Is 2008 Creeping Up on 2009?

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 2:30 PM PDT Comment 19 comments

Brandon Jacobs told Seahawks fans to turn off the light on 2008. Will Peyton Manning do likewise this Sunday?

The human mind excels at recognizing coincidence. It doesn't always analyze it very well. I had a coworker once tell me a flu shot had prevented him from getting a cold. My wife, who works with the elderly, hears "they always come in threes" every few months. Deaths, that is. The amount of time in which those three deaths occur is conveniently elastic, of course. Obvious exceptions are ignored.

Seattle is 1-2 and preparing to travel cross country to face a perennial powerhouse. That powerhouse looks less imposing after losing a valuable starter, but only a fool would underestimate them. It has one convincing win against St. Louis, a close loss and a somewhat lopsided loss that turned on a few big plays. Matt Hasselbeck is injured, but how injured and when he will play again is not certain. Health has been a problem, but one unit is getting healthy while another is more wiped out every day. Is this 2008 all over again?

I would like to say no, but I can't say no with great confidence until after this Sunday. Seattle is a better team through three games than it was in 2008. The Seahawks have performed well at the most important indicators of success: pass offense and pass defense.

It is in the top ten in pass defense by net yards an attempt, 5.3, and only has one interception on the season. Interceptions fluctuate quite a bit. If Seattle had a team full of Kelly Jennings, I might say it would underperform in forcing interceptions all season, but it has good hands men in Deon Grant, Jordan Babineaux, Ken Lucas, Aaron Curry and Lofa Tatupu. One could throw Darryl Tapp in there, if they wanted to adjust relative to position. In 2008, Seattle started mediocre, 6.5 NY/A, and got bad.

In reality, it already was bad. Seattle had posted mediocre pass defense stats after facing Trent Edwards, J.T. O'Sullivan and the collective Rams offense. That offense was awful and Edwards and O'Sullivan..well. Seattle had eight sacks against the 49ers, but its secondary was a tortilla Mary. That is, holy.

Seattle's passing offense is a bit below average, but it has faced two tough opponents. The Bears rank sixth and the 49ers rank 11^th in pass defense as measured by NY/A. Seattle ranks 18^th on offense, and has split the season between its starter and its backup. Matt Hasselbeck was brutal in 2008. Through three games, he had 4.9 NY/A. That compares him to 2009 Jake Delhomme (5.3), but without Delhomme's maddening picks.

In those crucial aspects, Seattle is a better team than it was in 2008, but football teams can change their season in one game. Or so it feels. Seattle is traveling to Indianapolis, and the Colts have stormed out to huge lead in NY/A: 9.9. The Cowboys rank second: 8.3. It is also top five in pass defense: 4.7. If Seattle plays at Indy and is crushed, it will be hard to see this season as anything but 2008 repeating itself.

I don't think it is though. The parallels are everywhere, sure. The 49ers are 2-1, including an impressive win and a tough loss on the road against a presumed powerhouse. See: Arizona 2008. But the 49ers passing offense is stagnant, their running back injured and his replacement noted for the wrong reasons. Of course, the 2008 Cardinals were no world beaters. They were lords of a bad division. San Francisco can certainly be that. God knows, Seattle has worn that crown enough times.

The team isn't healthy and the injuries it is suffering do not seem abnormal or likely to reverse themselves. Matt Hasselbeck and Walter Jones are old and were injured last season. In fact, Jones is still recovering from last season. Josh Wilson, Sean Locklear and Chris Spencer have a history of being injured. Lofa Tatupu is continuing an alarming trend that started last season. Marcus Trufant is the only fluke injury. That happens.

The reason I don't see 2008, though, is that Seattle has shown the ability and has the talent to perform. It has been a very good pass defense and has created pressure without the blitz. The pass offense is talented, skyscrapers more talented than it was last season, and that talent is both at the skill positions and on a developing offensive line. Chris Spencer, Rob Sims and Ray Willis are bona fide assets, Unger is not, but being a rookie should develop, and Brandon Frye has been respectable as a fill in.

Maybe Seattle is going down that path and my optimism is ignoring the coming flood. A blowout loss coupled with a wave of injuries would put Seattle at 1-3 and without a good shot of crawling back. That team could easily finish 4-12. A win, of any kind, would put Seattle in the thick of the West and on path to get healthy and excel down the stretch. Teams with early injuries and new coaching staffs sometimes do that.

The most likely scenario, the most likely scenario before the season even started, is that Seattle is an average team in a bad division that someone will have to win. San Francisco could be this season's Cardinals and Seattle this season's 49ers. The Seahawks could squeeze out wins down the stretch, grasping towards respectability, but be eliminated early and never have a credible shot at the playoffs. San Francisco wins the West and does whatever in the playoffs. The Seahawks take their picks and continue to improve.

That's the real difference. Maybe Seattle tanks. Maybe it has a top ten and bottom twenty pick in 2010. But 2008 was definitely the last season of Mike Holmgren football, and the team tanked because Holmgren's talent had been cast off or grown old. 2009 is distinctly the work of Tim Ruskell and Jim Mora. Whatever Seattle's record, it feels like a team on the rise and not a team stumbling through an ending era. The best players are home grown and the injuries have disproportionately struck leftovers from before Ruskell. Of course, the other edge of a young team that loses is: The Seattle Seahawks could be bad. The young talent organized by Ruskell could be not at the end, but smack in the middle of a disappointing stretch of Seahawks football. We will know a lot more about this season and this team's future after this Sunday. I want a win. I need hard-fought, competitive football.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Questions about pass defense

While I have high hopes for the 2009 Seahawks defense, I’ve got big questions about how good it is. We’ve only played 3 games so far (including 2 at home) against 2 teams that aren’t amazing at passing the pass. We’ve also had a merry-go-round in our LB and DB ranks. I’m concerned that one game versus the Rams at home may significantly bias the averages.

At this point, the team looks very different from the one that played the Rams in week one. It will also, presumably, look a lot different than the team we have after the bye. I think our ceiling looks high but our floor looks low at this point.

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 29, 2009 2:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Seattle performed better against the 49ers than it did against the Rams.

It didn’t feel like it, but Cutler lit Seattle up. That is the most different of the three. I don’t think any of the three are biasing the average though. The question is, is the Seahawks pass defense good or are the 49ers and Rams pass offenses very bad? The 49ers and Rams are bad, but I don’t know just how bad yet. If they trend towards average, then Seattle has a good pass defense. If not, then those games might not reflect Seattle’s ability. Again, we will know more after this Sunday. A lot more. Maybe too much more.

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

crossing my fingers

This Sunday will be telling.

Key to the game: pressure Manning. If we can’t pressure him, he’ll absolutely pick us apart just like he picked Arizona apart. I’d like to think we have a better pass rush than they do.

Here’s to hoping.

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

by Nick Andron on Sep 29, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cutler statistically lit us up..but!

But it was really on just 2 drives that Cutler ate us up. Right before the end of the half and the last drive to end the game. And the last TD was minus Ken Lucas, who I thought played pretty good. He basically went 2 quarters without doing much. We gave up some yards in the Passing game but really shut down Forte as a bigger trade off. We basically forced Culter to throw the ball. And with that we caused 2 fumbles (recovered 1) and got an interception. Not to mention a close reversal of the fumble by Forte to (but that’s not passing related). Seattle’s D also gave up 10 points do to the turnovers in our Red Zone by our generious Offense. Though Cutler put up nice numbers, I never got the feeling that he dominated us.

I could just imagine what our team would be like with Trufant and Wilson in our Secondary. The Bears would not have won that game (I think). WE would be a dominant defense. That being said we have our hands full with Peyton. I really think the right formula with Peyton is to try to keep everything in front of you. Make him slowly drive down the field and give ourselves more chances to cause that game changing mistake. It becomes an odds game. The Chargers seem to do this the best against Peyton all the time. NO BIG Plays! That’s the key. Give up 6 here or 7 there…but force him to nickel and dime you and maybe you’ll get that tipped ball or QB sack. My biggest fear is if Lofa is healthy enough to cover the deep middle with Dallas Clark killing Cover 2 Zones this season. We’ll find out though. I do think Blitzing Manning might not be the right approach in my opinion.

by Mr. Blache III on Sep 29, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could just imagine what our team would be like with Trufant and Wilson in our Secondary.

Tru and Lucas on the corners and Wilson in the slot?

Dominant. And think of what their coverage will do for the pass rush. Even if they get blown out Sunday (a likely scenario) I look to the last half of the season when hopefully we have all of our first team D healthy and perhaps only Matt (still or again) hurt.

by mrcoffee1969 on Sep 30, 2009 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For me, the biggest difference from last year is the Line Play

To be fair, just about every aspect of the team stunk last year. But this year in particular, I think the D-Line and O-Line have vastly improved. I was really encouraged last week with the O-Line and their blitz pick-up. I don’t know if it’s the scheme, but the pocket never seemed to collapse on Seneca. Sure, it forced him out a few times, but never crumbled. That will be huge with Indy, since we’ll need a lot of scoring just to hang around.

Do you guys think that with the revolving door at O-line, chemistry will be an issue at all? Or, they’re all just used to playing with new guys every week?

by supershane on Sep 29, 2009 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The zone scheme is supposed to allow for substitution

but I think Seattle would play better if it fielded its starters for a stretch.

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bravo

Normally with a post this long I’d nitpick at a few things to try and engage discussions, but you made a statement at the end that made changed my mind and it was a great point that surprisingly no one has talked about despite it being so evident and simple:

“Whatever Seattle’s record, it feels like a team on the rise and not a team stumbling through an ending era.”

The offensive line looks to be on the rise, especially considering the injuries and handicaps it has suffered so far. The defense has a lot of young and new players. I am very concerned about the QB situation as it currently stands and fear the Ruskell will foolishly choose Teel over a 1st or 2nd round QB, but that said, a good OL, good weapons, and good defense is the recipe for a Matt Ryan/Mark Sanchez type success story. And we’re already starting to see those pieces fall into place.

by kearly on Sep 29, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Great Post.

I’m not sure I buy the celebrating of our pass defense, however. After only three games, those stats are subjective. The Rams knew they were unprepared to pass the ball and game planned to spring Steven Jackson for big gains. They failed. The 49ers were even more unprepared to pass so they game-planned around Frank Gore. They succeeded.

Cutler was the first real test for our pass defense. Cutler and his offensive line beat us.

That said, I have no question in my mind about this being a superior team to 2008. Even with key injuries the defense is playing better. I’m convinced that if Hasselbeck was playing and healthy our offense would be growing into a real contender right now.

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

by Stevo's on Sep 30, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fixed

Cutler and his offensive line, along with some help from injuries and from the Seahawks, beat us.

I know there are always what ifs, but man it seemed like there were a ton of them that game.

by thebyron on Sep 30, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm being careful about putting too much stock into this week's game.

For one, I want to hold onto some hope beyond this week. Secondly, I think the Colts will throw at will on us and win convincingly. That team is too good to beat, especially on their home turf. I see 38-17 Colts and I don’t like it.

The stretch of 8 or so games including two before and six after the bye week has me more optimistic. I believe we can win 5 or more and at that point have some more hope and possibly some momentum before getting blasted again against Houston. Then, we win vs. Tampa and battle Green Bay for a shot at postseason play heading into the final week. Hopefully the Titans regroup and are resting people in week 17.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevan Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Sep 29, 2009 3:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow

To the right I see that Jammal Brown’s on IR. He doesn’t get mentioned along Roos and Peters, but he may possibly be the best left tackle of the generation after Walter Jones. There’s a lot of bigger injuries to big stars, scattered across the league. We’re not that bad.

by jacobstevens on Sep 29, 2009 4:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Brown does not rank with Jones

And I love Brown. Pace, Ogden, Roaf and Samuels are all better, and that’s just off the top of my head. I think Brown is a better Tarik Glenn. A very good player on a great offense.

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And to take that one further

he hasn’t played at all this season.

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, there is that.

Samuels is still in top form, I agree. I am gauging who currently is the best or near, since Walt’s declined from being the clear cut best. A number of top rookie tackles have had great rookie years, McNeil, Thomas, Clady. I’ve heard Clady, Jason Peters and Michael Roos talked about as the best, now, but I think Brown is better than they. Tarik is a good comparison in many ways. Not super nasty. I just think he moves better than the young guys, in pass pro.

by jacobstevens on Sep 29, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By that standard, I agree Brown doesn't get enough recognition.

I hate to do this, because it’s an argument I try to avoid, but I don’t know who the best tackle in the NFL is and unless others are really analyzing every snap, I do not believe anyone else does either. I think too often a tackle is anointed the new best, just because his offense was particularly good that year. Look at Joe Thomas. The best young tackle as a rookie and now no one talks about him. I don’t think he really did get a lot worse, I think the Browns got worse.

by John Morgan on Sep 29, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually that is all a very good point.

by jacobstevens on Sep 29, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is 09, not 08

The team has better talent, and for that they will have a shot at the division. Slow starts suck , but as most people know teams can turn it around, and they can do it quick.

A win in Indy would be huge, but that will take a team effort, and that means the head coach can’t take a dump on anyone (Mare). Wallace needs to keep his head in tough spots (throwing INT’s in your endzone, and throwing into triple coverage), Knapp needs to keep the better of the 3 runningbacks in in the second half (quit flipping them in and out). Leaving the defense, they need to get a pass rush and help the DB’s out alot. Can they win, sure, would a loss shock anyone, no.

So Seattle could be 2-2 or 1-3. When it is all said and done I still think the Hawks will be 3-3 after six, and will be getting some key guys back for the final 10. It all depends on health, and if the Hawks can catch some they could end up 7-3 or 6-4, might be good enough for the NFCWD, maybe. Either way, this team has talent and there is no reason to not think they can win the NFCW, but some things have to go right.

by JustinWF on Sep 29, 2009 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs