Interesting News Trib Article Re Hutch

by jeager on Jan 11, 2008 6:40 AM PST

The question, essentially: would the team be better off if it had thrown lots of dough at Hutch, rather than spending on Julian Peterson, Burly, etc?

I'm pasting the URL for the story below. Dunno if it'll link or not, as I'm not savvy about such things.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seahawks/story/251698.html

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd still rather have Peterson

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 11, 2008 7:30 AM PST reply actions

I have

this argument with another Hoeks fan all the time. He says not resigning Hutchinson has caused all sorts of problems. I maintain that you cannot invest that much money on a Guard.

by SpokaneSHAWK on Jan 11, 2008 8:10 AM PST reply actions

I think there's something to the gist of the article, i.e. that freeing up the Hutch dough allowed the Hawks to become the defense-centric team they are today. With Hutch, they would have a better running game. Hard to say how much better, though, with Shaun's decline in health, which presumably would have occurred even with Hutch here.

A lot of the problem, I think, has been the coaching staff's slow adaptation to the fact that we don't have Hutch any more. It took them until the middle of this season to compensate for the fact that due to Hutch's departure and Shaun's aging/injuries, we are simply not a running team anymore.

by jeager on Jan 11, 2008 8:46 AM PST reply actions