Postgame: Raiders 33 - Seahawks 3
by John Morgan on Oct 31, 2010 5:16 PM PDT
Email
Print
The Seahawks are not a good team. That is pretty evident. When I thought Seattle was something like mediocre to below average, this season was reasonably satisfying. A surprise playoff run in a rebuilding season could be a first step towards future success and a real contender. That was the storyline, and though I was dubious, it wasn't flat wrong. It was just an optimistic spin on the truth.
The Seahawks run defense and weak remaining schedule, plus the likelihood that Seattle will capture the West and have at least one home game, was enough for me to buy into the potential of this season and overlook moves that seemed geared towards improving the team in the short term at the possible expense of long term potential. For instance, I really like Marshawn Lynch, but I don't think he has done a whole ton to make this offense better on the whole. In the heat of the season, it doesn't matter though. Beast Mode is good; Beast Mode makes the 2010 team better.
Here's the question a game like today forces: If Seattle is not a mediocre team, or a below average team, but one of the worst teams in football, one of the five to ten teams that truly have no shot each season, is a playoff run still rewarding? Obviously, the Seahawks must do everything possible to win. That's their duty as a franchise. But as a fan, watching from the outside, without their fandom riding on this one season, and, presumably, mostly interested in the Seahawks being a contender again, not riding happenstance and fortune to a hopeless playoff bid, is it possible this season is verging on no win?
I never cheer for draft position, but Seattle needs a quarterback and has no other opportunity to attain one. It needs line talent too, but there are guards and right tackles to be found in the later rounds of the draft. It needs a pass rusher and maybe a corner, but not starting next season. Quarterback is really the undeniable need, and not even Matt Ryan led his team to playoff success his first season. So, even if Seattle was able to acquire a quarterback in next year's draft, it will be a couple seasons before he achieves much. But it would be an essential step towards a contender. That chance seems to be slipping away.
A while back, I noted the Seahawks young core to build around, but by and by, a lot of those players are gone or likely soon gone. This season especially, younger players have been worked out and the Seahawks have become more dependent on shinobi like Lawyer Milloy, Raheem Brock, Chris Clemons, Ben Hamilton, Tyler Polumbus, Brandon Stokley, Chris Baker, Stacy Andrews and Quinton Ganther. Many of those players aren't very good, but the more worrisome matter is how few have a legitimate understudy. Milloy, Polumbus and Baker, basically, and that ignores the fact that it's still unlikely that either Kam Chancellor or Anthony McCoy become NFL starters.
Those plug and play older talents join a core of players the Seahawks have retained, but who may be quickly leaving their prime. Sean Locklear looks about cooked. Marcus Trufant is nearing thirty. I love Lofa Tatupu, but he has become a component linebacker, good at filling holes, but not a game-changing force.
And then there are the young players approaching free agency: Mike Williams, Chris Spencer, Brandon Mebane, Kelly Jennings, Leon Washington, Will Herring. And in 2012: Marshawn Lynch, Justin Forsett, David Hawthorne and Red Bryant.
When does a bad team winning become sour, because it feels like a minor and soon irrelevant achievement at the expense of the future? I mean, I like to drink myself silly and burn out the night as much as anyone, but I came to around 23 and realized I was working at Papa Murphy's.
I don't know, but I would be a liar if I wrote that losses like today's feel a whole hell of a lot worse than wins like last Sunday's. Both games feel like two sides of the same situation. The Seahawks are good enough to beat the Max Hall led Cardinals at home, and bad enough to be blown to smithereens by the Raiders on the road. The former will earn them into the playoffs, but the latter provides an equally accurate assessment of this team.
Game Ball
Leon Washington
Washington is one of the great return men of his time. He is an integral part of the Seahawks very best unit, its special teams. Seattle has him on a one year contract, and given that he wants running back money and the Hawks only pay him to return, he's almost certainly gone after this season. In that way, he sort of personifies the 2010 Seahawks. He's a good player on a bad team that will contribute to a probable playoff team, but never contribute to a true Seahawks contender.
377 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well that didn't tell me much about today's game
Apropos, to keep pouring on. From Danny O’Neil:
#Seahawks DE Red Bryant on crutches, leg brace protecting sprained right knee.
Oh and from John Boyle
Matt Hasselbeck wasn’t made available to reporters after the game. Team spokesman said he got “dinged.” #Seahawks #euphemismsforconcussions
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions
#hewaslikelyintears
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Not cool
You don’t wish that your starting QB is injured.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I hate comments like this.
Yes, it’s cool that CW might get a shot. But don’t celebrate Matt getting concussed.
He didn't say it was good
He said “best.” As in, getting that DUI was the best thing that could’ve happened, now my brother is treating his alcoholism.
by Moresoftness on Oct 31, 2010 10:46 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I certainly don't wish injury on Matt.
I was referring to the possibility of Whitehurst starting.
I sorta hopes that keeps him out for a week.
Not wishing anything bad on Matt, just curious to see what CW can do, which won’t be much if Okung is out and the line plays like it does today.
It might actually be easier that way.
If the team views Matt as the leader and heart and soul of the team it might be easier if he gets hurt than having to bench him. I’m worried that just straight up benching Matt could get kind of ugly.
I don't like Red on crutches
Wait. Complain about what?
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, not a complaint, just an, uh, assessment? Determination?
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure the intent was to dissect the game, so much as to explain what the game means to our franchise.
At least that’s what I took away from it.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
His comment isn't exactly far off base
Your post wasn’t really an assessment of the game, but more an assessment of the 2010 Seahawks through the loss to Oakland.
And there’s nothing at all wrong with that; picking the game apart, in depth, is almost a moot point. Seattle didn’t lose through a few, nondescript errors. The Seahawks lost the game in nearly every conceivable way.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
My job is not to satisfy every particular demand and preference of Field Gulls' membership.
That’s impossible, because different people want different things, and it’s also not something I expect out myself, because this isn’t Burger King.
I would never go on someone else’s site and make demands or complain about the topic chosen for content. It frustrates and amazes me that people think it’s okay to do that to me.
by John Morgan on Oct 31, 2010 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not sure why you're so defensive
I’m defending the content and position of your post.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
I don't think I am being defensive towards you, but the first thing you wrote was
His comment isn’t exactly far off base
Your post wasn’t really an assessment of the game, but more an assessment of the 2010 Seahawks through the loss to Oakland.
and given some of the comments I have received recently, it seems like it’s time to let people know that I don’t appreciate comments that are essentially complaints or demands.
Demands I get
But complaints? Blogosphere is a consumer industry so complaints are just a part of it. At least, in the sense of criticism and feedback, but maybe that’s not what you mean.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I think I'm super-friendly to criticism and feedback
I interpreted your comment to mean, “this post wasn’t on the subject matter I wanted, so I am going to complain about it.”
Ah
Sorry to give that impression, I’m on a page with you on that. Criticizing the choice of subject matter is odd and generally unconstructive.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you on this.
I don’t know what drives people to complain about free content.
There’s a been a few posts on here I’ve disagreed with, but it wouldve felt wrong getting in your face about it.
I agree.
If this were some sort of a subscription based information site, I guess that it might be appropriate to complain/make suggestions about the content. It’s probably good to remind ourselves periodically that it’s Morgan’s website and he offers all of the excellent content for free.
Having said that, I suspect that we’re all feeling a bit testy after watching the pathetic effort from our team this afternoon. I know that I am…
This is accurate
I’m sure we’re all in bad moods after watching that debacle.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Fair enough.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Acquiring a QB is hard, no matter what
I do like having Whitehurst on the roster short term so that at minimum you have another body out there while a new kid gets ready.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I'm also unsure if there's a set process here
That’s to say, I don’t know of any rules on which order you have to gather bits and pieces in and around a franchise QB. Everyone peaking at the same time is a pipedream. Having other bits of the offense settled helps a young QB. I can’t help but see the Beef Moe acquisition in that light, to give new-QB the kind of welcome Sanchez or Flacco got.
A lot of the older players were brought in at no cost (not all of them, no), and I do wonder if they’re not so much a sign of wanting to win in 2010 as a sign of how little faith Schneider/PC had in the talent of the roster they inherited, and they simply saw no point trying to develop said players. They dumped some off at low value, kept a rotation of players out of which they plucked a few valuable names, and smushed together a team…not exactly created to win now as much as be capable of kind of muddling along while having parts that’ll just be replaced as soon as possible? Kind of rebuilding while still mopping up the leaks. Not really harmful unless you invest too much in mopping.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
By shinobi did you mean ronin?
Today sucked. The future looks to be rough too. If Matt got a concussion today at least we can see some Whitehurst soon. That might be good.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:36 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I looked up shinobi, you're right.
Once again video juegos led me astray in life.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Mmm, thinking of Milloy as an undead ronin please my as asthetic sense.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Ronin are traveling samurai paid to fight I think.
I thought shinobi were ninjas. At least that’s what I’ve gleaned from video games. Either way your point was easily accesible, I was just curious.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:42 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Shinobi are ninjas and ninjas are a type of mercenary
Ronin are lordless samurai. That’s a little more, eh, pithy than I wanted.
Oh, that does make more sense.
I shouldn’t have doubted your knowledge of Edo-period Japan
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:47 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Probably something I would have edited out on revision, as it's unnecessarily cute
but this post is always pretty off the cuff.
Hmm, I liked it.
But then my non sequitur sense of humor finds that kind if thing funny.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 6:00 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I like when writers show a bit of personality in their writing.
I only thought that calling football players shinobi sounded a bit strange only because I’m studying Japanese
Eat shit bum!
It's strange because it's imprecise
I made the mistake of substituting a synonym, not thesaurus bad, but that’s what it reads like.
Precision is for engineers and snipers
I say you write like a gods damned Jackson Pollack.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 6:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, but you might be better than ezra.
You’re Good.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Better than Ezra!?
Hunter S Thompson is spinning in his grave.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 6:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I think you missed my reference.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I got it, but I can see how it looks like I didn't.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 10:44 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I just couldn't pull how the Gonzo one slipped in there...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Ronin: The Movie
As a total off the wall comment…
…I highly recommend the movie Ronin, with Robert DeNiro and Jean Reno. Great action scenes and deep, unpredictable plot.
Anyways, back to the game.
Wasn't there a hella long car chase in that movie?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
What sucks is that Whitey's first start will come against the ravenous pass rush of the Giants
and probably missing half the offensive line he could have at another time.
Not a great way to start.
Eeh, fuck it. More logs on the Hawks' pyre I always say.
I don’t like hope anyway.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 5:48 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Shinobi was a really cool video game from the 90's.
I believe that we used to play it on a Nintendo 64 or something from that era.
It was also available before that
As an arcade game in the late 80s, I think.
by splintrdmind on Oct 31, 2010 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Plus Lost Prophets "Shinobi and the Dragon Ninja" is a great song.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 10:45 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yes.
Yes it is. The whole album is great.
by Hopefulmsfan on Oct 31, 2010 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
THIS.
I was in middle school dropping quarters in that mutha.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
As bad as today was, injuries really cooked this team today.
Without Mebane, the pass rush is nonexistant unless we blitz, and even then it’s hampered.
With both Jennings and Thurmond out, we don’t have the depth in the secondary to counterbalance that lack of pass rush.
With Okung out it really makes the whole line far more shaky… especially when even MORE guys go down as the game wore on.
Not saying we would have won otherwise.
The defense was not the problem
the offense lost us the game today
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
But that is what happens when your offense holds the ball for 10 minutes in the first half.
it went something like this :Punt, Punt, Punt,Punt, First down → Punt…..
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions
It hasn't, but 545 total yards can't be entirely explained away by fluke plays and time on the field.
Seattle was run over by a very bad offense.
Holy crap, they really had 545?
Didn’t realize that. Honestly every lose seems the same for Seattle, D does just enough in the 1st half to keep it somewhat close, but they get worn down in the end and give up big runs. Meanwhile the offense does close to nothing.
Is Oakland better on offense than we think?
They did hang 59 on Denver last week and there is some solid talent there (McFadden, Bay, Campbell and the O-line look serviceable), not that we should be giving up almost 600 yards to them.
Bush is a damn good runner too, don't forget.
Not sure if Campbell counts as good or just, “Not as bad as Hasselbeck.”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions
This is why I don't agree with "Bend but don't break"
Eventually you break.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Not really
Forcing the offense to make more (but shorter) plays means they have to be successful for a higher number of plays. It also means that there’s a greater chance that the defense can create a turnover.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I think its wrong to say we were 'run over'
Most of those yards happened after the game was out of hand.
One of the last touchdowns comes to mind (Earl Thomas comes in looking for the pick on gives up the touchdown.)
Seattle continued to play stout against the run.
We just got wore down, and we started pressing for big plays
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Relative to everything before the Cardinals game, though,
it looked awful from the get-go. Regardless of the success of Raider plays we were getting blown off the line.
And I think what O’Neil said about Curry was somewhat corroborated today. It looked like Curry and Milloy and Hawthorne were just being blocked out and it opened everything up. I do now think Mebane’s absence does directly make this a significant problem. I don’t think Arizona or Oakland attacked us like this because Mebane was out, but I am certain they wouldn’t have had open season on blocking edge & 2nd level defenders with Mebane beating single-blocks.
I don’t think it was stout.
But he score was only 10 at the half.
Most of those point and yard came as the game wore on and our defense wore out.
I completely agree with this
Note the score was only 16 – 0 at the start of the 4th quarter, and Oakland scored 17 more in the 14th.
And I don’t have the stats available, but how many of those 545 were scored in the 4th?
You can’t explain away 545 yards, but a D being on the field for 42 minutes or whatever, plus injury/depth problems, does take MUCH of the blame. How much better would the defense’s numbers looked if the offense had held the ball for 5 more minutes? 10?
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Thing is, though,
there were harbingers from the start. Some lucky breaks of poor Raider red zone execution.
The defense was not without faults, but mostly due to injuries
Some big receptions and runs can, perhaps too easily, be attributed to injuries on CBs and Dline.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I think our defense is kick ass.
Our special teams is awesome too.
I think we can be a good team if we get any semblence of offense.
I think there is hope. His name is Russel Okung.
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
With Okung out it really makes the whole line far more shaky… especially when even MORE guys go down as the game wore on.
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 1, 2010 3:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd like to think that today was just a perfect storm of injuries and bad mojo matching up poorly against a bloodthirsty opponent
But considering that we were having similar problems with our offense and penalties earlier in the season, I just can’t. This was a worrisome loss that exposes the fact that this team is trying to win a division title with a roster held together by spit and bubblegum.
FG's second favorite football-illiterate semi-troll.
With reference to penalties
Carroll REALLY needs to reel in the Unsportsmanlike penalties in practice this week. For the second week in a row, someone gets a drive-extending UC penalty when the other team had failed to convert a 3rd down. I don’t care if someone punches you in the face, kicks you in the crotch, spits on you, and insults your mother. GO BACK TO YOUR SIDELINE.
FG's second favorite football-illiterate semi-troll.
Can we officially knock off the Curry encroachments?
Driving me fucking nuts.
I hate those. I think he has 4-5 now.
He isn’t even producing off those….
At least today’s looked like an accident.
The other ones seamed more like he was guessing. Today was just an honest screw up
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
A Pete Carroll team that doesn't rack up a lot of Unsportsmanlike penalties?
Yeah that’s never gonna happen.
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
Seattle football this weekend scored 3 points.
I bet the Sounders outscore them tonight.
Eat shit bum!
All this talk of quaterbacks gave me an idea.
There is a possibility that the Seahawks can get a QB without drafting one.
Philadelphia has two good quaterbacks. one of them has to go somewhere next year….
(or if the new CBA has no franchise tag we could just sign Peyton Manning)
Aaaaand, I'm sure Peyton would be excited for the opportunity!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions
...me out for my man Mitch right now.
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 31, 2010 6:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Love the random Mitch Hedberg reference.
Dude cracks me up every time i watch him
Unless you regularly give the Seahawks monetary business
You’re just ignoring them for a week.
FG's second favorite football-illiterate semi-troll.
I refuse to watch the Seahawks until next Sunday
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hopefully, if we have won ourselves out of a favorable draft position, we can trade up.
As for the team’s quality, yes, it’s painful but with Okung and healthy O and D lines… those are good days to root for the Hawks.
Wooooo!
by Anticitizen_One on Oct 31, 2010 6:08 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Spot on. This is about where my head has been when I've been thinking about the team this year.
I sometimes feel like a fraud for not cheering for cotton candy success from the team, but I really do feel that this team is in desperate need of a proper rebuild. The consequence of the tail end of the Ruskell era is that Seattle is likely to sustain some hard times while again developing a core of young talent. By putting off the drafting of a young quarterback for the last few seasons, this team will likely squander the best years of the current core. Not Earl Thomas or Okung, but the rest of the guys that were young when the Hawks were last contenders. Whether or not you feel that Hasselbeck is or isn’t the problem, the team should not be in the situation where he is the only viable option with no salvation in sight. For me as a fan, I would gladly sacrifice a patsy trip to the playoffs for a bad season in which young talent cuts their teeth. I guess we’ll have to keep waiting.
Just read this-- it reminded me of the OPPOSITE of us, and ties with the pound foolish and penny-wise behavior of trying to win today as opposed to doing the most possible to win MORE down the road.
“Donovan McNabb was benched for Rex Grossman with the Redskins down one touchdown and two minutes remaining in Sunday’s game against the Lions. McNabb had taken six sacks, but he didn’t appear to be injured. Coach Mike Shanahan just decided to go with Grossman after seeing too many three-and-outs. McNabb was agitated with the decision, as he watched Grossman get sandwiched and lose a fumble that was returned for a touchdown on his first dropback. McNabb finished 17-of-30 for 210 yards, one touchdown, and one interception before being pulled.” (CBS Sports)
I just don’t get the coaching staff’s complete reluctance to give up on Hass, particularly when he is this ineffective. Shanahan sat down an established QB for a crappy backup whose best days weren’t that good and weren’t that recent. I just don’t see why we keep shoving Matt out there, and wish they could give me a damn reason.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 6:17 PM PDT reply actions
Hasselbeck was not "this ineffective"
Many incompletions were either at the fault of the reciever or he put the ball in or close to the best possible place for completion and the reciever just couldn’t make the play. And oh my shit that interception. How the hell did that happen? When they showed the second replay, right before butler hit the ground he had it craddled in both arms and then it just magically popped out and into the DB’s hands. We definately should atleast see what we have in Whitehurst but to say Hasselbeck was even the majority of the problem this game is ridiculous.
Yes. He was.
How the interception happened? By (ONCE AGAIN) Hasselbeck underthrowing an open receiver.
And what’s more, let’s look at those numbers for Donovan. 17-30 with 210 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.
That’s a completion percentage of 57%.
That’s 7 yards per pass attempt.
That’s a 1:1 TD/INT ratio.
Hasselbeck’s numbers weren’t even close to that today.
But to be honest, I wasn’t even talking about THIS GAME. I was talking about Matt Hasselbeck being “this ineffective” in general. As in ALL of this year, and well, all of the past two years as well. How about a little comparison between these numbers of Donovan today, and our number 8.
Hasselbeck ON THE YEAR:
57.2 %
5.97 yards per pass attempt.
6 TD / 7 INT (a negative TD/INT ratio).
So, you tell me, exactly when has Hasselbeck been MORE effective than was Donovan on a day when he was pulled, despite having a history of greater success than has Hasselbeck.
From the game thread, BrettJMiller said something I felt was the PERFECT summary of why our team is broke and not getting fixed until SOMETHING NEW changes.,
“Everything keeps getting turned over except for QB, and the offense still sucks.
But no, it’s not the QB, let’s just change the line and receivers and running backs again, I’m sure Matt will do better with his 18th new supporting cast.”
McNabb struggles in a game or two and he gets benched. Hasselbeck has three straight years of performance worse than this game of perennial All-Pro Donovan McNabb and yet NOT ONCE has a coach ever benched him for performance while (what qualifies with him as) healthy. And of course, 1/2 our fan base continues to support him and blame other factors for the ineffectiveness of the offense. It’s troubling, and sickening…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Good-to-great response
I give it 3 out of 4 stars. Needs more caps and less punctuation. I liked the part where you called 1/2 of the fan base troubling and sickening…
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah. Sarcasm.
I like the part where throughout the thread you blame all his performance issues on the line and of course, wide receivers.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions
You are right.
I shouldn’t have said that. But of course, I threw some (very basic) numbers out there, and I notice they get completely overlooked…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
(Meaning I shouldn't have said that about the other fans... but I was mainly saying it is troubling and sickening to me, not that other fans are troubling and sickening by not seeing what I'm seeing.)
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm with you
On this topic. I’m not even really a Charlie supporter. I can see with my own eyes the changes that have been made, yet one spot has been firm. How many times can you blame everyone else except your old, fragile, once above average, noodle armed QB? Thus is sickening that people don’t see this taking place on their own team. Hasselebeck is a great guy and all, but he’s just not playing good anymore. 3 and out, 3 and out, 3 and out…….
by PhoneHomeET29 on Oct 31, 2010 11:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm far more a fan of "NEW" than of Charlie, I'm merely hoping Charlie is an answer.
But I know this— he absolutely cannot be worse than Hasselbeck, because even if he is, the team isn’t going anywhere anyway.
And yes, I like Matt as a person. I’m just sick and tired of his mediocre to crappy QB skills. Miami pushed Dan Marino out when he had comparable numbers. And he was HoF. Yet we continue to adhere to the “Hasselbeck is a savvy vet who gives us the most chance to win” argument.
Ugh!
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm particulary a huge Hasselbeck fan but I do not see CW as our Jesus.
I want the team to be in the best position to win now. Whitehurst was a bad move, and is making way to much money. This particular loss wasn’t Hasselbecks fault. It felt like God himself wanted us to loose this game. They could not get a break at all, from the one crazy catch and interception to Okung being knocked out of the game. It was a very pathetic loss.
Wasn’t the interception throw over thrown? I remember him diving forward to try to catch the ball.
Eat shit bum!
Great. God hates the Seahawks...
That might be too much for me to cope with.
Especially since this strain of logic means God has been hating on us for 3 years now.
I’m not so sure… I think it might just be the team’s performance. A performance highlighted by the fact that our QB is so mediocre that we actually need God’s benevolent interactions for us to win. Or did God not grant us fortune when Leon Washington single-handedly won us a game?
I believe you make your own breaks. Hasselbeck used to be great at doing so himself… years ago.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh, and I thought it was overthrown too...
but in the game thread someone pointed out to me that it was actually underthrown and deflected, and the deflection is what he had to dive forward attempting to catch.
But hell, even if he would have made the catch, what would that have changed? Not a whole lot.
And, I think on someone getting knocked out of the game, you mean Red Bryant, not Okung, this week.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh yea your right.
I know blaming God on our loss is over dramatic but it really feels like the way the ball bounces just seemed to not go our way that game.
We’re still 4-3 which is awesome. I wouldn’t have even thought it would be possible 8 weeks ago.
Eat shit bum!
I hear you... I feel our city's sports are cursed myself.
Actually, “God hates the Seahawks” might be the perfect name for a fanpost…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
The frustrating thing about today is Matt actually looked MORE effective than usual
Yes, he overthrew and underthrew various balls.
However, the number was fewer than usual. His receivers flat-out dropped a couple of catches that were huge—HUGE—plays. Tate having a deep pass bounce off his hands when he had beaten his coverage (tough catch, but should have been caught). BMW dropping a pass on 3rd down in the red zone that would have been a 1st down, and most likely a TD.
There were more, but those are the ones I remember, and they both happened when the game was still very much winnable.
Those are backbreaking drops.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
disagree...somewhat
I do agree that the Butler interception was bullshit, but I was at the game and sitting almost directly behind the uprights. I saw a lot of passes he threw go way over their heads or way too far in front or behind the receiver. It didn’t look like he was making the throws that even he is good at (usually). Maybe some of this can be on the receiver’s route running, I don’t know. He did seem to be getting hurried a lot due to the O-line problems, but even when he did have time, a lot of his throws that I saw from my angle were way off target. Oh and when the Raiders got that 50-something yard passing play off the deflected ball, I heard that ball go off that guy’s knee… luckiest play ever.
sidenote...
The Oakland Coliseum is the biggest shit hole ever, and the raiders have now become one of my least favorite teams after having been there one time.
Can't be worse than Tampa.
At least the Oakland fans have some pride. The only good thing about Raymond James Stadium is the cheerleaders.
Did you realize that the World Series is going on? Yeah, me neither. Zzzzzzzz...
by Wayward Llama on Nov 1, 2010 3:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm confused...
RayJay is a pretty damn nice stadium… The fans are terrible and don’t support the team for shit, but I’m not sure what you have against the stadium
Oh my lord, you should find the replay of that 50-something pass play to Michael Bush.
I have never seen such an assfuckingly lucky play. I swear it bounded off Darrius HB’s chest, then off some other dude’s knee, then caromed 15 yards across the field right into Bush’s waiting hands.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
we could still have a great chance at a QB
From what I’ve seen of them this year I’d be tickled pink if we drafted either Luck, Mallet, or Locker. It’s not looking good though the more we win and the more other teams lose. The Bills, Niners and Panthers would all be CRAZY to not draft one of those three QBs if given the chance and they should all finish far worse then we will.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
Arizona, Jax, Oak, Den, (and a few more)...
may all be looking for a QB upgrade. If we finish picking around 15 or later, I doubt we’ll be in position to pick one of the top 3 QBs. I’d bet that in the first, we’ll be in position to reach for a 2nd or 3rd round QB talent, or take someone else who falls to us.
As for finding a good QB outside the draft, good luck with that. If a guy is any good he’ll be franchised or otherwise kept.
Strange choices.
David Garrard has had a good year; hell, he threw four touchdowns versus the Cowboys. And Denver’s offense has been riding on the back of Kyle Orton, who’s been throwing the ball quite effectively all year. His team is losing because Denver’s run game is poor and defense wracked by injury. That and they just drafted Tim Tebow.
If Campbell has a decent year, I have to believe Oakland will do something stupid and draft another speed burner wide receiver.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Any of them could be looking for an upgrade...
if for example, one of the top 3 is there for them to pick.
I see your point, but it's highly unlikely that DEN will burn another high pick on a QB.
And Nick’s point about Campbell is true. That, and OAK makes the stupidest draft picks ever, so it’s unlikely they take a good QB.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
I don't think that the Panthers will draft a QB in the first round.
They got Clausen in the second this year after all. It’s rare to see a team draft a QB in the second round and then one in the first round the next season.
This post seems like a bit of an overreaction
I don’t think this season is lost and I do think the Hawks could contend if Whitehurst can find success. That might sound stupid but I think it’s at least possible. I pity our defense with Matt as our QB.
I’m just hoping Matt can get more one win over the next three weeks to keep us at .500. Then Whitehurst can have a fresh start at home against the Chiefs. Hopefully some of our ‘irreplacables’ will be returning to health too.
I agree fully
this team with a competant starting QB who can string two games together of average football is pretty damn good.
From The Hawks Nest - Seahawks Podcast
http://www.http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/from-the-hawks-nest/id385227705
by Hancock.Brett on Oct 31, 2010 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
5-5...
with an easy remaining schedule and very little expectations seems like a situation that Whitehurst could succeed in.
But then again, maybe I’m just a hopeless optimist.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
The point wasn't that the season is lost...
The point is we aren’t very good, and reaching the playoffs will not help us in the long term. This team will not go very far in the playoffs unless we get very healthy, play a lot better, and can out-coach, out-scheme and out-play the competition. Chances of doing that are minimal at best.
If the goal is to make the playoffs, then we are still right on track.
Can we really say that playoff experience isn't helpful?
Or that it wouldn’t be a good thing for our team to develop a culture of competition (not unlike the Steelers or Ravens)?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions
In my opinion, the "culture of winning" thing is false.
Every team starts over the day after the season ends. Players come and go, coaching may change, everything resets.
If you’re a great team one year, chances are you’ll still be a great team the next because there’s no reason to change— only fill holes and upgrade postions.
But I don’t think anyone is calling us a great team. We need more talent. More talent means better team (assuming good coaching), and that can carry over. Last year’s wins don’t carry over. They actually hurt you in the draft.
You've never been on a team then
Cause it is real.
Believing you are going to win is hard to teach and it matters.
It can’t be explained, you have to experience it. But it is definitely real.
Sure I have.
But don’t confuse having superior talent with “culture of winning”. You may have great confidence because you are better. You don’t just think you’re going to win because last year you won. How did that “culture of beating the Rams” work for the ’Hawks this year?
Let me consider the factors that may lead to a win (or winning season)…
- talent
- coaching
- health / injuries
- conditioning
- game plan / scheme
- strength of opponent
- home field advantage
- referees’ decisions
Where would Culture of Winning fit in there? Wins from previous year?
I want us to be better— with better players, better coaching, and a better plan. Winning 10 games this year because of a weak schedule, playing against crappy QBs or banged-up teams, huge breaks, or fluke wins will do absolutely nothing to help us win next year or beyond.
We can build a culture of winning by being good enough to win.
I've got some serious beef with this post.
1. You are acting as if the team that took the field today is the team that is going to be taking the field in the future. You neglected to take into account that 3 of the main cogs of this team (and 4, with Red going down), not just for the present but for the future, were absent. Mebane, Thurmond, and Okung are three of the best that we have, all young and with potential. Add Bryant into that group, and if those guys are playing I think this game is much closer. As much as you like to dwell on the bad when we lose, you can’t just ignore the good. We have valuable pieces for the future. They didn’t just disappear because the Hawks lost….
2. Can the young core that are approaching free agency not be re-signed? The Hawks will be very interested to retain Williams, Bane, Hawthorne, Bryant and etc. All of those players can play a part in the next Hawks contender.
3. You don’t have me convinced at all that winning some games this year is a detriment to the future. Say we do make the playoffs, we still have the ability to continue to build on some of the players that we do have. No, we don’t have a QB or a young end. We need to fix the line and add a corner. With what the team did this off-season, adding a LT, safety, corner, running back (LYNCH IS ONLY 24….He still has years left no matter how much you deny him being a factor on a contending team) and receiver to build on, who’s to say this team can’t add a QB, end, right tackle, and corner this off-season?
4. As for the cobbled parts – are PC and Schneider supposed to try to lose, or are they supposed to find players to fit their system while they gear to pick up younger ones in the future? So what if some of the players don’t have understudies? A team cannot fully stock themselves with young talent in one off-season. Sometimes you have to focus on certain areas (secondary, left tackle). It’s a process. The QB talent is much greater this draft, and the front office recognized that.
5. From playoffs one week to the team is doomed for all eternity the next? Not every game means so much. I’d wager to bet that if the Hawks beat the Giants next week with Whitehurst and the talented young secondary leading the way after a Hass injury you would proclaim them reborn and with a definite shot at contention in coming years. The Hawks were killed by injuries and an ineffective o-line/QB. That is fixable, and it doesn’t take 5 years like you suggest. Add a good QB and the team is already much improved, clearly the best in the division and possibly one of the best in the conference. The other pieces are the ones that build Super Bowl contention.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 6:25 PM PDT reply actions 10 recs
I just can't see it being as hopeless as John makes it sound
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
It's nowhere near that hopeless.
That’s the thing. He’s being extra negative and I don’t really understand why.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Probably because Oakland is nto that good
We should have gave the raiders a game at least, but the game was not there.
The game was there I thought
The Hawks battled today even through all the injuries. The OL got destroyed though and it seemed like nothing could break our way. Matt didn’t help either of course.
I appreciate Bates actually attempting a comeback too. An attempted comeback that leads to a blowout is a lot better than playing it conservative trying to keep it close IMO.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
John's a bit bipolar
What else is new?
Disclaimer: do not take this post seriously.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions
You're the face of this community though
and that’s a burden you don’t carry lightly. That much is clear.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
For a moment I thought this read "you're in the face of this community"
Now that would’ve been funny.
No?
Man I need to polish up on my dry sense of humor. Too British.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess people would have to understand the feeling of knowing every loss will generate ill will and fighting for the next week
and then do that for 26 losses in two and a half years.
Yes
But I do not always take them seriously.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean I joke or just chew the fat a lot though my tone does not always make that clear
I think light-heartedness and not taking oneself too seriously is important. But I think so even more just after my team just lost, and I doubt many fans agree with me on that. Hence the disclaimer.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't take myself seriously
but I guess I don’t see what’s funny about the comment “John is a bit bipolar.”
I mean, I wouldn’t make a comment like “Vasilli is a …” whatever, or do that for anyone else, honestly. Does it sound funny in your head? Because I think you might be missing your mark.
It does, mostly because it came up last week too and I defender taking on different angles as a good approach then
So a bit of a half-injoke, I dunno? It’s not funny-haha, more like…uh…
Well nevermind.
Sorry?
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
There seems to be significant distortion between your intention and how I read it.
Because it seems like this happens every other week.
Probably on me
I like the role of Devil’s Advocate and am firmly entrenched in a belief that such Advocate’s are necessary. But even when suppressing the need, I have a wry sense of humor that can be hard to read. Particularly since I never felt particularly well-integrated into this community or adjusted to its tone, which doesn’t help.
Dunno, is it a problem? Probably means I just need to consider my posts longer, and filter more heavily.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Dry sense of humor is difficult to pull off on the web.
Lacking the non-verbal cues and the ability to gage feedback from the listener, comments are frequently taken in a way that was not intended.
Especially when we’re all feeling a bit testy to begin with…
Aye. I've given up being funny on the internet for this very reason.
I regularly offend unobservant people in real life, so expecting people to catch my humor online is stupid.
As a rule, I read every comment I reply to at least twice before I respond to try and gauge intent. I recommend this for pretty much everyone here.
I have FAITH in Carrol & Company
They are turning this team around.
They are making shrewd moves (Clemons, BMW). They are drafting well (Thomas, Okung, Tate, Thurmond)
I think the defense has been playing very well. The Offense is not there yet, but there seems to be a plan.
I too am happy that they are trying to win. Trying to improve our team now
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Just because they get blown out doesn’t mean the process is bad and that the team is doomed for the foreseeable future.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Amen
As long as we compete then there is hope.
We competed today even if the score doesn’t reflect it.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you're reading too much into the post
I didn’t write anything particularly critical of the front office. I pointed out the situation the Seahawks are in, and why evidence that suggests the team is very bad, even though they will still likely make the playoffs, is discouraging. It’s not an invention or a reaction, it’s just my opinion of the franchise at this place in time.
I wrote before the game that I wanted evidence that the Seahawks are a good team, because I think that’s very much in question, and the evidence from today is that Seattle is not a good team. This is an extension on that idea. If Seattle is not good, and it needs a quarterback, along with other, easier to acquire pieces, to be good, how do we balance wishing for success in 2010 with the knowledge that the rebuild probably begins again next off-season?
So we didn't offer much evidence that we're a good team today
it just sucks to hear you say so decisively that we’re a bad team when it didn’t feel that way at all. It felt like we fought hard and the breaks didn’t go our way. That’s just football. It doesn’t mean we’re a bad team.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
By voluntarily reading something someone else wrote
You are responsible for your own delicate sensibilities.
by DrunkAmerican on Oct 31, 2010 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't think John said we're a bad team, just that today was evidence pointing that way.
I think John was just saying if we are bad is a playoff run this year worth losing out on a potential franchise QB in the draft? I saw this game recap as more of a question to the fans and something to think about, I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer.
I hear what you're saying
And after rereading it, I maybe overreacted. But we were banged up and on the road against a talented and confident football team. So I guess I think it was inappropriate to present this ‘question’ today. Maybe next week if we’re blown out at home to the Giants. That would seem like an appropriate time.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions
That's fair, I kinda see it the opposite actually to be honest.
The Giants are a potential elite team so I can understand being blown out, but Oakland is mediocre (maybe a little better?) and a team Seattle should be able to at least hang with. I do agree about being banged up, a lot of key injuries today that could of had a big impact on the result.
Obviously we can't be sure exactly how good the Raiders are
but the best approximates we have, DVOA and ER, lists them as one of the worst teams in the NFL.
And, yes, I don’t think being blown out by the Giants is nearly as damning.
We hung with them through three quarters
If we had any kind of offense, the game would’ve been close
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Did we hang with them or just hang around?
Agreed about the offense, but once the game was 16-0 it felt like it was over.
it wasn't 16-0 till the fourth quarter! :)
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, with an actual offense I still would of had hope.
When Mare missed that 2nd kick it just seemed over.
Win probability sunk to 19% midway into the second quarter and never surpassed 26% after that point.
Ok this will be a better articulation of why this post frustrated me...
I come to field gulls to learn the game that doesn’t show up on the stat line. I’ve been trying to become better at reading between the lines and even though everything seemed to go wrong today, we didn’t quit and we fought hard I thought. I guess I was just hoping this post game recap would reflect that. I suppose that’s an unfair expectation on John but that’s just how it felt.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions
There's a place for questioning the long-term direction of the franchise
A post game recap after a injury riddled road loss doesn’t seem like that place.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
You want me to write about a subjective impression you took away from this game?
The Seahawks didn’t quit, I guess. I mean, the Raiders did score 20 in fourth, but I don’t think anyone wasn’t trying. Writing something like the “Seahawks didn’t quit and fought hard” is insulting to players and, frankly, it’s just coach speak nonsense. It doesn’t mean anything. I assume that professional athletes don’t quit.
by John Morgan on Oct 31, 2010 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Unless they're coach by Jim Mora, then they might.
by MFAN on Oct 31, 2010 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I'm not a coach though.
I’m not a writer either.
I guess I’ll shut up now.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
No one thinks this team is quitting, I don't expect that to happen under Pete Carroll.
But they did lose by 30 to a team that probably isn’t very good. That is cause for concern, injuries or not.
Critical of the front office:
“enough for me to buy into the potential of this season and overlook moves that seemed geared towards improving the team in the short term at the possible expense of long term potential”
“This season especially, younger players have been worked out and the Seahawks have become more dependent on shinobi like…”
“but the more worrisome matter is how few have a legitimate understudy”
All of which seem to imply that the front office has failed by acquiring plug and play guys at the expense of younger players who will help the team in the future. Players like that are not readily available. They’ve been doing a fine job of getting guys like Chancellor on the field in game situations and the Branch trade is an example of building strictly for the future, giving Butler/Tate/Obo playing time. They have also discovered young talent such as BMW and Lynch who are valuable now and in the future.
I don’t think making the playoffs this year and building a contender are mutually exclusive. I also don’t think that I’m reading too much into the fact that you are asking if it is “possible this season is verging on no win?” and “it feels like a minor and soon irrelevant achievement at the expense of the future?”
The tone is just overtly negative, and even though the game was bad I don’t really think it is enough to wipe away the optimism that you shared last week.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not sure what I wrote was optimistic. I was explaining that the playoffs emphasize different abilities and the Seahawks seem built to perform better in the playoffs than the regular season.
Is it critical to point out that Seattle has made moves that are more likely to help them this season than in future seasons? If I am being critical, I am only criticizing the compromise coaches and executives almost have to make to avoid being fired.
As for understudies, that’s not a criticism at all. I didn’t imply that Seattle should be able to immediately replace someone like Lawyer Milloy. It’s an accurate assessment of this roster, and I am not point the finger at anyone particularly.
Making the playoffs this season and building a contender are not mutually exclusive, but if Seattle needs a quarterback, it would be very lucky to acquire one outside of the top half of the first round.
"...if Seattle needs a quarterback, it would be very lucky to acquire one outside of the top half of the first round."
Do recent drafts support this claim? I honestly don’t know.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe so
Even though there are QB busts in the top half of the 1st, there are also very successful QBs too. In the bottom of the 1st you may find a QB, but the success rate is much lower, therefore you have a better chance of getting a successful QB in the top half of the 1st. Plus they go fast in the 1st, so the higher pick the better shot you even have at getting a QB!
by PhoneHomeET29 on Oct 31, 2010 10:54 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I've never seen a breakdown of the 1st round
All the breakdowns I’ve read have lumped the 1st round picks together.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not about to pull up old posts and find quotes, but there was definite optimism is a lot of your writing from the Bears game up to about Wednesday of this week.
The part of the post that seems critical of management to me is that you imply that the team should be gearing itself for future seasons instead of this season. I see some of the moves as gearing for the future and some of them as gearing for now. After a loss you emphasize that now is the strategy but after a win you will talk about something with future implications such as moving Red Bryant to end or finding playing time for Butler and etc. It just seems inconsistent.
And on the last sentence – to me you are saying that it is a flaw to fall out of contention for a top tier draft pick. You have said this, but to emphasize, what is the team supposed to do??? They HAVE to try their hardest to win. It’s an interesting idea to balance, and I understand your intent more now than I did before, but still the team winning to compromise the future is something that I don’t even think should be talked about at length because no team is about to tank a season. There is nothing that the front office can do but play the games and constantly try to improve.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Well rebuilding teams tend to blow up their rosters and play the young guys
See the Rams suffering through a horrid one win season with Spagnuolo (last two seasons really, in terms of roster rebuild) in order to be competitive today. No one thought Spagnuolo should’ve been fired last year. They didn’t bother with a lot of temporary help. Everyone expected the Rams to suck. Now they have their defense and QB and are playing competitive football.
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
200 transactions isn't blowing up the roster?
We didn’t totally destroy the roster (ala the Rams) in the way that would result in top picks in back to back years, but we are definitely a rebuilding team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Rams kind of went Sonics on the NFL
We’ll see if they’re the Thunder in a couple years
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree, but there's a difference between willing to suffer through a lost season or two to develop players
And trying to stay competitive. I understand both approaches, but the positive to a lost season or two is player experience and draft position. Of course, you better have the right plan, in five years most of those drafted players will be gone
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I am always optimistic. It's my personality, but positive posts are not essentially optimistic and negative posts are not essentially pessimistic. Every team has positive and negative qualities, good and bad days, and this game really only pointed out the
latter in both instances.
And I don’t know if Seattle should be gearing itself for future seasons instead of selling out for this one, but I do think it’s a meaningful question. If Matt is gone after this season, and quite a few other players are in a reasonably similar position, how are we as fans to interpret it? Just go along for the ride, or enjoy the team but also recognize that some heady decisions are looming.
Once again, it IS a meaningul question but it is NOT mutually exclusive!
They aren’t going for broke this year, they are playing for the present with future implications. A middle ground.
And yes, it is better to recognize the decisions, but I think you recognize them so negatively in this instance, inferring that good players who have contracts up won’t be kept.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
And I hope I'm not contributing to a bad environment for you John.
This discussion has caused me to understand the intent of your post. I just disagree with some sentiments but I highly respect what you have to say.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions
We had a lot of injured starters today...
All is not lost, but I’m hoping If we can get Okung and Pitts next to each other, the offense will play good enough to win.
Bates needs to mix in some shorter throws though, Matt can’t just stand around looking for longish routes to develop.
Why don’t we ever run screens? It seems like Tate & Leon would be good in space…
I agree
I’ve been looking for us to try more screens but it hasn’t happened.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions
One reason they might not be totally in rebuild mode
This is an uncapped year and there will most likely be a strike next year, so they’re just throwing money at things trying to make the playoffs next year, and then they’ll start rebuilding.
Based on a strike, you might as well 2-3 years to everyone on this roster when you think about how old they’ll be by the time this team is a realistic competitor.
Not a great scenario, but it might be what they’re thinking.
1 year run
Even attempting a 1 year run, this team can not realistically match up against half the AFC let alone beat the upper echelon of the NFC. I guess we find out next week. The Giants right now are the Beasts of the East.
....where is the evidence that they aren't rebuilding?
Okung, Thurmond, Thomas, Williams, Lynch aren’t part of a rebuild?
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Lynch is not under contract after the 2011 season
That makes him more of a rental. And if you think this team is in serious contention next year, then you know something the rest of the world doesn’t =)
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Why should we assume that Lynch would leave in FA?
He’ll have been a Seahawk for 2 years by the end of 2011 and a major part of an young offense. Of course, one could always assume the worst will happen =)
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Why must we all assume that free agents won't re-sign here?
I am of the opinion that having a player makes it more likely that he re-ups but that doesn’t seem to be a very popular opinion with some readers here.
And nah, not next year, but in 2-3?? Eh?
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions
See John's comment, above.
That and: you shouldn’t assume that players WILL re-sign with the team.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
But a 26 year old Lynch still may be a very good player that is worth investing in!
I don’t assume that they will, no, but I assume that they are more likely to. You can’t tell me that we are as likely to sign Lynch in 2012 as we would be if he had finished his Buffalo contract.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions
7-9
Does that win this division?
This division is pretty bad.
This team needs some positive injury Karma. I am not sure what part of the schedule is easy either.
I can not see this team beating the Giants, New Orleans, KC, or Atlanta. Based on the book of knowledge available, those games are tough sells to me.
But that is just me. Tampa has been impressive also. Then they also have to win on the road at Arizona and SF.
I think the Rams take this division if we're 4-5.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Are you taking into account the relative strength of schedule for the remaining games?
We’ve got easier games than they do coming up.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Meh.
I fully expected to get blown out today. For years the Seahawks have been awful on the road. Plus we were missing a bunch of key players.
Well he did send extra pressure almost all day.
Backing off in numbers after Polumbus went out, only because they were up and there was no real threat.
I am a little interested in if Marshall specifically attacked out interior line in some way. Maybe just their tackles are good — they are. But Spencer, I wonder if they identified something about him. The tackles are poor without Okung, and that was most obvious in the edge rush problems, but I think the bigger problem is how Spencer & Andrews were awful.
Also I thought only Jeremy Bates showed themselves well, yesterday. Leon, too, I guess, but anyway, I didn’t like so many off tackle blasts called. I think this is the only time I haven’t liked Bates’ calls, but I did like a lot of the plays run, and the time they were run. But the running game would have been more effective with some of the edge runs turned inside by design.
I can't understand the obsession with getting a QB from THIS draft.
The Seahawks could choose to Roll with Whitehurst and see where that takes them next year and if he’s bad, then you take QB in the draft after next, with much more favorable value position.
I think this is most likely what happens.
by Joshua Kasparek on Oct 31, 2010 6:46 PM PDT reply actions
That's a possibility
Even if we hit the playoffs and want QB from the top of the draft, we could always trade up.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Grab a QB whenever you get the opportunity
Deep draft, particular player you like. It’s too important a position to leave lying around.
by Thomas Beekers on Oct 31, 2010 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Possibly a deep QB draft we'll be in position to grab one
Plus it will take a few years to develop. Plus, anytime a potential franchise QB is available and you don’t already got one, you draft him.
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions
We've been ignoring the position long enough
Holding onto old Hasselbeck memories and hoping that the magic comes back. It’s getting old watching Hasselbeck fail. I loved the guy, but seriously? 3 and out continuosly and having more picks than Touchdowns isn’t a fun game for me to watch. It stresses me out not knowing if they’re watching the same game as me. Even when he Hasselbeck does good, it’s mediocre.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Oct 31, 2010 11:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That's a terrible idea
I’d rather get the franchise QB NOW.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Bad results, not bad process
We’re putting the team together the right way, but . We’ve got young players in key positions, a FO that is able to snap up good players on the margin and a coach that puts players in the position to win. We don’t a ton of depth, but we’re only half-a-season into a rebuilding process that saw over 200 transactions.
Today we were missing our:
- LT (and our #2 LT for part of the game)
- DT
- and #3 CBs
Our WRs also dropped an above-average number of passes.
The game was a lot closer than the final score suggested. If our WRs used some stickum, our were slightly OL improved, and Mare had a better day, I think this game would have been a lot closer.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 6:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Yup
Well put.
Bad result.
Not bad process.
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Some of those drops were particularly devastating, too
The BMW drop in the red zone on 3rd down, and the Tate drop on the long pass were killers.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Dis on Oakland all you want...
But you have to admit, no other team this year has manhandled our offensive line that badly. They were in our backfield almost as fast as the ball. The Raiders have a weak passing game, but they look pretty talented everywhere else.
Also, at this point I don’t think we need to worry overly much about the playoffs. With the injuries we have now I think we will lose in Arizona. And I was already counting the Giants, Saints, and Chiefs games as loses. If we are healthy again after all that punishment we can likely squeak wins from the Panthers and 49ers, but I’m not very confident about the rest of the schedule.
This of course is all a bunch of hot air, but if I am right we will be a decent team losing more games than we should instead of a bad team win more than we should. Which should make those looking to the future happy, and those watching now very sad.
I agree except that it was closer.
It was like eunuch porn: a blowout without money shots. The defense played better in the red zone but mostly Oakland just failed to execute and capitalize. They got a ton of lucky breaks but they were beating us at the point on both sides of the ball.
So not close, to me. But yeah we have a lot of injuries. Which bodes as poorly for this remaining killer stretch of November (regardless of what DVOA says) as the notion that this game revealed “the real” Seattle Seahawks or that we are a bad team.
But I do agree, bad results, not bad process. The bad news is the problems with this game were not from the QB, and the injuries amplified the problems, but they did not fully start with the injuries. So, not all of the problems are fully fixable, and that’s very bad news.
But the team is better than this, still can play better than this on the road, can conceivably get healthier (but also worse), and still retains most of the playoff prospects they held before yesterday.
I wasn’t expecting this loss, so I wasn’t expecting this to come up this soon, but Carroll’s NFL teams have all started strong and faded dramatically late. 3 seasons is no sample size at all, but nonetheless it’s something I’m going to be keeping my eye on.
Its not over
I think everyone just needs to chill out. Its one game. It feels like everyone is giving up on the season. We play in the nfc west and we’re still in first. We also had a lot of injured players that didn’t play today and that were playing hurt. I mean the Saints lost to the Browns last week and today the redskins lost to the lions. This year is crazy and the nfl is crazy. Anything can happen. And as far as looking toward the draft and rather losing is bs. If your a real fan of your team you should want your team to win every year no matter what. You should feel your team is going to the super bowl every year. I don’t know maybe thats just me. And lastly everyone that is bitching about Hasselbeck today didn’t watch the same game I watched. He had no help from the line and no help from his receivers. Give the guy a break he gets ripped a new one every week on this site.
I see possibly four wins in November, maybe five
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, there are only 4 games :)
Giants – L
Arizona – Not Sure
NO – L
KC – Not Sure
I’d say both AZ and KC can beat this banged up Seahawks team.
It is what it is...
We won't be as banged up for KC hopefully.
I see us taking Arizona and one of the remaining 3.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure how effective predictions are
Remember how great the 49ers were going to be? And how the Rams were going to have their 3rd year as bottom dwellers?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope Whisenhunt continues to foolishly start Hall
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Hall got benched midway through today's game
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions
If their season is lost I guarantee they start Skelton
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I'm not sure that Whiz likes Skelton more than Hall
I think Skelton and Hall are both developmental QBs but Whiz likes Hall more.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
He'd rather get run over by a train than a truck I guess
If Anderson gets injured they won’t win another game from the point he gets injured onwards.
This is our best chance to finally beat these guys in Arizona after 4 close losses. If we can’t do that….I’ll cry.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I'd avoid questioning the fandoms of others
But that’s me. You can want a team to win, but still be realistic of that team’s chances based on the personnel available. I’d say the Seahawks are a team in the middle of a rebuilding process. They’re much closer to the end than they were even last year, but not there yet.
Would I like to see the team win the Super Bowl? Sure, but I can also say that looking at the team thus far this season, it’s not likely to happen. At this point, I’d honestly question the team’s ability to win a playoff game away from Qwest. And looking at the opponents, I think we’re also reaching a tough part of the schedule in the next month or so.
So does this somehow make me less of a fan, because I don’t think the team has a realistic shot at the Super Bowl?
by splintrdmind on Oct 31, 2010 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, exactly.
This game proves that the Hawks are not a particularly good team right now. Does that take away from their potential? Does that mean that they have not made strides in rebuilding? Hell no.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
No, exactly
The rebuilding Seahawks are kind of crappy when they’re missing a bunch of guys, their OL has a bad day, their opponent takes advantage of freak plays (like the Butler-tipped interception) and the receivers aren’t reeling in the balls.
Does that mean we’ll be the same team all year? No.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions
To me yes
We lose one game doesn’t mean you should pack it in. And if we do make it to the playoffs, the season starts over. You can look at bunch of teams over the years and some weren’t that good that made it to the superbowl and won or won a playoff game and some didn’t. Hell Dilfer and B. Johnson won a superbowl. Just because we don’t have an elite QB doesn’t mean we can’t make it to the playoffs or win one. It just annoys me when we lose one game when are team isn’t healthy and we go into freak mode and look to the future. When we’re 5-10 in december then we can start that talk but instead lets talk about how we can improve our o-line play and who we can get back healthy. Thats all I was saying.
I think it depends on the nature of the losses and wins
I don’t think this is a lost season, but I do think that there are trends developing this season that are very troubling, and that if not fixed, will absolutely keep this team from winning in the playoffs. The offense does not seem to be pulling it together, although I am somewhat confident that they can reverse the trend.
If we were close in our losses, losing on a last second field goal, then I’d probably feel better about them, and be less concerned. As it is, the team is at a point, where they either seem to be above average or not particularly good.
I have no problem with people pointing out the deficiencies in our team. I would rather be aware of them, and enjoy the wins in spite of them, than hear that everything is great, when the product on the field is not reflecting that.
by splintrdmind on Oct 31, 2010 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Give the guy a break?
It’s a team effort and youre pinning the blame on everyone else but him. I seen bad OL play at times and WRs dropping passes, but there were times when Matt had time and over/under threw his receivers. When he was throwing to Tate the passes were going for the sidelines. He sacked himself by trying to scramble up the middle when he COULD of dumped it off to a RB. Hasselbeck deserves some blame. He’s been inconsistent all year. How many pieces do you have to change around him in order for him to be successful. Give me a break.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Oct 31, 2010 11:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
He deserves some blame, but the unfortunate thing was that he played better today than usual.
A number of badly thrown balls, but a few horrible drops by his receivers, and the offensive line was the worst I’ve seen in the past 3 years. By the 3rd quarter the pocket was crumbling immediately after the ball was snapped.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
You are what you are
And right now the Seahawks are 4-3. The only determination that can be made about the game today is the the O-line was horrible – today. It’s foolish to make any declarations about how good or bad most teams are in the first half of the season. Talk to me in week 12.
Ok, everyone just shut up till week twelve.
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know why teams even bother playing until week twelve
The season should just start there, at week twelve
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we should just play the first 7 games every year
And then decide the winner of the Super Bowl based the highest ranked team on a composite of advanced stats.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 8 recs
Hahaha.
Rec’ed for sheer awesomeness.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Rec me, damnit
or I’ll flag you from promising a rec and not delivering.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I see it now
Just make sure your recs are more timely next time. Recs are power and significant. If you don’t rec in a timely fashion, the whole thread could go to pot.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Start Whitehurst
It’s not this game necessarily but it’s a collection of mediocre-to-terrible games sans one good one against Chicago.
This offensive line is bad. The Green Bay Packers offensive line is/was bad but Aaron Rodgers masks that with his scrambling ability, his stellar rollout play, and capable and accurate arm. Matt Hasselbeck right now has none of these three and he’s got an injury history. He cannot play from behind at all and when we have to rely on the pass the game is essentially over.
I don’t know what we’ll get from Whitehurst but he has no injury history and he’s definitely got a capable arm. Does it have to be this week? Preferably. But I am 100% certain Matt Hasselbeck is the primary problem with this offense and he is a liability.
The thing with Hasselbeck is he is developing Seneca habits. He is sensing pressure when there is none and unlike Seneca he’s a god damn statue in the pocket. This is worse than the Shaun Alexander decline because we don’t know what we’re getting with Whitehurst when we did know what MoMo could do.
I’m going to write a fanpost (maybe) about how badly this team squanders great field position. Because the shorter the field becomes the worse we get.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Oct 31, 2010 8:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
With Hasselbeck with a slight concussion, Whitehurst may be starting no matter what
by B.B.Finnegan on Oct 31, 2010 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions
'not available to the media'
to me means Whitehurst next week. Whitehurst looked ready to go into the game today. I think PC is close to making the swap.
by biggiestylez on Oct 31, 2010 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't care if it's ugly.
How much uglier can it get?
much
I’m starting to hope Charlie Whitehurst gets to start too. Just so one way or the other people will stop asking for him.
Personally I do not think Charlie is the droid we are looking for. He seems to poop himself if things don’t go exactly as planned.
I have no idea if you are right about him shatting himself at first sign of chaos.
Pretty sure Hass does about the same thing at this point though, and we all know the life cycle. You shit yourself young, you (hopefully) learn not to shit yourself anymore, then later, you grow old and you shit yourself again.
Maybe Charlie is at a point where he can age into not shitting himself.
We know Matt’s days of wearing Depends are not going away…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t see myself as a Hasselbeck apologist but…
"Pretty sure Hass does about the same thing at this point though, and we all know the life cycle. You shit yourself young, you (hopefully) learn not to shit yourself anymore, then later, you grow old and you shit yourself again."
I do not think this is fair to Hasselbeck. I have always considered Hasselbeck to be nothing more than a slightly above average QB, but he has never lacked courage, or poise. If he thinks he has 4 seconds to throw, he will take 4 seconds to throw… and pick himself up off the ground afterwards. Since this happened he does have a tendency to panic when pressured. But that does not make him any different than many of the starting quarterbacks this year. If the play does not bear fruit Matt makes a decision. Sometimes that decision is to run into the back of one of his linemen for a self-sack. Sometimes he manages to get yards out of nothing.
I only saw Whitehurst play in the pre-season. But what stood out to me is that Whitehurst does not do anything after the play has run its course. He just stands there looking lost. Maybe this problem would lessen with experience. But if we are going to have to train a QB, I would rather we draft a young one with potential.
Also, on a team that allows 8 sacks in a game, looking lost is an extremely bad thing.
Well, that quote is simply saying that in football quarterbacking age, Hass is a senior citizen, and Depends are on the grocery list.
And I do agree with you about Matt’s courage. He has always had a warrior’s spirit and pride, and I have never doubted nor questioned that.
He will forever be among my favorite Seahawks, and it pains me to see this shell of what he once was out there now.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 2, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
If he wanted to make the swap
Or at least show signs of it, he would’ve given him some reps and not handoffs.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Is Robinson healthy to come back next week?
Because I haven’t been able to profess my M-Rob love.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I really hope so!
We need his abilities.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
He's a god.
The sig don’t lie.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I disagree
Matt tried to make some big plays in the second half but our receivers couldn’t do anything with the passes. Tate had a couple of big mistakes, there were some dropped passes and that freak Butler play that resulted in an int.
I think Matt did a lot better with pressure this game than last game. He got sacked, sure, but it was the result of very little protection. This is the 3rd game in a row that Matt got hit by an unblocked blitzer hitting the A gap.
Redzone defense is different from defense in the open field. As the offense approaches the endzone, the field of play becomes significantly reduced and the defenders have less area to cover
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
And did "that freak Butler play" not come about because of a (typical) Hass underthrow.
OF COURSE our receivers couldn’t do anything with the passes. They come in slow and allow the D to recover, week in and week out. That, of course, assumes he actually managed to hit the right spot in which for the receiver to be able to effectively wait for his ball to get there.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
You apparently missed BMW's drop of a perfectly thrown pass to 1 yard line.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
No, I didn't.
Should he have caught it? Absolutely. But that was ONE DROP. He was 13 for 32.
Fine. I’ll give you that one. Now he’s 14-32. Still a crappy game, isn’t it? But wait, that’s all his WR and OL’s fault. Not his, no way no how. It was everyone else letting him down.
I’m not sure how everyone wants to call Golden’s missed catch a drop. He had to reach over and around the DB, and it would have been a great catch if made. Was it a bad throw? No. That was a good throw. But there are plays on the field in which success isn’t always likely even when they are made well.
Fine. I’ll even give you that one though. Now he’s 15 for 32. All you have to do is find two more obvious drops (and I don’t know that I’d call Golden’s a drop anyway) and you can have a QB with over a 50% completion percentage. Whoop-de-dam-doo.
Of course, if we want to talk about BMW’s drop— let’s talk about last week when he caught, what, 5 or balls that most WR’s wouldn’t. Balls that really weren’t that difficult of throws, and yet the QB struggled to get it there.
You have very selective memory if you think things weren’t Matty’s fault this week. I promise you if you re-watched, you would see more missed throws than you would drops. And remember too, when a QB throws to a WR who has to either speed up or slow down to get to the ball— that drop is just as much the QB’s fault as the WR. Time and time again Hass misses his receivers in step and they have to make great efforts just to catch balls that should be getting to them on a line.
I know, he didn’t get the time you like. And he was sacked too many times. And I don’t disagree with that. Our line stinks… just like the QB they “protect.”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
You're missing my point
I know Matt didn’t play well. However, as opposed to prior weeks, he played BETTER and his supporting cast played MUCH WORSE.
Golden’s missed catch was a drop. It wasn’t an easy catch, but it hit him in the hands, and as an NFL wide receiver, you are paid to catch footballs that hit you in the hands.
It’s not about “getting the time I’d like” it’s about not having defenders roaring into the backfield full-speed off the snap every play. It was brutal.
You can’t put any QB behind a line that was as porous as this one, and expect different results. I don’t care if you put Zues on a Pegasus flinging lightning bolts behind the line, he’s getting knocked down every time he drops back.
Maybe I’m just tired of the goddamned finger pointing. The whole team was terrible yesterday. Maybe we should put Clipboard Jesus in, so everybody can see he’d be no better back there.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
I disagree completely that Matt played better.
He was 13-32. I don’t care how bad the supporting cast is, that was bad. Terrible even.
Fine Golden’s catch was a drop.
As far as QB’s behind lines that are sieves, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Schaub and Peyton Manning all had to deal with terrible lines early in their starting careers. None ever looked as bad as Hasselbeck does, and all got varying better results.
And yes, I would LOVE your “maybe” of putting in Charlie. It isn’t that I think he’s that great. I just want us to stop living in the past and start looking toward the future, and Matt is the past.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
That was an overthrow and he overthrew most of the day.
Definite aggression in the playcalling in trying their hardest to get the press coverage to back off. Couple successful go routes and it might have worked. Anyway he was putting it in the right place, those passes need to be out in front of everyone. Just a little too far each time. I do think that’s because nearing the bounds of arm strength disproportionately impedes accuracy and any semblance of touch.
Hasselbeck’s not playing well, hasn’t for a while, and benching him games ago would have been appropriate. This is the wrong game to bench him after on account of performance. That’s not to excuse his performance. Pulling him when pass protection was such a game-changing factor is very bad coaching.
I'm not making the argument based on this game...
I’m making it based on the last 3 years.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure I know what you mean.
Just pointing out how it was the opposite, in Oakland. And then tossing my hat in the sit him/start him discussion after that.
Is winning this year worth hurting long term progress of the franchise
I object to this whole premiss since win doues rebuilding mean you scrap everything and hope fort the best in the future. You can build for the future while playing to win this year thats what good franchises do the franchises who just rebuild are always rebuilding. As for the call for younger talent just for futures sake you can talk to me when Deon Butler doesn’t drop at least 6 passes that hit him in the hands or when Mike Williams doesn"t drop a ball on the one yard line that would of made the score 13 to 7. the way you build a winnner is to stock pile young talent like the patriots but you don"t play them untill they eran the spot.
When did Butler drop 6 passes?
I don’t think diving for balls and drastically underthrown deep balls with a defender draped on him count as “drops.”
Not justifying the WR play today, but saying he had 6 drops is not fair.
And BMW knew he was going to get cracked.
Which sucks, and he should have caught it, but damn, it gets old when you have to do all the work.
Hasselbeck’s numbers THE PAST THREE YEARS are terrible. This isn’t the fault of everyone on the team but him. At some point, he needs to be looked at as the root cause of the craptastic offense. He (and the offenses’ poor play) are the only things that have been consistent since the 2008 season.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Per Eric Williams
njuries will be a major concern for the team moving forward. Defensive end Red Bryant suffered a sprained right knee according to Carroll and will be evaluated on Monday. Colin Cole has an ankle issue. Golden Tate has a sprained left ankle.
Ben Hamilton suffered a concussion. Tyler Polumbus suffered a leg injury but returned to the game. Nate Ness had cramping early in the game but returned. And Matt Hasselbeck suffered a head injury late in the game, which is the reason Charlie Whitehurst came in for the final series.
Jesus this pisses me off: "which is the reason Charlie Whitehurst came in for the final series...."
Because, you know, you wouldn’t want to EVER FUCKING GIVE HIM A MEANINGFUL LOOK IN A GAME THAT IS OVER ALREADY.
FUCK.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
The game wasn't over until the fourth quarter.
The coaches see Charlie every day in practice and he clearly isn’t ready or talented enough to be a starting quarterback in their eyes, otherwise he would have started a game already. He was a 3rd string QB before this year. He isn’t a messiah that will take us to the holy land or even a leader on the field. He’s a back up quarterback at best.
Hasselbeck is not the answer either, but if you asked me who I would want to start next sunday, it would be Hasselbeck. Change for the sake of change isn’t always the answer.
All that being said we need a new quarterback next year, heck we need a new one next week.
Eat shit bum!
Sometimes a QB change does change a game, however
I can’t remember how many times a new QB came in against the Hawks and turned the game around and beat us over the history of the franchise, but it has happened more than a few times.
True.
We still had an 18% win probability factor at halftime, and we definitely needed Hasselbeck’s magic to improve our odds there, right?
The game was pretty close to done earlier.
Are you so sure about “otherwise he would have started a game already.” I am not so sure, because coaches desperately fear change, and if they believe in something, they will have blinders on to the reality of the situation. And even if not, even if you ARE right about that, fine. I don’t know that Charlie is the answer, I simply know Hasselbeck is not. And every snap he takes is another one in which we continue to not know what we have in Charlie, and we continue to hover around mediocrity hoping to god our defense and special teams and home field advantage can win a game for us, because the Hasselbeck sure as hell has proven he no longer can.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you're making wildly off-base assumptions saying that "coaches desperately fear change"
I think it’s completely untrue and has no basis in reality. Plus, have you seen what Carroll has done with our roster?
Clearly PC would have put Whitehurst in already if he thought it would give us a shot at winning. He sees the guy play every day.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Perhaps you are right there.
I over-generalized. However, I’ve spent a fair amount of time around football coaches (when I taught and coached HS basketball and baseball.) But you are correct, Pete has been very pro-active about making changes.
However, you are making an equal assumption when saying, “Clearly, PC would have put in Whitehurst already…” Clear as mud, that one.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Both answers are right I think.
The quarterback is such a central figure and while you may be willing do have 200+ roster transaction for other parts of the team the quarterback is one where coaches tend to be hesitant about changing.
I don’t see either Hasselbeck or Whitehurst as our answer. If our receivers are running the wrong routes at time do you think that Whitehurst who probably hasn’t had a lot of snaps with the starters would be in a better position make those plays? I don’t know much about Whitehurst or his style, preseason seemed like it was last year and I forgot if Whitehurst was a rhythm type QB or good gunslinger type.
I’ve already resigned my self of this years Seahawks. I’ve been burned by too many Seattle sports and I choose to not be so invested in them like I was for the Mariners this year. I like PC but he needs another year to get his players on the team. That being said I’ll still watch every game on Sunday on tv and hopefully go to one this year.
Exciting times are ahead.
Eat shit bum!
Alright, on this point I agree with you both.
I desperately want to see a QB with better arm strength…I’m just assuming PC has reasons for not starting the backup QB, when the starter is doing so poorly.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
The Seahawks are horrible!
Let’s trade the entire squad except for Mebane and then use our first round pick on a QB every year until one finally becomes good enough for us to contend. Maybe that will make competing on a weekly basis important.
Mebane would be a force at the slot.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
I mean nothing really matters until we have one right?
by Hawkhammer19 on Oct 31, 2010 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Sarcasm much?
You’re not seeing both sides. It seems like you’re throwing a fit because people are disagreeing that Hasselbeck is perfectly fine and performing as an elite QB should. The team has changed numerous pieces around him, yet we get the same results. It’s EVERYONES fault, including Hasselbecks. He’s the one that makes the reads, throws the ball, and tries to scramble into a wall of silver and black.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Oct 31, 2010 11:30 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wouldn't he, though?
I wouldn’t want to be the DB trying to tackle him.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions
That's more than a little mean.
I see what you’re saying, but still. John’s views are more complex than this.
by Woodinville_12thMan on Oct 31, 2010 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Why are we even discussing QB?
John Lynch thought all of Hasselbeck’s passes were perfect and our receivers are useless POS who needed to catch everything.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Also, John has it all wrong
Lionel Washington was a beast returning kicks today. Leon is his brother.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Also, Pitts confused Golden Tate with Leon Washington
I have never looked forward to Buck/Aikman calling our game than after today.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
At some point
a receiver needs to catch a ball that ends up in his hands.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions
And at some point, a receiver needs to receive a ball in his hands while still in stride.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Oct 31, 2010 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions
The NFL needs to get rid of the facemask penalty too.
As Lynch said, sometimes the defenders are just trying to make the tackle!
by Coach Owens on Oct 31, 2010 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How is anyone supposed to tackle a shifty player like Justin Forsett
unless they grab him by his helmet? They either need to get rid of the facemask penalty or outlaw shifty players.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Oct 31, 2010 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The f is hard to see when skimming.
It was a funny comment then became less funny once I saw the f.
Eat shit bum!
by LeftArrow2 on Nov 1, 2010 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This thread has reminded me why I hate surfing Field Gulls after a loss.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
I enjoyed the ride, a little.
This post reminds me of that conversation with a girlfriend that you have to have when she’s being pissy. It’s tough, and feelings get hurt. She may also have ‘headaches’ the rest of the week but at least you’re on the same page again.
I just feel sorry for JM cause it feels like he’s boarding up the windows for the crap-storm that seems imminent, though unnecessary.
by SgtSasquatch on Oct 31, 2010 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions
With that said, on a scale of 1 to a cute girl saying "Oh this? It's a promise ring!" this game would rank right around "soul-crushing.".
by SgtSasquatch on Oct 31, 2010 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm far from 'suicide watch' following this loss
Sure the ‘Hawks were outplayed. But it wasn’t the one-sided shellacking suggested by the final score. We got killed on the offsensive line, that’s undeniable. But the offense seemed to have made some decent adjustments at half time and through much of the contest the Seahawks could have gotten back into the game. But every bounce went against them. There was the immaculate reception, the somewhat similar interception. 2 missed FGs by Mare in an otherwise perfect season, the 4th and 1 slant to the fullback which was . this close to an interception and .. this close to an incomplete pass and turnover on downs. On offense, the Oline was a sieve and Matt was decidedly mediocre. But there was also an unusually high number of dropped passes.
The Seahawks have been damn lucky this year, with alot of breaks and bounces in victories against the Cards and Chargers. Well, they got no breaks against Oakland. Whatever. Maybe they’re neither a Superbowl contender nor one of the worst teams in the league. If they can get healthy, they’re still probably a solid 8-8 team.
As one that does not support Matt
remaining our QB I do not put this loss on him. Frankly every member of that O-Line stunk yesterday and deserves…..I dunno, something horrible.
John Hancock
I honestly don't put the loss solely on his shoulders either, by any means.
My whole point is that we continue to roll him out there week after week, when every other starting position appears based more on performance, and his is on reputation.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Remember, it was just one game
with a large number of key starters injured or out. And it wasn’t an unwinnable game until deep in the 4th quarter.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions
18% at halftime.
Or, it was 82% losable from halftime on, if you prefer.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Do you even understand what those numbers mean?
Are they predictive? Do they have margins of error? Do we understand how precise they are? What are the numbers based on.
We entered halftime at 0-10 after missing a FG. The game wasn’t a done deal at all at halftime. Using empty numbers to support your argument doesn’t make your argument any stronger.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a win probability. Which by definition means they aren't absolute.
I’m sure Whiskey (and plenty others here) have an understanding of basic statistics. Sure isn’t empty numbers.
Win Probability is just a name for a statistic Brian Burke invented
Without an understanding of what it is, how it works and what it can do it really is just empty numbers. There’s no sense waving around advanced football statistics willy nilly, picking and choosing which one suits your argument if you don’t understand how the stats were derived, what they mean or how confident you can be in them.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Fine.
Can I use my eyes then? Because they told me we’re a bad offense with a crappy QB, a weak running attack, a terrible OL and only average WR’s. Put that all together, and my eyes told me we didn’t have much of a chance to come back, but we still could have done so, but it probably would have taken some lucky breaks/points by the defense or special teams.
That, to me, is an assessment that borders around us having a 20% chance to win the game at halftime.
Cause my eyes are like computer and shit.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll treat your 20% estimate with the respect it deserves
Because your eyes are like computer and shit.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Who is cherry picking stats?
Which stats are being ignored?
Also, it’s not our job to explain to you how certain stats work. If you don’t understand them, then you can take it upon yourself to research them. If you have specific problems with them great, lets discuss it. Dismissing any advanced stat as empty numbers out of hand isn’t ok.
If you’re actually interested in learning about win probability I’d suggest you start here, here and here.
I understand how WP works and it was a dumb stat to try to use in that argument
Using a stat without understanding how it works is really dumb.
Apparently it only takes into account score differential, down/distance/field position and time remaining.
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php
I don’t need you to google things for me. If you want to argue why WP is a great stat, I’d be happy to hear it.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions
What MT said.
At a certain point you have to look at the way our offense doesn’t move the ball and acknowledge 10 points to make up is expecting a hell of a lot of luck.
I used to coach high school basketball, and in that I’ve seen a lot of school hoops at all levels. A 10 point lead in a boys high school game is a deficit that can often be overcome rather quickly given your talent level. However, I’ve seen the same lead more often than not be insurmountable in a girl’s middle school game.
So yeah, I guess what I’m trying to say is that the Seahawks offense is apparently the equivalent of girls middle school basketball.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well the statistic you presented has nothing do with that
Win Probability doesn’t take into account the productivity of the offense, the defense or the special teams of any specific team.
We had plenty of chances to make up the 10 points but missed out on all of them. We had missed FGs, missed catches, missed passes and unblocked sackers that could have easily reduced the point difference. In the second half we had at least 4 plays that could have turned the tide of the game but were unsuccessful.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps.
I see where you are going with that, and big plays could have turned the tide… but we still would have been down, and still would have had to pull more than each of those single plays. We would have to then sustain success after the big play. I guess that’s were my frustration comes in, because I don’t know that this offense has that capability.
Our D and special teams have continually put us in positions with good field position and chances to win games.
Our O has consistently not taken advantage.
I’m running out of patience, and I want to see changes. We’ve tried everything else, there’s only one spot left to change…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Some days the universe is just against you, it happens.
Mare misses two field goals? He probably won’t miss another all year. Key players missing going into the game but expected back soon? Check. Freak ball bounces on huge plays, yup, that too.
It happens, just not often. I’m glad we got it all outta the way in the same game. I expect to see a different team against the Giants, with quest field bounces.
And this front office will get a QB. They might over pay, but they will get one. Have to get one to win long term and they know it.
I blame Mora and Fox for those two misses.
Stupid bastards, jinxing him by putting the Mora quote up before his first attempt….
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
I was thinking the same thing when they put up the graphic
Mare should be good for a 51-yarder (unless the winds were particularly swirly).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Just a point of clarification. Bad luck is not something that can be gotten "all outta the way in the same game"
That’s the gamblers fallacy.
For all of you who think hasselbeck was the problem yesterday
This is what Mike Williams had to say about the recieving core..
"We left more than enough plays out there today that could have helped the offense, that could have helped the offensive line," he said. "We make those plays on the outside, they can’t blitz us like they did.
"So there are no excuses. There is none of that, ‘This is one of those days.’ This is a game where it was man on man and as a group we could have done more for our offense."
I have yet to see any national media, local media, players, or coaches suggest that Matt has been the problem matter of fact most media has said that Matt has done everything he can and the team is letting him down. If Matt is so bad how come the only place I hear it is here we payed witehurst and traded for him Carrol has no reason to be loyal to Matt but yet he still goes wtih him what does that say about Witehurst he took cahnces on alot of players this year Some have worked out some haven"t they took a chance on witehurst and clearly he hasn’t impressed thecoaches thus far maybee they got that one wrong.
Rec'd for truthiness.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
BMW is obviously throwing BMW under the bus
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
It certainly isn't the first time an athlete has taken blame for his teammates.
200 and some moves later though, I can’t believe it isn’t time to start questioning the single constant.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Absolutely
Obviously, Carroll and Bates never, ever questioned the effectiveness of Hasselbeck. Not when they first looked at the roster, not when during the 200 roster moves of the offseason and especially not after the offense had troubles for the 7th game.
Obviously, the coaches have never questioned the effectiveness of the QB. Somebody better mention to them that Hasselbeck is in his 30s and played poorly these last two years. They probably had no idea. whiskey chainsaw, I nominate you. Get them on the horn ASAP and let them know the grave mistake they’ve made. Quick, before its too late!
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 1, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I detect your sarcasm, and I'm not that impressed with it. Kind of dickish, really.
So tell me, oh champion of all that is logical, how do you fix the offense, or, is the offense not the problem?
I’m saying the coaches didn’t realize the regression Hasselbeck has had. I’m saying that because they stressed an environment of competition, but they did it everywhere BUT the quarterback spot.
Bringing in a single new player (excuse me, two including JP) at the one position most critical to team success if you knew there was an issue IS an issue, particularly when there were guys out there and available.
He brought in scores of players at every other position, yet only two at QB. You can’t tell me more guys weren’t available out there. Sage was had for a late pick, Matt Leinhart and Rex Grossman all changed teams. None would be any worse than Hass, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, better.
But instead we overpaid for a single guy, who apparently isn’t the guy. Then fine. Cut his ass and prove that he was a mistake (and shut me the hell up while we essentially take this year off hoping to God Matt can lead us to 8-8 and a playoff spot). That’s less of a mistake than not knowing, when you know the guy you have out there throws more INT’s than TD’s, can’t throw the ball long or even all that accurately anymore short, can’t run and requires extraordinary efforts from his supporting cast for him to be able to assist them in winning.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jason Campbell, Donovan, Shaun Hill, also changed teams this last off season.
All have started games somewhere this year. There’s also Derek Anderson, and I’m sure a couple more around as well who may be journeymen, but at this point I’d take a journeyman.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 1, 2010 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
