Quick Cap: Green Bay 27 - Seattle 17
by John Morgan on Oct 12, 2008 4:45 PM PDT
in Game Recap
62 comments
Before the season started, Football Outsiders projected Seattle to win 9.9 games.
As a Seahawks analyst, I analyzed those things Football Outsiders' excellent system couldn't easily factor in: the weaknesses lost, like Shaun Alexander and Chris Gray, and the strength or their draft class, good. I was justifiably optimistic about this season.
Five games in, I have no rational hope for this team. Something has invaded this organization, its coaching, its talent, its management, that has poisoned it to its core. It's no longer a matter of a good team underachieving, this is a bad team playing to form. If I could pin this on one man or even a few, if I could see a way to fix this team, or scapegoat someone or find not an easy solution, but any solution, I would, but Seattle is failing in so many ways, so often, and the root causes are so disguised, the Seahawks have become a team I can't cure or even recognize.
Green Bay is a mediocre team that's banged up and thin at key positions and they just took Seattle to the woodshed. At home. Did Charlie Frye starting contribute to that? Yes, but Frye is a Seattle's backup quarterback. That's a decision the team made and today it paid dividends. One could see it as a management mistake, or one could see it for what I think it is: constructing a team for the future. Tim Ruskell and company didn't care he had a liability at backup quarterback because Frye can be gone after this season. When Mike Holmgren's gone. And whatever it is Ruskell is building towards can begin to emerge.
Because the myth of Seattle going out on top, putting it all together to give one back for Holmy, has been debunked in searing fashion. Pragmatically, I think Mike Holmgren retires before the season is over. If I had money and no heart, I'd put it on Seattle winning six. But I'm irrational and passionate and stupid enough to care so much about a football team, and improbable and probably-shouldn't-be has about defined my whole damn existence so you'll excuse the tiny death I endure each Sunday because I still expect this fucking team to win.
Game Ball: Gonna have to start giving these out on losers too, so game ball goes to Josh Wilson who I think still plays a major part in Seattle's future. Wilson was nails in the return game and avoided a Meadowlands style smoking by Greg Jennings and the Packers.
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
excellent point
If you reviewed the 2007 season, incoming FA talent and draft, it would be reasonable to expect at least an 8-8 team being fielded in 2008.
I refuse to believe so many players have followed the Yuniesky Betancourt path of regression.
by Will Kier on Oct 12, 2008 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Taylor Mays / Jeremy Maclin
I’m excited.
by michaelfox99 on Oct 12, 2008 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
bleeding to death in connecticut
week in & week out… john summarizes my emotions with more elequence than my beaten-down body can muster.
the true insanity is, we still believe we can flip this bitch around.
by Maverickngoose80 on Oct 12, 2008 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the talent is there on paper
but the results are another thing.
I still believe this can be turned around, but we need hasselbeck back to have a competitive offense.
I still have no idea what is wrong with the defense, but it seems we are having trouble getting any pressure on the QB, which leaves plenty of time to dissect the secondary.
by SuperShadow on Oct 12, 2008 5:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's with the three man rushes on third down?
And the soft zones? Rodgers had all day back there to slice it up.
Honestly, when a guy has a separated shoulder, and you have arguable the best homefield advantage in the league, how do you not bring the house at least once in a while? It seemed like John “I’m the biggest pussy on the planet” Marshall was satisfied calling up what almost appeared to me to be a prevent defense all day long.
by kmedic on Oct 12, 2008 5:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's not just Marshall
This whole team seems to have given up, there is no intensity anywhere on the field.
PP
by armedpp on Oct 12, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't all Marshall's fault on defense
but perhaps just the overall thought of this organization. The fullback draw on 3rd and long is getting a bit annoying, and the poor playcalling on 3rd down on defense is also perplexing, as is the decisions of when to blitz.
I don’t see this game as a total failure however, since I could’ve seen us winning this one if we had Hasselbeck playing.
by LantermanC on Oct 12, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Today
I saw the draw happen only when we were backed up on third and long, I might be mistaken. But backed up on your own 20 that is the correct call
PP
by armedpp on Oct 12, 2008 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It opened the game...
It was the third play of the of the second drive from the ‘Hawks 11-yard line, 3rd and 9. If you’re not willing to pass to at least try and pick of the first down – regardless of who’s playing QB – why even show up for the game? It’s not the “right call”. It’s the conservative, no confidence, let’s minimize defeat rather than attempt victory call – a Holmgren special.
by Azimeir on Oct 13, 2008 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
its the smart play, a turnover there gives them free points, there is no other smart play call facing third and long on your own 11, this isn’t madden
PP
by armedpp on Oct 13, 2008 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disrespectfully disagree.
It’s gutless football. I’m not saying to go for it on 4th down here. I’m saying that on 3rd and 9 you try to get the nine. The 4 yards means shit. If you assume that your QB has a better chance of turning the ball over than completing a 9 yard pass on 3rd and 9 than pull him and run a wishbone, a wildcat, or whatever.
Hey, why not punt on 3rd down, just in case? This is the type of call that sets a tone for a game and sends a message to your own players: It’s okay to give up if there’s a chance of failure. You’re not picking up 9 yards on a draw play, especially when every scouting report about the ’Hawks says that this is what Holmgren is going to call in this situation more often than not.
It’s a spineless call that infects the team with a give-up mentality.
by Azimeir on Oct 14, 2008 3:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So instead of trying to at least use some misdirection
they should have abandoned all pretense of passing and put 3 running backs on the field? That definitely wouldn’t have sent any signals of defeat to your team. “Hey guys! We’re so screwed Forsett is going to start taking snaps over Frye!!”
Because it’s not about winning and losing, it’s about having some fun and looking macho.
by Nate Dogg on Oct 14, 2008 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Is there any point to this post? Did you mistakenly reply to the wrong post? Nothing that you said had anything to do with my post, certainly not within the context of the post to which I was replying.
by Azimeir on Oct 15, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then.
Azimeir:
If you assume that your QB has a better chance of turning the ball over than completing a 9 yard pass on 3rd and 9 than pull him and run a wishbone, a wildcat, or whatever.
Nate Dogg:
So instead of trying to at least use some misdirection
they should have abandoned all pretense of passing and put 3 running backs on the field? That definitely wouldn’t have sent any signals of defeat to your team. "Hey guys! We’re so screwed Forsett is going to start taking snaps over Frye!!"
by John Morgan on Oct 15, 2008 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh...
"That definitely wouldn’t have sent any signals of defeat to your team. "Hey guys! We’re so screwed Forsett is going to start taking snaps over Frye!!"
Because it’s not about winning and losing, it’s about having some fun and looking macho."
And all this bullshit?
by Azimeir on Oct 16, 2008 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And BTW...
Punting from inside the 20-yard line with a punter that nets about 30 yards is pretty much given them free points; Green Bay started the ensuing drive from their own 46 and got a FG on the drive.
by Azimeir on Oct 14, 2008 3:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I saw an all out blitz in the fourth quarter, score 24-10
It led to a Rodgers sack. The pocket collapsed and he had no time to throw the ball. I swear to God that was the first full house blitz I saw up until that play. Why wasn’t Marshall dialing those up earlier? Does he have to wait until we’re down by 2 TD’s to finally have the balls to call that? I mean, we were getting sliced up anyway with his soft zone calls, what was there to lose by blitzing more?
I seriously don’t understand that guy and I never will.
by kmedic on Oct 12, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We blitzed
on their 2nd touchdown to Jennings. The problem is our corners can’t play man to man.
by scotthawk on Oct 12, 2008 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that was a good throw
Because Russell was right up in Rodgers face
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 12, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just back from work and YUUUUCK
Frye with a massive 83 yards passing.
My biggest question, how the heck did Brian Russell get a sack?
by MFAN on Oct 12, 2008 5:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a good question.
He’s never shown us any sack.
by Bloof on Oct 12, 2008 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Since I don’t have tape, I was wondering if I could confirm something. Leonard Weaver while being a versatile full back, doesn’t seem to have the requisite ability as a lead blocker for a team that clearly needs to be leaning on the running game. Watching I have not been impressed but I don’t really get multiple looks at the game. Is it time to give Owen Schmidt some looks at fullback since that seems to be what he was drafted for?
PP
by armedpp on Oct 12, 2008 5:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought he looked better today
But that could be clouded by his nice block on that 4th and 1
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 12, 2008 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oddly enough...
it was Chris Carter on an ESPN broadcast prior to the start of the season who called it, in an eerily prescient way. He talked about having two coaching staffs. While Berman was giving the “No way Holmgren’s not in charge” line, which I was completely swallowing, Carter made the key point. He said, I’m paraphrasing, there won’t be any disharmony as long as they don’t start slow. But if they start slow, you just watch that thing unravel.
I thought, “Whatever. He’s a hater for some reason I don’t know about.” But lo and behold hamstrung by a set of crippling injuries, Seattle has started out slow—more than slow. In a mere five games this thing has fallen. completely. apart. The offense, his forte, is as helpless as stroke victim. It’s hard to see this group performing well, even had Engram started the season. Logan Payne, Courtney Taylor, and Jordan Kent, who were supposed to take us forward, are clearly not ready for prime time.
The defense, which we know is talented, has played with little discipline and sounds like—as I’ve only been able to catch the Hawks on radio—they’re kinda going through the motions. In short, most of what can go wrong has.
As much as I hate to say it, it may not be worth a meaningless winning streak at the end of the season get to, say, 8 wins as opposed to 6. Putting aside morality and karma, both of which I believe in, tanking is poor strategy because it can erode your attractiveness as a free agent destination. You can’t build exclusively through the draft anyway. At this point, what reason is there to rush Matt or Deion Branch back? Charlie Frye is too much to take, but hopefully Seneca will be ready to go next week. We may as well get Seneca a few snaps.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Oct 12, 2008 5:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Cris Carter is a welcome addition to that show.
It was completely unwatchable last year, and is only partially unwatchable (Keyshawn Johnson) this year.
by Phildopip on Oct 13, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minus his comment about how no one asked him if the lions should draft Rodgers and Williams
Who he said he worked out and would both be busts. Turns out someone did ask him and he compared Rodgers to Moss and said Williams would be a star in the league.
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 13, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didnt think Josh Wilson played that well today.
I’m thinking of two plays in particular, both in the 2nd quarter. The first play he was lined up over Donald Driver in the slot on the offense’s right side and Driver caught a ~20 yard first down catch on what I believe was a third down conversion. The other was another first down catch by Jennings at the Seattle 2 that set up the Pack’s TD before halftime. These two plays appeared to have a lot in common. Not only was Wilson lined up over a WR who caught a key first down reception, but on both plays it looked to me like Wilson was staring into the backfield the entire play instead of watching his man. By the time the ball was thrown, the receivers were wide open and it was too late for Wilson to recover and break up the pass. I understand that the Hawks may have been employing a zone on these plays, and Wilson might have been expecting safety help — especially on the Driver reception — but it seems that even in a zone he ought to be keeping track of where the receiver he lines up over is headed.
Granted, Wilson did not get torched today against Jennings like he did against NYG, and I thought his play was solid outside of those two plays. I guess we have to look for the silver lining where we can find it at this point. In any case, thanks for your consistently outstanding analysis over the last two seasons, John.
by FlaskInSafeco on Oct 12, 2008 6:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Already looking forward to next season.
I know its way too early for that, but that’s where I’m at. I’d love to know what’s going on with the coaching staff. Soft Zones and no blitzes. What a nightmare.
by Professor on Oct 12, 2008 8:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The answer to your search is easy:
Say hello to “Timmay”!
1) Hutch/Branch… take your pick… both are disgusting, arrogant moves
2) Small corners built to stop the 1999 Rams
3) Poor DE drafts
4) Really shitty OL drafts
5) Sixth round receiver, anyone?
6) Hey, what is offense, anyway?
But hey, we’ll have a high pick to overvalue yet another DB, say a safety, and watch Beck age like the guy that drank from the cup of death. Ruskell has built a nice JV team for the NFL to feast upon. I long for the untidy days of Holmgren and Ted Thompson.
Good luck, Mora. You may be a fine coach… but you can’t coach suck.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 12, 2008 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Retards annoy the fuck out of me.
And I don’t think that’s the beer talking.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Oct 12, 2008 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have another beer
Reality sucks, eh. Denial is the first phase of recovery. Enjoy the journey.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 12, 2008 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Ruskell has been total crap
an nfc championship, 3 division titles and a birth in the superbowl – the 1st in franchise history.
Losing Hutch was on cap-guru Mike Reinfeldt (current Titans GM). It was Reinfeldt who decided that the transition tag was the way to go with Hutch.
“Ruskell has built a nice JV team for the NFL to feast upon”
You can’t be serious with this comment. I hope you’re just blowing off steam. Seriously, the Seahawks are the most successful franchise in the NFC and probably the NFL (minus the pats, colts and botls) for the past 4-5 seasons.
Oh and saying stupid things like “Timmay!” makes you sound like one of the morons that comments on Seahawks Insider.
by MFAN on Oct 12, 2008 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's not be so reactionary.
I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find many GMs that have better track records than Ruskell. Now be honest, were you saying these things last year when Matt Hasselbeck and the offense were putting up some wonderful numbers despite a gimpy Shaun Alexander?
Football has a tendency to be a “what have you done for me lately” kind of game. Is a 1-4 record really all it takes to convince you that Tim Ruskell is a terrible GM despite mountains of evidence that would suggest otherwise?
by BrianL on Oct 12, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In fact I was...
Just not on this forum:
Our 3rd down defense last year was porous, and we had road wins that game down to the wire against bacups (StL, Phi).
And yes, the result of great drafting from 2000-2005 showed in 2006/7. But we are on the verge of calling all of Tim Ruskell’s #1 picks busts. He may get two draft picks, perhaps three (if you count Carlson), that are legitimate in 4 drafts.
Listen, I love watching the Seahawks; but it does not bother me to be honest. I do not know Tim Ruskell, nor do I wish him ill will. The facts are there. Let’s take a trip down Memory lane:
2008:
1) Lawrence Jackson (Great potential… has disappeared this year)
2) John Carlson (Great potential)
4) Red Bryant (who knows)
5) Owen Scmitt (playing behind a pro-bowler?)
6) Tyler Scmitt (may never play a down)
7a) Justin Forsett (We shall see…)
7b) Brandon Coutu (He better be good)
2007:
1) Deion Branch (Was injury prone at NE… there is a reason they did not resign him)
2) Josh Wilson (Jury still out, hit or miss, plays the run at least)
3) Brandon Mebane (Plays hard, but it is not showing up as results; great upside)
4) Baraka Atkins (Hawks admit he is more of a project than expected… a loafer)
5) Will Herring (Bak luck happens; get better my man)
6a) Courtney Taylor (loafer… bust)
6b) Jordan Kent (raw; we can hope)
7) Steve Vallos (reminds me of the movie Rudy)
2006:
1) Kelly Jennings (they don’t call him Slim for nothing; poor tackler, lacks willingness)
2) Darryl Tapp (a 3rd year backup)
4) Rob Sims (Everyone will get pissed at this, but he is soft)
5) David Kirtman (c’ya)
7) Ryan Plackemier (c’ya)
2005:
1) Chris Spencer (you decide, here are the guys drafted after Chris int he first round:
Roddy White
Louis Castillo
Marlin Jackson
Heath Miller
Mike Patterson
Logan Mankins
2) Lofa Tatupu (Great first 3 years… I assume this year is an aberration)
3a) David Greene (Remember me!, c’ya)
3b) Leroy Hill (Great tackler, plays run well, not good in space, will cost too much to keep)
4) Ray Willis (still has potential, most likely gone in ‘09)
5) Jeb Huckeba (unfortuante injury… c’ya)
6) Tony Jackson (c’ya)
7) Cornelious Wortham (c’ya)
Overall, not bad. But be honest, how many of these guys played in the Superbowl – Two. And let’s be really really honest now: If we played in the AFC South, or North, or West, or East, or the NFC South, or East we would be lucky to have been in the playoffs in 2006-7.
We have great parts, and I love Tim Ruskell’s philosophy. However, you cannot deny we are getting blown off the ball on both sides. We are soft. We are like Boise State; we have talent, but we depend on a weak conference and lots of overachieving.
So, all is not lost. But we must start drafting to play Dallas, not the Rams. We must start drafting to play Arizona, not the 49ers. Thus, we must get bigger and stronger. We need to prepare for post-Hasselbeck.
I would love to see us really change it up and draft a big guy, say Terrence Cody out of Alabama, and move to a 3-4. We have the starting LB crew to do so. Change up our schemes, get a decent safety, draft a ton of talent on the OLine, and whammo, we are reborn.
Or we could trade Hill or Peterson (or both), draft Malauga or Chase, get a safety and pray Beck comes back strong at age 34 with a bad knee.
Not reactionary… just calling it like I see it. If we can rip Brian Russell for subjective plays based on scheme and a team concept, I see no reason why Tim Ruskell is not allowed to be criticized.
Be willing to drink the medicine if you dish it out.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you write so much and think so little about what you have written?
Overall, not bad. But be honest, how many of these guys played in the Superbowl – Two.
In other words, two rookie starters from Tim Ruskell’s very first draft helped Seattle make the Super Bowl — and that’s bad?
However, you cannot deny we are getting blown off the ball on both sides. We are soft.
Dignify that statement. Seattle’s pass rush, run defense and pass blocking have been their strengths. And what does “soft” mean? You think they aren’t trying, or aren’t tough enough?
I would love to see us really change it up and draft a big guy, say Terrence Cody out of Alabama, and move to a 3-4. We have the starting LB crew to do so.
Seattle’s linebackers look nothing like 3-4 linebackers. They’re small and fast and would be liabilities against pulling blockers. Every talented member of the front seven, the linebackers, Kerney, Mebane, Tapp etc, would be squandered. This makes zero sense.
Change up our schemes, get a decent safety, draft a ton of talent on the OLine, and whammo, we are reborn.
Or we could trade Hill or Peterson (or both), draft Malauga or Chase, get a safety and pray Beck comes back strong at age 34 with a bad knee.
So all we need to do is draft a ton of talent on the offensive line, get a decent safety, trade two of our best defensive players, one who is soon to be a free agent, draft a single linebacker to replace them and that will make this team a competitor. It’s funny that you create an entirely unrealistic plan and still manage to put Seattle farther back than it started.
Not reactionary…
You’re right, this isn’t reactionary. It’s poorly conceived and not centered in reality.
by John Morgan on Oct 13, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the very least...
Tapp might make a good 3-4 OLB, and Peterson I think would too.
But really it would squander a lot of players and put an even SMALLER defense on the field, causing us to get blown off the ball like this poster has never seen.
by cashless on Oct 13, 2008 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here are my thoughts
Well, I will accept that my statements are baseless. I would argue that all positions are baseless except for what is based on what has been done. I need not show our defensive rankings. Take out St. Louis, which is now an aberration, and we are yucky.
All I ask is that we are willing to look at things with a different lense. I am a banker, thus, I am willing to accept I am wrong on this (and based on the market, many other things :) )
<Seattle’s linebackers look nothing like 3-4 linebackers>
First attrition:
Rocky Benard = Gone
Terrill = good substitution for 3-3-5
Tapp = good substitution for 3-3-5
Then what we have:
Jackson has proven to do well in space, and has the speed to cover the TE, and the smarts
Kerney’s career is prolonged by standing him up… hell, we are doing this already
Tatupu makes a fine 3-4 ILB
Hill makes a fine 3-4 OLB
Peterson would fit fine in the Shaun Phillips role seen in SD
What we need:
Depth at ILB… but we need that anyway
Here is the breakdown of 3-4/hybrid teams to that of Seattle as is, and with Kerney/Jackson playing OLB:
SF – Without Justin Smith = 6’2 250
SF – With Justin Smith = 6’2 253
AZ – 6.27 248
SEA – 6’1 240
SEA – With Kerney/Jackson 6’2 249
NE – 6’23 246
NE – 6’28 248 (w/o Larry Izzo)
SD – 6.25 246
So it is not that far fetched.
Draft:
1) Big DT
2) T/C/WR/ILB
3) T/C/WR/ILB
4) T/C/WR/ILB
5) T/C/WR/ILB
The alternative is to stay 4-3 and draft:
1) QB/OT
2) QB/OT
3) WR/C/OLB
4) WR/C/OLB
5) WR/C/OLB
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're a good sport and I like that.
I shouldn’t be so pissy. Apologies if I’ve been rude to you in the past.
Nevertheless, Kerney and Jackson cannot play linebacker and as you yourself have shown, Seattle is very small without those two in the ranks. You’re average is artificially inflated by the assumption they can, and it doesn’t reconcile the fact that Tatupu, Hill and Peterson are standard 4-3 linebackers without the height or size to fight off blockers. Kerney is 272 and Jackson 271, they’re defensive ends without ambiguity. In fact, Jackson is big enough that he’s played end in a 3-4. Jackson is a situational coverage man and would not function well tracking rushers from the second level. Kerney…I mean…he’s only standing as a pass rusher and if you’ve seen him play zone then I think I need say no more. Without those two, who don’t fit, Seattle would have the smallest, shortest and weakest set of 3-4 linebackers in the NFL.
And really, why should Seattle switch schemes? Many of the best defenses in the NFL are 4-3 defenses. It’s fantasy GMing and like I said above, it doesn’t exist it the real world.
by John Morgan on Oct 13, 2008 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on the last part
And, thus, is my reactionary base. I am looking for something new. Mebane is a beast, and hill reminds me of Phillips (more than Peterson).
From a purley speculative standpoint, I am excited about this team, but in a rebuilding kind of way. We have really good, young parts. But I see a three year effort back to the top. Three years to move to a hybrid defensive scheme, and to let Hasselbeck groom a new QB.
Now, that is not to say that we are not going to be competitive in ’09, or the remainder of ’08. But we have a chance, right now, to allow for some growth pains, and build a beast.
Immediately, as I say that, the devil in me screams, in sport, as in life, there is only now. So, alas… what to do… do you try to win now, as in 2008 and 2009, or do we try to win in 2010?
Perhaps, in an odd sense, this is my way of mourning… my way of letting go. Of all the stupid things in life to be attached to, I am attached to the Seahawks. My wife rues the day.
No worries on all past conversations. I am sarcastic and an instigator. I have much to learn. I enjoy the honesty this site brings. I am working on my delivery, and appreciate everyone’s patience.
Given proper perspective, this year offers much to learn from.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One ML:B, even two LB's, does not a GM make
Ted Thompson and Holmgren built the 2005 hawks. I would gladly take some disruption in the FO over the JV team we have assembled.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 12, 2008 10:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I almost refuse to respond to this
But I will give you a little shot at redemption of you, in all fairness, mention some of the positive things Ruskell has done.
I mean, you are fair and balanced, right?
by Bloof on Oct 12, 2008 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ruskell is a great
Front Office guy. He is a leader. He has genuine passion for his trade, and he does his best. He has restored order to what was a classic disfuntional family.
Being a leader is not the same as being a great judge of talent. That is my complaint.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the internet
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Oct 13, 2008 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blurgh.
5 games in and we’re already playing for draft position. This is not how I wanted Holmgren to go out.
What a miserable year for Seattle sports.
by Benne on Oct 12, 2008 10:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how many of you were at the game.....
And I’m not sure what it looked like on t.v. or if they showed the confusion on d seconds prior to the snap and many occasions. Now that Tatupu is wearing the bug, they seem to have him changing the d efensive call right before the snap on many of the plays, this is causing the defense to be short on time and not properly setting up and matching up. Tatupu will start tapping his helmet and the defense starts scrambling around like their heads are cut off, then Rodgers would take the snap, get the play off and everyone would be staring at each other not sure of whos job it was to cover that guy????, I have never noticed this problem til’ the game today, but think it is accounting for a lot of the mis-cues on defense. I know they are in the process of learning a new d, but stick to what you know and quit calling in changes right before the snap, its not working!
by collyb on Oct 12, 2008 11:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The problem is
They are too busy waving their hands trying to the crowd excited….I’m kidding but not entirely.
by m_b on Oct 13, 2008 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Yes, but Frye is a Seattle's backup quarterback."
No, Frye is the 3rd-string QB, literally the inactive Emergency QB on normal days with the top two QB’s healthy. Teams never expect that position to get on the field. Obviously you hope that the 3rd QB performs if he has to play, but I don’t necessarily agree that Frye is some big organizational mistake. He’s a 3rd-stringer, a project.
BTW… 2008 passed “trainwreck” some time ago. Feels like “death spiral” at this point.
by lemonverbena on Oct 13, 2008 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
for some god damn reason
I’m still optimistic
You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.
by Scruffy Lefty on Oct 13, 2008 10:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I really do not want a to 5 pick next year. Giant guaranteed rookie contracts preventing us from resigning Leroy Hill? No thanks.
by redwolf75 on Oct 13, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will admit I'm intrigued
by the opportunity of getting one of these guys:
Bradford
Stratford
Oher
Monroe
Smith
McCoy
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 12:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stratford?
Do you mean Stafford? It’s hard to take that seriously when you don’t even know the guy’s name.
by thecassino on Oct 13, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I’ll work on my spelling… perhaps a stratford will come out of the blue ? :)
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you
have a chance to watch Oklahoma/Texas… both McCoy and Bradford are intriguing, if they come out. The guy that would be interesting is the CMU guy, Dan LeFevour… again, if he entered the draft. Without the underclassman, not much to choose from.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Oct 13, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Both those guys are having great seasons, but the scouts seem to love Stafford.
I wouldn’t be real pleased if the Hawks took a QB though.
by thecassino on Oct 13, 2008 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...
…My pre-season thoughts of this team reminding me too much of the 2004 Mariners aren’t all that far-fetched???
This signature space for rent.
by PositivePaul on Oct 13, 2008 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I did not have those thoughts pre-season
but have had them in the meantime…
by vj on Oct 13, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
