Seattle Seahawks Smothered by Minnesota Vikings, 35 - 9

make up evidence to make your case stronger. Chambers was traded for a 2nd round pick, quite a difference from a 4th. Everyone knows that Moss was an exception. Everyone thought his career was on the downslide and he had the rep as a “me first” player.

Giving up the best guard in the NFL when you have an aging line was suicide

Please. It’s been stated time and time again that Ruskell did not “give up” Hutch. The poison pill had never been used previously in such a fashion.

These responses to the OP are examples of the ad hominem fallacy.

Mirer McGwire and Stouffer are Infamous not famous. Mirer, I checked the spelling, feel better? Ruskell is spelled L-O-S-E-R

The RB for the Eagles. That’s the McCoy I’m talking about. Crabtree and his character issues seem to be working okay now for the Niners after a rocky start. He would’ve gotten the Top WR money he wanted if we drafted him becuase he would’ve been the 1st WR drafted. No holdout for us.

The Eagles have another dynasty brewing after the McNabb/Westbrook era. They have the Kolb/McCoy/ DeSean Jackson era coming next. With McCoy and Jackson getting valuable experience with McNabb. This is exactly what I wanted the Sehawks to do in this years draft. Andy Reid got it right! We didin’t, or should I say Ruskell didn’t. Andy Reid use to work for someone that is being considered by Cleveland…(just a little joke there)

Go ahead and blame the O-line

Don’t these explanation get tired after a while?

Duckett is a completely different RB than anyone on the Seahawks. We had 2nd and short and 3rd and short today and last week and absolutely no one to put on the field to do anything but receive a dump-off-and-pray pass from Hasselbeck. That one-dimensional weakness is exactly why Duckett was brought in and why Holmgren used him so effectively last year. I don’t buy the argument that just because our coaches had no faith in letting Forsett or Rankin run the ball, therefore they would have had no faith in Duckett. T.J. could have added a dimension to our offense the past two weeks that was sadly sadly lacking. We have No power game whatsoever and that is a dimension no NFL team should be without.

I blame Mora and Knapp for casting off Duckett in favor of James, which effectively de-gutted their short yardage power game.

Wahle wasn’t a bad signing. He was the only good FA OG available at the time and he played very well until he shoulder failed. If the Seahakws doctors said he was good to sign then Ruskell gets the blame for his shoulder going out three months later? And Ruskell never said “OL is all fixed!” In the very next draft, he drafted an OG in the second round to replace Wahle.

My point was that blaming the GM for not signing enough O linemen and then blaming the GM for signing too many O lineman who got injured shows a real lack of common sense, that’s all I was saying.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The GM is clearly not responsible for the injuries, nor all of the poor play and poor coaching witnessed today.

Which they did with Edge as well. I find that an odd practice.

He’s not a FB, but he really isn’t a Tailback either. He forces us to keep him on the roster just for short yardage situations. Those situations ARE usually for your FB or your feature RB. Duckett was neither…he couldn’t even be used as a 3rd down back (if the situation was 2 yds or more). Short yardage back isn’t worthy of a roster spot when you can’t do anything else. That being said Duckett did what was asked of him.

Can we please stop walking the Holmgren path?

Jimmy Johnson has a better chance of being our next GM. So does Bill Walsh, come to think of it.

If so, please share.

With so many players leaving, and new players coming in, plus the long break, I don’t know how much Momentum comes into play.

and winning the next year. The offseason is long. There are usually a lot of changes to the composition of the team, including coaching changes. Talent leaves and young talent is added. Even successful teams have proven that there isn’t a momentum connection between the end of a season and the beginning of the next. Consider the Chargers (this was mentioned in the broadcast today):

2004: Finished 9-2. Next season, started 3-4.
2005: Finished 6-3. Next season, started 4-2.
2006: Finished 9-1. Next season, started 1-3.
2007: Finished 8-1. Next season, started 4-8.
2008: Finished 4-0. Next season, started 2-3.

5 seasons, 4 of which there was negative correlation and one with positive correlation (‘05/’06). Add the columns up and you get 36-7 transitioning into 16-20 over 5 years.

Even if end of season momentum was mathematically proven to be relevant, the Seahawks are far from being a serious contender anyways. For example, I really could care less if Hasselbeck finishes the season playing better- because he’s done as a franchise QB. If we had a Mathew Stafford type at QB who needs to learn to win and has good potential, I’d feel very differently. But we don’t. In fact the whole offense is lean, and over the next 2-3 years the team must blow it up and rebuild. That would take 3 years, maybe more, especially if the team continues to avoid true play-makers on offense in favor of safer, more solid players who are less of a threat to score on any play.

I still root for the Seahawks to win because I’m a fan, but intellectually, a team this far from earnest contention clearly benefits from the draft position more in the long run. Bad teams still draw free agents, and besides, the Seahawks are not in the “zone” so to speak for big splash short term additions. What they really need is a Jack Zduriencik style approach where the team adds good value free agents while (competently) building and developing a young core for future seasons.

57 yrds rushing is 14 1/4 times more than 4. I also think that the He-hawks had more negative gain run plays than positive

think about what you write. It’s “you’re” as in “you are” right. “Your” is possessive as in “your call girl”.

having two players that dominant together in the trenches. And all because a team thought one of them was crap and traded him on the cheap to the Vikings.

That said, I do not think Seattle has much at quarterback.

Neither Manning nor Roethlisberger had to run for their life at every snap. I mean Big Ben can sit back there and pump fake 5 times before he has to throw.

I’d argue that he’s HOF material.

The NFL is a funny place, and this team CAN beat any or all of those three teams.

Will it? Most likely not. But to say we can’t win is folly.

but Webster has been involved in some of the signings that Ruskell has received blame for. The two have worked together a lot and we might not be getting anything new with him…

Except, of course, someone new to blame!

Finding a better GM who is available may be a lot easier said than done.

… as NOT being running downs, are exactly what make them difficult passing situations. In fact, a defense seeing a 2nd and 9 would be more likely to play pass first rather that cheat a safety (for example) in run support.

Additionally, my point was to contrast your statement that Matt is the reason our team isn’t balanced. Matt is certainly not responsible for calling 3 running plays in the first half.

I believe the opposite. I think we are pass heavy because we have demonstrated an fundamental lack of ability to run the football with success. This is what makes the Seahawks unbalanced. Matt is then forced to play outside of his core capabilities at this point in his career. He is not the kind of quarterback that, week in and week out, can carry a team with his arm (ala Peyton Manning). Furthermore, defenses recognize both our shortcomings in the run game, and Matt’s physical shortcomings and stack against those weaknesses almost without fear.

…but it still contradicts itself. If Matt is "eventually forced to go downfield which he can’t do, then he can’t do it from the onset as well. If Matt is incapable of stretching the field then why would he do something with regularity that he “can’t do”?

His only other choice would be to NOT go downfield, but in doing so he becomes responsible for “the offense stagnating” (in your words).

He cant throw short or he stagnates the offense….and
He cant throw downfield because he “can’t”…

What would you have him do?

I clicked reply below Kearly’s comment.

Your arguing semantics now. I chose the word “men” instead of “quarterbacks”, but your saying had I chosen “quarterbacks” I would have then been challenged to find a QB with the same age, same injury history(subjective) and performing at a similar level (subjective) in order to have a valid point?

Nobody is arguing that Matt hasselbeck is likely to ever win a Superbowl. My point is that using superlatives such as “Hasselbeck is done” is incorrect. Matt is not done. He is still playing football, and however unlikely (earth shattering) it would be for him to ever quarterback an NFL team to a championship, it is not outside the realm of possibility (see Tom Watson, Buster Douglass, Doug Williams, Lance Armstrong).

 and since you brought up this…

“Far lesser men” is an appeal to sentiment
It plays to fan loyalty and attempts to shift the conversation.

Phrases like:

“Hasselbeck is done”
“Another Hasselbeck fabrication”

For the record, even though you obviously disagree with my choice of the phrase “far lesser men”… why insult me by calling me unoriginal and unimaginative?

“You should review your logical fallacies post.
I particularly like this hackneyed call to sentiment:”

PS: Since you brought up my “Logic” post earlier, I know for a fact you could be of assistance towards the bottom of the comments on that post.. I think we need a ruling.

Rich Gannon:

Age 29: not in football (torn rotator cuff)

Age 30: played in 4 games with a 5.2 YPA (yards per attempt). Backed up Steve Bono.

Age 31: played in 8 games with a 5.5 YPA (this is when people questioned if he’d ever come back due to the injury. Arm strength was questioned.) Backed up Steve Bono.

Age 32: played in 9 games with a QB rating of 79.8 and a 6.5 YPA. Split time with Elvis.

Age 33: played in 12 games with a 5-5 record. A 33 year old QB at 5-5 is “done”.

Age 34: Signed with the Raiders and played 16 games with an 8-8 record.

Age 35: played in 16 games with a 12-4 record and played in the Superbowl.

Age 37: Threw for 4689 yards and went 11-5.

So what’s my point? You had asked me this:

What quarterback, at a similar age, with a similar injury history and performing at a similar level has led his team to the Super Bowl?

I would answer that Rich Gannon was similar. Appeared “dead and buried” after his rotator cuff injury from ages 29-33. His QB rating was average at best and his yards per attempt had people questioning his ability to go downfield. Age, injury history, and played at a similarly poor level all prior to going on to win an AFC championship.

This is why “Matt is done” should be qualified. For all intents and purposes Gannon was “done” as well and went on to throw for 4,689 yards at the age of 37. Will Matt do the same? Uhhh… no. More than likely not, but the point is that it IS within the realm of possibility if he were to be in the perfect situation for his obviously declining skill set.

I wouldn’t mistake my point as thinking Hass has allot left in the tank. I also believe his window is closed; however, I would have said the same thing about Rich Gannon or Jeff Hostetler, or Trent Dilfer prior to their bowl appearances.

My point is that if we are going to say he is done… it should be qualified in some way. It would take the perfect scenario (one in which he was supposed to NOT LOSE GAMES as opposed to being the “man”.), but there most certainly is a scenario that could play out (albeit unlikely( that would allow Matt to succeed in some system.

Its just comical how much this team is fucked without him.

Hasselbeck is resilient, and that’s why I give the Seahawks a chance to win, but he didn’t play well against SF. 5.4 YPA and a 70.4 passer rating indicate a pretty awful day, and most of that was inflated by his final no-huddle drive. When he left the field, the Seahawks had scored 3 points in almost 2 full quarters.