Jim Mora Prepared to Start Seneca Wallace

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 2:30 PM PDT

The AP is reporting that Seattle is planning to start Seneca Wallace this week against the Chicago Bears. The meat of this story is a single quote

Asked if he had to plan to face the Bears without Hasselbeck, Mora said, "Right now, we’ll probably do that - unless we get word otherwise.’’

fleshed out to encapsulate the Seahawks various woes. I wouldn't normally link to such a derivative story, but in this case I use it as an excuse to state an opinion and foster discussion.

Matt Hasselbeck is "hoping to play", in his own words. But, is he the best quarterback to start this Sunday? He is likely to be gunshy nursing a broken rib, and however he comports himself, the risk of re- or further injury is great. The Chicago Bears have been ripping apart opposing offensive lines. Seattle was already weak at offensive line and has now lost its best pure pass blocker: Sean Locklear. Pressure and quarterback hits should be expected, whoever Seattle starts and however he plays.

Wallace can scramble, and that could disrupt a suddenly thin Bears linebacker corps. Wallace can also chuck it deep. Chicago is weak at safety and without Brian Urlacher dropping into the deep middle, their cover 2 is broken or shelved. The deep pass would do wonders to assist the run game, and for an offense that looks green and somewhat inept, the deep pass could supply most of Seattle's scoring and yards. The Seahawks can not count on long, well-executed drives.

So, if Hasselbeck can play, should he? I don't think he should. It's a long season and he needs to get healthy and grounded. Wallace is not only the superior play for the good of the season, he might be the superior play to beat the Bears.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I said it in a previous thread

I’m not excited about Seneca starting, but I feel he’ll be far more effective than a hurt Matt.

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Sep 22, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions

Isn't Walt our best pure pass blocker?

And we’ve all questioned how much he’ll be able to play, but it sounds like he’s not far off from returning to the line-up.

Mike Wahle(OG), Walter Jones(LT), Chris Spencer(C), Marcus Trufant(CB), Deion Branch(WR), Sean Locklear(OT), Brandon Mebane(DT), Leroy Hill(LB), Lofa Tatupu(LB), Josh Wilson(CB), Justin Griffith(FB), Matt Hasselbeck (QB)

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions

here's hoping.

praying.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Sep 22, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Walt was.

I have no idea at level he can play now.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Who Are You?

And what have you done with John Morgan?

Sorry John it’s just a cheap laugh I couldn’t resist. I’m so used to reading your analysis about why Seneca is so bad that I was a little thrown to see you advocating that he should start. In fact, I went back and checked the by-line to make sure you had in fact written it.

There are only two things I would have been more surprised to read: (1) Brian Russell: Defensive Stalwart, or (2) Bring Back Shaun Alexander!

Seriously though, s with a lot of things Seahawks-related over the past 2 year, if you think it’s a good idea then I say give it a go!

by Kumar on Sep 22, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions

I don't wanna speak for John, but I think he feels Seneca is a good backup.

Seneca isn’t likely to play better than he has, and his lack of interceptions was not sustainable last season. Other than that he’s decent, can make some plays with his running ability etc.

by MFAN on Sep 22, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Good

I’m tired of Hass anyways I hope Seneca gets to play the rest of the season.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Sep 22, 2009 2:47 PM PDT reply actions

Yep, there had to be at least one

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions

Fucking grapes are sour anyway.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Very convincing case

Without necessarily having a solid opinion in this context prior, I am completely sold on this.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions

Question is, do we keep Hasselbeck as a backup just in case?

Or have him inactive and hope that we’re not forced to use Mike Teel?

A Mariners fan in Seattle

by Coach Owens on Sep 22, 2009 3:11 PM PDT reply actions

Very good question

I don’t know.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions

I think this isn't over yet.

Matt hasn’t had his say yet. If he practices well this week, hides the pain, and insists he is ready to go, he will either be the backup or he will start. I don’t think we will know for a few days.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Sep 22, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the severity of the fracture, placement and damage to the surrounding area is most important.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I have no problem with Senca in there

He’s a decent QB that played pretty well last year. I’d rather rest Hass than risk further injury and I think we can score points with Senca Wallace at QB with a week of practice with our receivers under his belt.

I’m more worried about stopping Chicago’s offense. We need Mebane and Lofa out there desperately. Josh Wilson will be sorely missed (incredible to be saying that but true imo) so Kelly Jennings has to play the game of his life. Just survive til the bye and try to steal a game from Chicago, Indy and.or Jax. Our scrubs nearly beat New England and Miami last year, and did beat the Jets, so definitely possible.

by Keasley on Sep 22, 2009 3:13 PM PDT reply actions

One way Seneca doesn't matchup well with the Bears

is the pass telegraphing and the way he zings the ball really nicely and accurately at the tail end of their being open. Which doesn’t match up well against most every defense, actually. But the Bears, though they appear to have some coverage problems right now, still have guys with good closing speed, so that could be trouble. And that’s not even mentioning the half dozen passes each game that won’t be close to accurate. Good for a couple 2nd & 10s and a stalled drive somewhere in there.

But the positives John wrote above I think outweigh those issues. We can do this. Anyone know the line yet? I’m not a betting man, but I’m sure we must be 4 point underdogs.

by jacobstevens on Sep 22, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions

If Hass can TRULY play (not “I feel like I can play”), then he should play. Otherwise, It’s Seneca’s game to lose.

A broken rib is a broken rib, there really isn’t “furthering an injury”. It may hurt like a son-of-a-bitch if he gets hit, but it’s not going to get more broken, unless it’s just a fracture.

Our defense is the true question mark. We need to get what’s supposed to be a pretty fierce group running at full speed. Lofa or no Lofa, we have some depth on the Defensive side that needs to step up in their absence.

Seneca is no great shakes, but he’s good enough to use the other talent around him and put enough points on the board to get a win. It’s up to the D to keep Cutler and Co. under control.

A kinda random though; Why haven’t teams experimented with a 2-quarterback system? 2 Running backs seems to be the new trend, a lot of NHL teams have moved to a 2-goalie rotation. Why not the QB position? Why not have 2 different styles (As Hass and Seneca are) and match up your best threat to the opposition?

by Kevin M Smith on Sep 22, 2009 3:26 PM PDT reply actions

It is a fracture and it can get worse.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Alright.... I'm sold.

I generally think he (John Morgan) is clueless.. but I buy into this.

I saw a Kelly Jennings INT.......really....

by The Manchild on Sep 22, 2009 3:54 PM PDT reply actions

I am clueless?

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Because The Manchild never gave you a clue...

May the Forsett be with you.

by SSreporters on Sep 22, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions

"End of story"

“I’m just being honest”

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

John Morgan is to football blogs as Alicia Silverstone is to movies

we’re just here for the boobs.

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 22, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions

"Dammit who put the question mark on the teleprompter, for the last time anything you put on that thing Burgundy will read"!!!

by Hawkmain on Sep 22, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions

well played

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Sep 23, 2009 7:31 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Does anyone feel that...

with Mora’s history in coaching another mobile not so accurate QB (VICK) give us any hope of a gameplan that will fit into Seneca’s wheelhouse, as opposed to what we try to see him accomplish Saturday?

by HawkedUp on Sep 22, 2009 4:07 PM PDT reply actions

If we get further in the week and Wallace is confirmed

I will run a short series on the kind of play calls we might see. The team ran a read option with Wallace in the preseason and I would love for them to try that on Sunday.

by John Morgan on Sep 22, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Perfect.

They ran that play in the 2nd half of the the Broncos play I believe. It just seems to me, under Holmgren, he never truly adjusted for Senca being a completley different QB than Matt and simply expected him to step in and fill his shoes, with a conservative gameplan none the less.

by HawkedUp on Sep 22, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Call me a homer

But I’d have to imagine that Seneca’s a better passing QB than Vick. If Seneca was 3 inches taller he’d probably be starting somewhere.

by ninjasocks on Sep 22, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed. Though I do wish he'd run more (Seneca that is).

by Hawkmain on Sep 22, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't know...

I feel like he’s decent, but even if he were 3 inches taller he still makes slow reads and stares down his target.

by Ocho on Sep 22, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed. But better than Vick.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions

Nathan Vasher

Just go after him over and over and over again. He cannot cover anymore.

I’m fine with Seneca starting.

May the Forsett be with you.

by SSreporters on Sep 22, 2009 4:23 PM PDT reply actions

Vasher and Tillman have been toasted regularly, in spurts, in turn

while the other appears to return to top form. So it’s back to Vasher now, eh?

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions

This is ridiculous

Odds are very, very strong that we’re going to lose against indianapolis. If we lose against chicago as well, that makes us 1-3 in the first four games and a very, very unlikely contender for the playoffs, not to mention the super bowl. The difference between 2-1 and 1-2 is larger than the difference between 2-0 and 0-2. This game against chicago is basically the whole season – and Seneca Wallace is not an NFL quarterback. We’d be better off with Mike Teel.

If hasselbeck doesn’t play, odds are good that our season is toast.

by pacificsands on Sep 22, 2009 6:08 PM PDT reply actions

You're right.

This is ridiculous. Last season the Dolphins started 2-4 (0-2 by this point). They rebounded and made the playoffs. Take a deep breath and back away from the ledge. Week 3 is one game. It won’t define the whole season.

by thebyron on Sep 22, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions

In that 6 game stretch they played pretty crappy MIA, SF, ATL and Jets teams. They also played a game against the Eagles when McNabb was the top passer with 138 yards.

by ninjasocks on Sep 23, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions

We could easily smash the Jags

Beat Arizona (which we almost did with a garbage squad last year) and head into the bye week 3-3.

May the Forsett be with you.

by SSreporters on Sep 22, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually...

The difference between 2-0 and 0-2 is two games.
The difference between 2-1 and 1-2 is one game.
2>1
Therefore, the difference between 2-0 and 0-2 is bigger than between 2-1 and 1-2.

Furthermore, the whole season is 16 games.
The game against the Bears is 1 game.
16 does not equal 1.
Therefore, the game against Chicago is not even close to the whole season.

Also, I’m having a hard time following this logic:
1. Seneca Wallace is not an “NFL Quarterback,” despite having started at QB in many NFL games and won some of them. I don’t know your definition, but I’ll accept this statement for now.
2. Mike Teel has never played in a regular season NFL game.
3. ???
4. Mike Teel would give Seattle a better chance to beat Chicago.

I suspect there are underpants gnomes involved in step 3.

by sev79 on Sep 22, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Thank you for that. It lightened my mood.

by Jo-Jo on Sep 22, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Well met.

by thebyron on Sep 23, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions

Give us your best Seneca

That’s all I ask for as a fan. I’ve given up on dominance this season. All I want now is down in the trenches battling for your playoff life. Maybe they’ll pull off some surprise wins and can get healthy at the right time. I expect to be somewhere around 2-4 by the bye, but who knows, maybe they’ll surprise us.

Seneca didn’t have much of a receiving corps back in the day. And one bright spot this year, there is no offensive coordinator better than Gregg Knapp at using Senec Wallace. He has the most experience in the NFL designing an offense for a QB with wheels. That’s one thing we got going for us.

by ASeahawkfan on Sep 23, 2009 8:01 AM PDT reply actions

I very much hope you're right!

It’d be nice to see a little success with Seneca behind the wheel

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Sep 23, 2009 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Good point, I forgot how bad our recievers were last year when Seneca was playing

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 23, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions

He's got skills.

I really wouldn’t mind seeing what he could do with a whole season starting. He sat and soaked up the tutelage of Holmgren & Zorn for about 4 years. He played sparingly, showed promise, has skills and I would love to see him put it all together and perhaps audition for the permanent starting job for the next few years. He’s got skills. He’s got a lot more to work with this time and his scrambling ability should help out the run game. I know a healthy Hass gives the Hawks the best shot to win, but I’m ok with Wallace in there.

by Hawkmain on Sep 23, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Lazor's our QB coach, right?

If looking down receivers and reading late could be corrected, he could be as good as Roethlisberger or Flacco. But he does lack key skills to become that good. I have doubts that he’ll get there.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions