Updating the Seattle Seahawks Injury Status

by John Morgan on Sep 23, 2009 12:03 PM PDT Comment 51 comments

Danny O'Neil, infrequent criticism aside, my go to guy for Seahawks information, has compiled Jim Mora's comments on Seattle's multiple injuries. Here is the summary in inverted pyramid style.

Matt Hasselbeck: Everyone, including Hasselbeck, wants Hasselbeck to play this weekend, but we are no surer of if he will than we were yesterday. The Seahawks game against the Bears is being built up as an important win for Seattle. I am just heartened Hasselbeck is close. The initial reports sounded dire.

Walter Jones: Jones will practice. Mora procrastinated a decision on if he will start. It is noteworthy that Seattle has not made any moves to add depth at offensive tackle.

Brandon Mebane: Is not practicing today, but is described as feeling "much better".

Deion Branch: Branch is practicing with the team and is expected to play this Sunday. All discussion about his durability aside, Seattle is building a good pass offense. Branch could still be their best receiver.

Lofa Tatupu: Tatupu sounds doubtful as of now. After returning prematurely against San Francisco, I think Seattle is being more cautious with him. Some glaring misreads aside, I think Seattle can weather a week of David Hawthorne.

Chris Spencer: Spencer would be higher on the list, but zounds, Steve Vallos is playing good football. Funny the life of an analyst. I helped create Vallos' bad reputation, and now, after he snapped his way into the bad graces of Seahawks fans, I find myself defending him for what was a solid game despite the bush league snapping.

Travis Fisher: Fisher is important because he is a corner, and that is a position Seattle is very thin at. Fisher is also important because he is pretty dang talented. I think what I first wrote about Fisher still stands:

...Seattle's fourth best zone defender now that Jordan Babineaux is committed to safety...Once upon a time Fisher was a pretty good athlete, but it's anyone's guess how much of that's been lost to a rash of knee and groin injuries. But Fisher has a chance to make the opening day roster and should he, Fisher could surprise.

I don't know where to stash this sentiment, so this post will do. I was as realistic/pessimistic as anyone entering this season, but after two weeks, I see a team with real potential. Things fell apart on Sunday, but Seattle is building a very good pass offense. If it can stay healthy and get its weapons on the field together, Branch, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, John Carlson, Nate Burleson, Deon Butler, Julius Jones and Justin Forsett comprise a very talented group of skill position players. I could fill this post with my hope, but I'll keep it simple: The season is not over, Seattle has survived a scare or three, and if this team can get healthy, I have no doubt it is the most talented team in the NFC West.

0 recs | Comment 51 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Optimism?

John, I swear sometimes I get whiplash by reading you over the course of a few days.

I wouldn’t really read that as a criticism though, that’s a fair assessment of where I’ve been, as well as a bunch of Seahawks fans. FEAR-DEATH-HOPE-DEATH-HOPE??

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Sep 23, 2009 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow, you beat me to it.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Sep 23, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because it's come to the point

where the most interesting analysis by far has become speculation on returns from injury, I’m gonna prognosticate. What does everyone else think?

I think Walt, Mebane, Branch, Giffith and Fisher return this week.

Spencer, Tatupu against Indy.

Hasselbeck, Branch again (no just kidding) against Arizona.

Probably all of Hill, Locklear, Wilson and Trufant won’t all return for Dallas, but possibly three of four.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That sounds about right, but it also sounds like best case scenario as well.

Griffith back already?
For Spencer and Tatupu, muscle strain/tears are nagging injuries.

I hope Jones is back this week, but his/Locklear’s replacement looked ok to me. I’ll have to wait on JM’s analysis on it though.

I really hope Tatupu is back against Indy because of their passing game and his presence up the middle.

Hasselbeck is the hardest to read I think. He wants to be back this game, and who knows how much his rib hurts. It could just hurt a lot, or it could be a sharp pain for every throw he attempts. I’d like Hasselbeck back against Indy, but if the team just wants to go ahead and not risk it because it’s a probable loss, I’d be ok with that as well. With Sanders out, I’d rather test their run D anyways.

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Danny O'Neil said Griffith is expected to play this Sunday

won’t practice today but expected to this week.

I guess it sounds optimistic. I dunno about best case scenario. Spencer could have returned last week. Tatupu did return last week. I did do bad math and Wilson & Locklear’s return by Dallas seems unrealistic.

I really badly want to beat at least one of either the Bears or Colts. Not because of the record we may or may not have, but because I’m sick of only winning division games. We beat the Jets last year, and that was it, and all years of recent vintage were stronger against the division than outside it. I know division games are more important, but in a weak division I like to see corroboration that we could win games in a strong division, too.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

2-2 is a lot better than 1-3.

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're darn right it's not over.

If you look at the first two games of 2005 we look to be in about the same shape as then (discounting injuries).

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You know...

the SF game reminds me a lot of that Jacksonville game. We were manhandled in that game, and I remember not having any major hopes for the season. Somewhere along the line (metaphorical, not offensive or defensive) something clicked and the team became special.

I can’t help but to not only hope, but believe with a grounded reasoning that it is not impossible for a similar thing to happen again.

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 23, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was the victory over Atlanta that gave me the most doubt

After 2004 I was sick of come from ahead losses. So sick of not being able to put an opponent away defensively. Just squeaked that one away, after looking pretty good. The Jacksonville loss and near win against Washington, still to me reflected our potential.

But I think like a lot of people, it was the New York game that made me realize, we were special that year. I knew we stole from both Dallas and New York. Stole. But we stalemated them, more or less, and just faded in the end against New York. Regardless, I knew we could handle the bulk of the remaining games, pretty much expected the #1 seed after that.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Fischer is out, who plays nickelback?

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They could let Babs do it and put Milloy at safety.

by MFAN on Sep 23, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see the problem here

It’s so easy, a caveman could do it

by dlinsley on Sep 23, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Babineaux or Milloy

It came up in the Mora Press conference, I believe he said Babineax, but that today was nickle day and they’d figure it out then

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 23, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"if this team can get healthy,"

Agreed, but I’ve gotten a severe cognitive injury waiting for that day. My damaged brain vaguely remembers a Seahawks Super Bowl team many years ago. That was twelve ankles, six groins, twenty knees, two ribs, and countless beers ago. I just hope I live long enough to gaze upon the fabled healthy Seahawks.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 23, 2009 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"if this team can get healthy," ?

man, when someone comes back healthy, two will go out with injuries. its a hard thing to swallow.
i feel like we’re always gonna have a decent injury list. never getting maximum potential with our lineups.

i hope i can be proven wrong sooner than later.

go hawks!

by GriffinNW on Sep 23, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I swear this is Groundhog Day...

by rex92 on Sep 23, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wet Blanket Alert

The injury profile of this team is the thing that limits its upside. It isn’t just missed time. It’s the ability to develop continuity and timing, especially on the offensive line.

In most respects I really like this team. I like what we have. But this team is one of those teams that seems destined to have guys in and out all the time—kinda like Indianapolis. When you have a transcendent talent like Peyton Manning you can play through a lot of turbulence because the baseline offensive performance is so high. Seattle lacks that transcendent talent.

Although I don’t think it’s a throwaway season, and the NFC West is still there, we’d need some very unlikely breaks for things to fall our way. This season is mostly about getting the core in place for next year. On the plus side, I like the way the right side of the o-line seems to be coming together with Unger and Willis.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Sep 23, 2009 1:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The 49ers are about to get their teeth kicked in

by the Vikings and the Falcons in the next three weeks. As long as we can steal one of the next two games, we won’t be far behind.

Cards have a tough schedule as well playing the Colts and Texans in the next two weeks.

I wouldn’t count our season as over, but winning the division definitely will be difficult.

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

by Nick Andron on Sep 23, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wildcard probably won't come out the West

you never know, but not likely. If memory serves Football Outsiders—admittedly not the last word on all things football pegged Seattle as 9+ wins. I don’t know if that gets a wildcard this year. 10 wins might take the NFCW though.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Sep 23, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still early to even say it's not likely, I think

At most, 5 teams have established themselves in the NFC. Saints, Vikings, Giants. Maybe the Packers, but they were quasi-crowned early, with the preseason dominance. And Falcons, who I expect to fade.

Eagles, Cowboys, Bears, Cards, 49ers, could be and kind of should be good, but they have yet to establish themselves.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm certainly not ready to hand the division over to the 49ers, that's for sure

But we have enormous questions at multiple key positions — though I’m starting to feel better about ’Beck.

I always felt like Seattle’s plan was to put a quasi-dominant defense on the field; if not modeled entirely on Tampa then certainly inspired by the Bucs’ reliance on speed, depth, and high quality players at a few key positions—and an offense that is competent if never wowing.

We have injuries that put that entire thought process in jeopardy. Many teams have injuries already, but most teams have injuries that just test their depth. As bad as things are for Philly, losing McNabb for however long is a test of depth. Nothing else really changes for them except the backups’ ability to execute the offense. By contrast, losing Lofa, Hill, Wilson, and Trufant for an extended period changes the character of this defense from “undersized, but deep and fast” to mostly just undersized. Each and every one is also the kind of injury that recurs and can linger, keeping the player way under 100%.

Again, not giving up anything — this is still a talented team. Just a bitter and jaded Mets fan. That’s all.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Sep 23, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, when you put it like that

that sounds like a completely accurate description of the architectural plans for our team, and in that vein, we’re a far cry away from it.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still Early

Vikings? I’m going to go out on a huge limb and say that 3/4 of the NFL’s teams would be 2-0 against the Browns and Lions. The Saints similarly have feasted on the Lions and a backup quarterback. Maybe the Giants and Falcons have a leg up in the early going. I’m not convinced by any of the NFC teams at this point, the Seahawks could still be a contender if they can just get past, you know, the “i” word.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 23, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Call it my subjective, internal "DAVE"

if you know anything of Football Outsiders. It’s not all about the first two games. It’s their potential, the ways in which they’re already established, the ways in which some of their questions have been answered thus far, and how they’ve done what they’ve done so far.

Please don’t think that I consider 2-0 such an incredible feat that i think they’ve all arrived. The Packers lost to the Bengals, but I still consider them at the very least to be in the second tier in the NFC. Had the Giants lost to Dallas it wouldn’t change my preseason feeling that the Giants and Saints will turn out to be the best two teams in the conference.

In addition, once again citing Football Outsiders, a more accurate measure of a prospective champion is the ability to blow out inferior opponents, not win close games. Yes, it was the Lions, but the Saints offense is clearly a formidable force. The Vikings I am less convinced of, but they’re closer to a complete team in terms of talent than anyone else in the conference. The Falcons, I admit I didn’t expect to be 2-0 nor look this good doing it.

But absolutely, Seattle still can be a contender.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Just That

the Saints’ recent record is littered with blowout victories on the way to .500-ish seasons.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 23, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are they?

You might be surprised. Check again. They rarely haven’t given up a lot of points, while scoring a lot of points.

The recent record of many recent SB participants, though, is littered with blowout victories. Of inferior opponents. Look at the PIT-CLE matchups. Pats running up the score on playoff teams. Seahawks destroyed teams like the 9ers, Rams, Texans. Beat the Cowboys and Giants, too, but got outplayed.

Anyway, it’s a Football Outsiders thing. You can look it up if you want. Body of evidence shows it. But personally, it was before the season started that I started thinking the Saints would be the big thing this year. But hey it’s week 2 so if you disagree, no worries. Let’s wait, watch and see.

by jacobstevens on Sep 24, 2009 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"You might be surprised"

Or I might not. 42-7 over Detroit, 30-20 over KC, 34-3 over Oakland, 31-17 over SF, 51-29 over Green Bay. Those were the five losing teams they faced. Average score 38-15. Final record 8-8.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 24, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure 30-20 or 31-17 are blowout scores

Those are both 2 possessions from tying or a win. A team up 30-20 or even 31-17 is going to still have to work hard in the last 4-5 minutes on defense, time of possession and ball control.

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 24, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm Not Sure What Point is Being Made Here

I guess it’s that blowout wins over poor opponents are an “accurate measure of a prospective champion.” I’ve pointed out that this did not apply to the “recent” Saints.

The 2008 Saints won five games against losing opponents. The margins were 35, 31, 22, 14, and 10 points.

The 2008 Steelers also won five games against losing opponents. The margins were 31, 28, 17, 5, and 4 points.

The 2007 Saints had three wins of 20 points or more against losing teams. The 2007 Giants only had one.

I’m not arguing that Football Outsiders haven’t found some long-term trend regarding probabilities of success, but it certainly hasn’t been an “accurate measure of a prospective champion” as regards the Saints.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 24, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've got nothing to add about the correlation of the "blowout" metric

I just think wins by 10 or 14 points aren’t really “blowouts”. I’d say a “blowout” is winning by at least 3 possessions (15+ points) where a team wouldn’t feel pressure if the opposing team had the ball with half a quarter left to go. A difference of two possessions can be easily erased in far less than a quarter.

by ninjasocks on Sep 24, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Problem with your logic there

is you think I’m applying “blow out wins are an accurate measure of a prospective champion” to the Saints of recent vintage. Obviously, they haven’t been a championship calibre team during this run. Not even when they made the conference championship game. I only mentioned the whole idea here, because you dismissed whether the Saints were good on account of the inferior opponents. I brought it up to illustrate why it’s not a valid dismissal.

I gave my examples of championship teams winning more blowouts than close games. The Saints have not been among that group. I am simply predicting that they will be, this year.

If I have been predicting that since before preseason, I can’t be relying on their blowing out inferior opponents to make my case, can I? So again, it’s all about what I know they can do, on account of previous years, what they were good at, what they weren’t, and what kind of changes they made this offseason. They had a ton of injuries last year, a lot on defense. I am simply predicting they’ll be one of the top teams in the conference. I still had some doubts about their defense, but I feel they’ve adequately answered my doubts. You want to still doubt, no problem.

by jacobstevens on Sep 25, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, I Don't "Dismiss" Them

What I do is remain skeptical, given their recent history of running up big scores and having exactly nothing to show for it at the end of the year. Hell, even their playoff year in ‘06 had more to do with the dogass pathetic nature of the conference than anything else, it’s rather sad that you can go 10-6 in a weak division and get a bye. So as far as the Saints go, I’ll be happy to say they are the tits when they’ve shown a little week to week consistency.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Sep 26, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

remain skeptical, then. Nobody’s making you buy into it.

I, however, made the original assertion, including them in the teams I consider to have established themselves this year. You originally spoke up to object to that. There’s no reason to object to it. I believe I have more evidence to support remaining skeptical of your assessment of them thus far than you have to suspect their abilities this year. You’ve only spoken of the results of previous years, which has no forbearance on their abilities this year.

by jacobstevens on Sep 28, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet the 9ers beat the Falcons

And our next three weeks is tougher than the Cards’ is. But yeah I expect the 9ers to get their teeth completely kicked in by the Vikings.

But we can stay in it, you’re right. We’re still well within the division race.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

JM, glad you're noticing Vallos' improved play.

He’s been so much better than last season. I thought he played even better at Guard in the preseason, so there’s good depth there when Spencer comes back.

by Groundhog on Sep 23, 2009 1:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Anyone else notice

That Hill had groin surgery on Friday? Apparently it does not materially impact his time away. [TNT]

by m_b on Sep 23, 2009 1:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Spencer and Vallos on the field at the same time?

What about it? Any chance they put Spencer at LG, Vallos at Center, Sims at RG and sit Unger? Unger got toasted a few times last week and Spencer still hasn’t played with this line and in this system. Seems like it would disrupt whatever continuity is left by pulling Vallos off the field if he’s doing ok. Plus, they may want to get Vallos more experience at Center since I expect Spencer is gone next year.

by lordtd on Sep 23, 2009 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sims is playing really well, I don't think it would be a good idea to move him to RG.

by MFAN on Sep 23, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

And Vallos, improved, is still not among our 5 best linemen even with Locklear out.

by jacobstevens on Sep 23, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about Julius Jones?

Was he injured Sunday, or not? I haven’t seen the game, but understand Forsett looked good. Was he getting the snaps because Jones was injured, or for some other reason? If it was because Jones was injured, what is his status for this coming Sunday?

by Hawksince77 on Sep 23, 2009 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think they'll rotate a bit all year

Jones was okay as far as I know.

We all love Force, and he had some tough runs—but some were of the third and long variety where he comes up just short of the needed yardage. Having said that, when he gets the ball on a screen or dump off in the flat you do sorta feel like this guy is good for 15-20 yards at any time. He’s a tough runner. I haven’t seen him get lit up.

There’s nothing wrong with Jones. He’s like a guy with a slider-speed bat. He’s not going to hit an elite fastball but if a pitcher hangs one he can still take it out of any park. Jones isn’t going to do much to make anyone forget Shaun Alexander’s 2005 but he’s competent—at times very good.

If anyone is going to lose carries going forward it’s Edge. He might be good in short yardage, and as a receiver but the burst seems gone.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Sep 23, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know what everyone else thinks,

but I want to see Forsett get at least 30% of the carries/touches. As far as I’m concerned, he’s almost as good as either Julius or Edge at running, if not better. I think he’s better than both at catching, though I’m happy with both James’ and Jones’ catching ability. The only concern I have is that I think both Jones and James are good blockers, though Forsett showed in preseason that he has the will to learn, and is a capable blocker who may or may not blossom into a good one, hard to tell because it’s easy to dismiss little guys as bad pass blockers, but if you can’t pick up a blitz, or seem to have no desire to block a la SA37, then it doesn’t really matter.

by LantermanC on Sep 23, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've like Force since Cal...

but I think he’s perfect where he is, other than reducing Edge’s touches even more. Compared to Jones, Force lacks a gear that Jones can still reach every now and then. Relative to each other, I think the current mix seems about right.

There is such a thing as too much Force :)

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Sep 23, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed on this.

Forsett has looked good when he’s had the ball, but I doubt with his size and running style (very hippy-jippity, for a technical term) he’d survive getting more than ten touches a game on a regular basis. I think he’s a good change of pace.

Also, with Matt hurting and the o-line not quite solidified (but looking OK) I’d prefer we have guys in the backfield that are experienced, consistent pass-blockers. Forsett did pull off that beauty cross-backfield block the other day, but I haven’t seen a lot of that and his size certainly limits him there.

by djafrot on Sep 23, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll drink that kool aid

While I am nervous to see how badly our MASH-unit defense may perform against Chicago, I am getting a little bit excited to see what the Seneca-led offense might possibly look like. Especially after Justin Forsett’s performance last week.

Ordinarily, I cringe when thinking of the Seneca-led Seahawks. But that image is of Seneca coached by Holmgren to try and emulate Matt Hasselbeck. This week may be very different. When I think back to what Mora and Knapp did in Atlanta with Michael Vick, Warrick Dunn, and Algae Crumpler, and then I think about them designing a game plan with Wallace, Forsett, and Carlson, I think this could get interesting.

I hope that Knapp will put aside his Hasselbeck playbook and think a little differently about his offense this week. If he does, and he puts Forsett and Wallace together in the backfield, they just might give the Bears more explosiveness than they are expecting on Sunday.

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

by Stevo's on Sep 24, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs