Quick Cap: Seahawks 23 - Rams 20
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 1:31 PM PST
in Game Recap
70 comments
Update: Hey, good for the guys. I'm sour. It was ugly and against a terrible team. But screw me. This team has never, ever quit and I've never once felt anything but proud to be a Seahawks fan.
. . .
Seattle won and in so doing proved they're one of the worst teams in football.
Game Ball: John Carlson: Six targets, five receptions, three first downs and 76 yards.
Something else after the jump.
 |
Falling Stars Do you remember still the falling stars -Ranier Maria Rielke |
Donner Party
Forsaken, fucking in the cold,
eating each other, lost
runny noses,
complaining all the time
like so many
people
that we know
-Richard Brautigan
|
So Now? the words have come and gone, -Charles Bukowski |
 |
0 recs |
70 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yeah
I think my reaction to this is a lot different than most. I thought Seattle should kill the Rams. Instead they were outplayed throughout. The Rams are a rare kind of awful. Any team within two years of contention should have been able to kill Saint Louis. Honestly, this is the worst game of the year for me. Just ugly and miserable and now Lock’s injured.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a changing of the guard, and it's depressing
but I still don’t come away as bleak on the Hawks future as you do.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants game had to be worse....didn't it?
by MFAN on Dec 14, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We all knew that the Giants were at the very least a decent team.
The Rams suck, and they outplayed us today. That’s pretty painful.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya it's a hard call
The Giants game told us (or should have if we weren’t a bunch of homers) that the season was over. But this game was hard because good holy jesus were they awful. It was the first time I was embarrassed for the Hawks.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2008 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any word on the extent of Lock's injury?
I’m looking through the quick cap stuff they’ve got on ESPN, and judging by the looks of it this was an awfully meaningless victory. If Lock’s seriously hurt then I don’t think this game could have had a worse outcome.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would we kill the Rams?
No starting QB, a TOTALLY new offfensive line, and missing two of it’s best defenders. Against a Rams team that got Steven Jackson back, at home. No reason to win.
And a comeback, on top of that.
Sorry John, I don’t get your depression over this.
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you see Saint Louis as a 2-11 team
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This OL/QB stuff....
is just starting to get weird to me.
Assuming that the info we’re getting on Jones is good and the world doesn’t rotate around Will Carroll, if we draft a LT, he’s going to sit on the bench in 2009. How many teams have ever drafted an OL with a top 5 pick to ride the bench? Beyond that, i am not certain how watching 4 quarters of network replays can give anyone enough information to come to the conclusion that Lock and Willis at the tackles is an unacceptable option.
While I am troubled about Hass’ condition, I am not nearly of the mind that he’s played his last productive NFL game like many of you are.
A new defensive scheme w/ Taylor Mays and or a stud WR can go a long way to making the Hawks really good next season.
by PLU Tim on Dec 14, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be awful to plan for the future
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok...that's still doesn't explain...
why planning for the future cannot include a stud WR or Mays. I’d love for someone to explain to me why having one of those options would be detrimental to the future of the seahawks. I’m not being facetious. I’d just like a really thought out explanation as to why drafting and paying a LT a boat load of cash to be a sideline prop is better than having an impact DB or WR to help in 2009.
I promise, that worst case scenario, there will be more LT’s coming out of college in 2010.
by PLU Tim on Dec 14, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you overrate Mays
He’s done almost nothing in college. I’m still not convinced he even plays safety in the pros. And WRT WR, figure Calvin Johnson is the best wide receiver prospect since Carlos Rogers or even maybe longer. Teams don’t built contenders through drafting wide receivers.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Arguably the two most important positions on offense
are QB and LT. Hasselbeck is 33 and has back problems, his injuries causing him to miss significant time this year. When he has played he’s looked bad. Walt is 35 and just had microfracture surgery. These are significant issues that if they don’t need to be addressed immediately they will after next year. You’ve got the opportunity to draft the best LT or the best QB in this years draft, and hopefully you won’t have the opportunity to draft this high again.
The receivers, a non-premium position, are talented and the average age of your top 5 guys is 29. Rookie WR production is usually pretty poor, so the idea that one would help Seattle immediately is iffy. Drafting a safety is without a doubt a huge need but the positional importance of a safety pales in comparison to LT or QB. A mid round pick or finding an average safety in free agency would be fine for this team.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
St. Louis destroyed Washington this year.
I don’t think Washington is two years from contention…
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 14, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
St. Louis was good for two weeks.
Then they remembered that they were one of the worst teams of the decade. New coach excitement wore off.
by AtomicGarden on Dec 15, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends how you look at it.
Scrapping a luck win from the Rams to lose essential draft position is a type of victory.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the 10 million seperating 2nd and 5th draft slots doesn't matter to you?
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not nearly as much the typical talent gap between the top Qb and top OT and the 2nd Qb and 2nd OT
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so 2 QB's and 2 OT's are going to go in the top five?
That would be crazy.
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean one offensive tackle and one quarterback in the top four?
Because that’s not at all unlikely.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, OK... this assumes we draft one of the two
The general surprise on my end is that there are two of each worth drafting that high… considering just how many positions there are on a football team.
Because if there isn’t, you know Ruskell will try and drop down a few spots.
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Most credible boards I see have Bradford, Stafford and Smith/Oher going in the first five
Now, I get this sneaking suspicion Seattle is going to sign Matt Cassel and Locklear has played pretty well, so Ruskell could trade down and do one of his typical defense heavy, deep, trade down when you can, trade up when the talent is there kind of drafts.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Please no Cassel
That could be disastruous.
by Matthew on Dec 14, 2008 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt it...
Cassell is going to be looking for a starting gig. Unless you’re convinced that Hass is getting released this offseason, i don’t see Seattle as having one to offer.
by PLU Tim on Dec 14, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I've got to think there's going to be a team out there dumb enough to give him a starting gig.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I expect that Philadelphia will overpay for Matt Cassel this off-season.
Since Donovan McNabb will probably be a salary cap casualty and Kevin Kolb looking like a flat-out bust, the Eagles may very well soon be in the market for a starting quarterback.
Yet, in any event, I can’t fathom Cassel sporting a Seahawks uniform.
by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2008 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
any reasoning on why they'd target Cassell
other than the fact Ruskell likes to fill needs before the draft?
It doesn’t seem particularly prudent to me.
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie Frye and David Greene
Ruskell seems to like “prototypical” quarterbacks that don’t cost much. Of course, his eye for quarterback talent is pretty terrifying. I wouldn’t trade a Joey Cora card for Frye.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Who, apropos of David Greene, do you think that Tim Ruskell might ...
target at quarterback with roughly a third-round pick in the ’09 NFL Draft?
One option could be Hunter Cantwell, who’ll most likely fail in the NFL.
I, too, lack faith in Ruskell’s evaluating abilities regarding quarterbacks.
by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2008 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I should have my cable back next week.
Hopefully I can actually watch one of these games for a change.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 1:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Free TV baby!
I installed a free (w/ $40 govt coupon) over the air reciever this week, and with the 25 cent loop antenna my old TV had for UHF channels, I now get CRYSTAL clear HDTV (well almost, it’s a great signal on my old TV), all right off the air. Free of charge.
by BrianF on Dec 14, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I only saw the second half
so my perspective is skewed, but…..a mid December game between two 2-11 teams? Meh. How much can this really tell us?
by Will Kier on Dec 14, 2008 1:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
And with that out of the way
How did Lock look to you at LT today?
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the 09 draft order
As of now?
1) Detroit
2) St. Louis
3) Kansas City
4) Cincinnati
5) SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
6) Oakland
I assume Detroit and St. Louis are basically locked in. Kansas City and Cincinnati play on week 17, they’re facing Miami and Cleveland next week. Unfortunately Oakland’s playing Houston and Tampa Bay for the next two weeks. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.
by Will Kier on Dec 14, 2008 3:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I guess, in retrospect, it's not a big deal
This game really got under my skin for some reason. I’ve never seen my Hawks play so poorly. It was just so ugly. So, so ugly.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Week 1?
I didn’t really watch this game that carefully, but that game sticks out to me for its poor play, poor coaching, poor mental lapses, etc.
by Matthew on Dec 14, 2008 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the defense was pretty good and the Bills aren't terrible.
Special teams is unpredictable so losing a game on returns and a trick play doesn’t bother me much. Today was like watching a really frickin’ crappy team lose to an even worse team.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Week 1
we saw a team that cared throughout. This team did not. (I am referring to the D, here)
by Dukeshire on Dec 14, 2008 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For me, it's still the Giants game.
We were coming off the bye and our players were starting to get healthy. It was the perfect opportunity to build some momentum and get back in the division race. Then the Giants dropped our pants and whipped our bare ass until it was red and swollen.
Every day I hear about Seattle sports' failures. Every night I fall asleep to the sound of my own tears.
by Benne on Dec 14, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brian should lay the banhammer down on your reactionary ass
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2008 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Using the banhammer on John would result in banhammer backfire.
Very painful.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember when we were pissed about people declaring the season dead?
Ah, good times.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The proper term in that context isn't "reactionary," but rather the word overreactive.
This, by the way, is solely a matter of semantics. I’m sure most of y’all know that, though.
by AK1984 on Dec 14, 2008 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I work at 1am
So I’m calling it an afternoon. No celebratory binge drinking tonight.
by John Morgan on Dec 14, 2008 4:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
1 AM?
Good lord. I don’t feel so bad about my 5:30 AM commute anymore.
by BrianL on Dec 14, 2008 4:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
530 AM commute?
Good lord, I don’t feel so bad about my two mile drive to work anymore.
by LantermanC on Dec 15, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ugh.
what a painful i (thankfully so) didn’t get to watch. it sounds like the rams throughly outplayed the ’hawks and just got the wrong end of the stick at the end. oh well. at least i can get some pleasure knowing jackson had some success.
the rams will beat the ’hawks sometime in the next two years, i promise.
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 14, 2008 6:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't really think they outplayed the Hawks at all.
We ran for about the same yardage, and Seneca had more than Bulger in the air.
It’s just assumed around here that if you’re not totally smoking the Rams, your team stinks.
by djafrot on Dec 14, 2008 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
That sounds about right….
Bringin' the outside heat.
by FizzleDrip on Dec 14, 2008 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hey
we kind of won the football game. would you have felt better about the team and players if we lost? boo freakin hoo. if you haven’t noticed the hawks aren’t that good. this is still the same team that almost beat a pretty good dolphins team in miami and the same team that got blown out in dallas. we can’t tell ANYTHING about the future of them from a win like this. a win is a win. san diego should’ve lost at kansas city this weekend and were outplayed throughout. does that mean that they as well have no future. you guys are treating this like a loss. we won. would you feel better about the team if we had lost, cause it sure as hell sounds like it.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Dec 14, 2008 8:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Seneca ripped into the team at halftime
Wonder if his speech topped Singletary.
by MFAN on Dec 14, 2008 11:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh and we have more road wins than home wins
Never thought that would happen to the Seahawks.
by MFAN on Dec 14, 2008 11:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
John, love the site, but...
One criticism I have to make is that this site tends to be a bit manic depressive. It’s understandable, given how much time you give to exclusively analyzing your favorite team, but seriously…No matter how you look at it, this was ONE GAME. At the tail end of a demoralizing season. With a slew of starters out. This team shouldn’t “kill” anybody at this level, even the horrible Rams. At this point, I think your disappointment comes more from unrealistic expectations you still somehow have for this team, despite observing quite accurately their numerous faults all season long.
Winning is mostly about skill, execution, and heart. At the NFL level, winning big has a large component of luck to it. Just today, Indy struggled to beat Detroit, the Redskins lost to Cincinnati, San Diego barely beat KC, and the Arizona offense looked terrible. Drawing any broad conclusions about any of those teams from just their game today is worthless. As you like to point out, sample size is important. If before today’s game you had certain well-founded beliefs about the various qualities of individual Seahawks or the team as a whole, and after one game those beliefs are destroyed, that’s not analysis. It’s overreaction. This site needs less melodrama, hype and tortured recriminations, and more objective analysis.
by sev79 on Dec 15, 2008 12:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
guess everyone has differing opinions, but I truly feel this site has a healthy balance. extraordinary blog, frequented by loyal and articulate fans, who continually return for the most on-point hawk analysis, better yet, football analysis, you could hope to find.
seeing hawk games out here is rare at best, and week after week I look forward to passionate no-bs recap and the detailed breakdown that always accompanies it.
by Maverickngoose80 on Dec 15, 2008 6:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think your criticism has merit, but the Quick Cap is supposed to be irrational and passionate.
I basically one-take them after the game and whatever comes out, comes out.
by John Morgan on Dec 15, 2008 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The late games
Anyone sick and tired of seeing the Cowboys and Steelers win?
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Dec 15, 2008 5:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Seahawks aren't worst team
At least the Seahawks aren’t the worst team in franchise history, they are better than the 1992 team now…
by seahawks19and0 on Dec 15, 2008 2:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
...and still less embarassing than the Mariners, as well.
I mean, we’ve had a slew of injuries. The Mariners had an essentially healthy collapse to 100+ losses.
While the Seahawks are pretty bad right now, I’m not ashamed of the down year. Even if it takes us a couple more years before we’re good again (which I could see, but there’s also a decent chance we could win our division next season — a lot will have to do with whether Hass (and Walt) are actually “done” or if they have a couple more above average seasons in ’em)
To continue my rant, I have this weird optimism for both teams, actually. The Mariners will most likely contend for the cellar next season, but the new GM actually has shown signs of intelligence and made a couple productive moves. I’m not convinced the Seahawks reign is over. A lot of things will have to go right, as I mentioned, and even if they don’t, we have a lot of young talent and I don’t see another decade of horridness like the Hawks of the 90’s. But since we live in Seattle, that will somehow end up happening. :)
by AtomicGarden on Dec 15, 2008 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, unlike the Mariners
The talent is still there. We just need to get patched up, and this gives us a good chance to contend. If anything, this is karma. Afterall, we never really had that Superbowl hangover
by myx on Dec 16, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
