10 yards??!! Walker 13 carries for 105 and that beautiful clinching TD. The Hawks basically rotated between giving carries to Charbs and Walker. Does anyone have an analysis for why Pitt stuffed Charbs on most carries? Was it O-Line getting stalemated? Do they block harder for Walker? (Doubt it) I'm sure the Hawks run somewhat different plays for each back, plus both run some same core plays. Walker is healthy and was freakin' greased lightning, as he showed on that 4th qtr TD run. I'm wondering if Charbs or someone accidentally telegraphs it's a run to Charbs over a certain hole and Pitt picked up on it, and that same tell isn't present on Walker's carries.

Or Walker is so jitterbug quick he usually finds a hole regardless of which hole the run is scripted to go over? To me, part of the moral is to run a fresh and healthy Walker lots in the 4th quarter against a tired defense. That 20 yard TD run was a thing of beauty. Walker did a similar thing to the Chargers in his rookie season, a 74-yard 4th qtr TD run, though that game wasn't as close.

I do sure hope Kubiak and the Hawks figure out why Charbs sucked so bad vs. Pitt and fix it.

 

[nanomoz]

Charbs didn't suck. Macdonald praised his performance. He was hit in the backfield in all but 2 or 3 of the carries. And he picked up several blitzes to perfection. His YPC was also buried by losing 7 yards at the end of the game and running against 10-11 in the box.

I think the playcalling also wasn't great. Several of his carries were tosses/sweeps to the edge, and that is more of a strength for Walker. But these carries don't exist on an island. They are definitely trying to avoid being predictable. Maybe to a fault.

 

[rjdriver]

I think the playcalling also wasn't great. Several of his carries were tosses/sweeps to the edge, and that is more of a strength for Walker.

That puzzled me as well. I don’t want to type cast either of them, but Charbs seems to excel heading due North while Walker prefers the equator (often to a fault).

 

[Dolomight12]

That puzzled me as well. I don’t want to type cast either of them, but Charbs seems to excel heading due North while Walker prefers the equator (often to a fault).

That's pretty much factual at this point.

 

[AROS]

It most definitely was an oddity to see such a dichotomy between the two backs in the game. We’ve seen both players light it up before.

Not sure why K9 was finding great success and Charbs really struggled to find daylight.

We need an X’s and O’s guru to shed some insight.

 

[RehireMora]

Charbs is hurt right now, he might have been hurt early in the game.

 

[BDD222]

That puzzled me as well. I don’t want to type cast either of them, but Charbs seems to excel heading due North while Walker prefers the equator (often to a fault).

I was watching the game and commented to a friend that they needed to stop running Charbs to the edge on zone sweeps. Pitts defense is too fast for that type of RB to make that play effective. Those should be saved for Walker. I was okay with a couple to keep them off balance, but it seemed li,e it was repetitive. Of course, Walker busts a 19 yard run for a TD to officially ice the game later and I felt vindicated in my view, but who am I to say that those failed zone sweeps to Charbonet didn't set that 20 yard TD up?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Kind of seems like if Charbs doesn't have a good game - excuses.
If K9 doesn't have a good game - bench him.
It's great having two good backs. I just happen to believe K9 is a better back.
Hmmmm

 

[pittpnthrs]

Kind of seems like if Charbs doesn't have a good game - excuses.
If K9 doesn't have a good game - bench him.
It's great having two good backs. I just happen to believe K9 is a better back.
Hmmmm

K9 has more speed and talent for sure, but I believe Charbs has a better football mind. When there's no hole, don't dance around waiting for one, move forward.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

They're both damn good, K9 is absolutely a better back. Good problem to have.
And where was K9 dancing around in that game? He was hitting the holes and getting work done. And also trucked a couple guys. Another thing people claim he can't do. Meh, we all stick up for the guy we like, kind of how it works.

 

[hawkfan1975]

These two fantastic RBs are doing their job in tandem well and early enough to get excited.
They're building a death star to give a D tired fits quarter 3 & 4. Let's let em!!

 

[Ozzy]

I think they both have had some bad luck. Walker had a game where when he got the ball there was nothing there and when Charbs did there was. advanced stats supported this. This last game it was the opposite and Walker had some better luck. I do think Walker did create on his own a couple of times too so he does deserve some credit but overall its a little bit of luck, situational running etc.

 

[flv2]

Somehow Pitt had Charb's number. 15 carries for 10 yards??!! Walker 13 carries for 105 and that beautiful clinching TD. The Hawks basically rotated between giving carries to Charbs and Walker. Does anyone have an analysis for why Pitt stuffed Charbs on most carries? Was it O-Line getting stalemated? Do they block harder for Walker? (Doubt it) I'm sure the Hawks run somewhat different plays for each back, plus both run some same core plays. Walker is healthy and was freakin' greased lightning, as he showed on that 4th qtr TD run. I'm wondering if Charbs or someone accidentally telegraphs it's a run to Charbs over a certain hole and Pitt picked up on it, and that same tell isn't present on Walker's carries.

Or Walker is so jitterbug quick he usually finds a hole regardless of which hole the run is scripted to go over? To me, part of the moral is to run a fresh and healthy Walker lots in the 4th quarter against a tired defense. That 20 yard TD run was a thing of beauty. Walker did a similar thing to the Chargers in his rookie season, a 74-yard 4th qtr TD run, though that game wasn't as close.

I do sure hope Kubiak and the Hawks figure out why Charbs sucked so bad vs. Pitt and fix it.

Walker is the more explosive runner. He'll generate chunk yardage plays. Charbonnet doesn't do that. I don't think anyone disputes this. The passing game struggles when Walker is in the backfield. Charbonnet is a much better pass blocker and he's also better as a receiver. If it's a choice between having good rushing yardage and poor passing yardage or having more total offensive yardage, (that has less rushing yardage), then generally i'd choose more total yardage.

It's not always ideal but it's not wrong to have a different type of RB as your RB2. It can create different match-ups and cause the defense to shift their emphasis away from what they were doing successfully. That could be what played out in this game

 

[Boycie]

Pitt has a good interior run D, but sucks to the outside.

 

[Ozzy]

Pitt has a good interior run D, but sucks to the outside.

exactly. I miss you you big beautiful bear.

 

[nanomoz]

Kind of seems like if Charbs doesn't have a good game - excuses.
If K9 doesn't have a good game - bench him.
It's great having two good backs. I just happen to believe K9 is a better back.
Hmmmm

Having the YouTube ticket is pretty rad. I've watched the game several times with the condensed game feature. Focusing mostly on the offensive line.

I just commented on what I saw--and summarised what Macdonald said. And I never said Walker sucks after week 1.

Conflating the opinions of different people is lame.

 

[sutz]

We're hearing Charbs is sitting out of practice with a sore foot. Perhaps that was bothering him last Sunday?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well, I'm not wrong. Some people gave up on K9 already. We can have different opinions. It's gonna' be ok.
I like both backs and I hope they both kill it this year.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

I think the Pittsburgh front seven is better equipped to stop Charb’s style than it is able to stop K9’s style.

There is a clear difference between the two styles of the backs.

K9 is better suited against certain fronts and Charb is better suited against other fronts.

Gotta be used interchangeably now….

 

[hangumhi]

Somehow Pitt had Charb's number. 15 carries for 10 yards??!! Walker 13 carries for 105 and that beautiful clinching TD. The Hawks basically rotated between giving carries to Charbs and Walker. Does anyone have an analysis for why Pitt stuffed Charbs on most carries? Was it O-Line getting stalemated? Do they block harder for Walker? (Doubt it) I'm sure the Hawks run somewhat different plays for each back, plus both run some same core plays. Walker is healthy and was freakin' greased lightning, as he showed on that 4th qtr TD run. I'm wondering if Charbs or someone accidentally telegraphs it's a run to Charbs over a certain hole and Pitt picked up on it, and that same tell isn't present on Walker's carries.

Or Walker is so jitterbug quick he usually finds a hole regardless of which hole the run is scripted to go over? To me, part of the moral is to run a fresh and healthy Walker lots in the 4th quarter against a tired defense. That 20 yard TD run was a thing of beauty. Walker did a similar thing to the Chargers in his rookie season, a 74-yard 4th qtr TD run, though that game wasn't as close.

I do sure hope Kubiak and the Hawks figure out why Charbs sucked so bad vs. Pitt and fix it.

If the hole is there early, Charbonet is the better back. If the hole is not there early, walker is better. Walker gets smaller behind the line and is harder for LBs to see and his side to side movement is quicker. Charbonet is bigger, stronger and probably has more speed in open space, but if the hole isn't created immediately, his instinct is to plow through where the play was designed initially, whereas walker will jump cut from the 2 to the 6 in a heartbeat if the 2 isn't open as it should have been. In a zone scheme Zach is likely to have equal gains and losses, whereas walker will likely have a majority gains. Just my thoughts.