Postgame: New Orleans Saints 34 - Seahawks 19
Here's a top 20 list of why this game was frighteningly awesome.
20. Seattle is still in first place in the NFC West
A win would have given Seattle some separation, but the loss doesn't knock Seattle back. The Rams, Cardinals and 49ers lost. The Rams are the Seahawks major competition for the title. This was a likely loss for both teams from the outset, and both teams lost. No big deal. The Seahawks are still favored to win the NFC West.
19. The run defense was back to respectable
Seattle is still playing without its starting nose tackle, Colin Cole, and starting strongside end, Red Bryant. It was walked out of the building by the New York Giants rush attack. There are few surer displays of dominance than constructing a 13 minute drive largely through your third string running back, but that's what New York did at Qwest Field in week nine.
But, still patching with Junior Siavii at nose and Kentwan Balmer at end, the run defense was respectable. It held New Orleans to five rushing first downs. Chris Ivory exploded through tons of tackles and finished with a discouraging 65% success rate, but he didn't break free. The line held ground, got push and penetration, and though linebackers weren't game to tackle Ivory on first contact, kid has some juice in his legs. He's good. This was a bad performance that was very close to a good performance, and hopefully a sign of improvement to come.
18. Earl Thomas last minute interception
It didn't impact the outcome of the game, but it wasn't a gimme either. Drew Brees made his read, placed the pass well, but Thomas worked the receiver, caught the ball and expertly tapped his toes in bounds. It was an achievement no matter the game state.
17. The Return of Brandon Mebane
Mebane created push, created pressure and finished with tackle or tackle assists of -4, 0, 1 and 3 yards.
16. More quality play by Aaron Curry
Curry committed his trademark encroachment/offside penalty, but I'll forgive a man for working on his pass rush. He's getting his timing down and the potential gain of Curry improving as a pass rusher is worth a nickel here and a nickel there. He didn't have as many big plays like last week, but took better angles, looked more aware in coverage and avoided being picked on. Curry wasn't caught looking as passes were completed in front of him over and over, and on an early outlet pass to Heath Evans, something that's haunted Curry, he showed timely reaction and laid a nice hit on the fullback.
15. Pressure from Balmer
I saw Balmer working around strong side and applying pressure on few occasions. Balmer has looked more comfortable at end each week and may eventually prove a serviceable replacement for Red--as a run stuffer and as someone that can set the edge.
14. Clean pocket
Not only did New Orleans never sack Hasselbeck, but he was rarely pressured and never officially "hit."
13. Excellence by Okung
Russell Okung didn't manage perfection -- Justin Forsett's rush for a loss was in fact a blown block by Okung that Forsett ate to avoid a planned lateral back to Hasselbeck -- but he was a nice mix of quiet without much help and powerful as a run blocker.
12. Four quarters of Okung
11. Walter Thurmond's near pick
It was an up and down game for Thurmond and more down than up. He misread routes and botched tackles, but he showed a little of his potential too. Particularly, early in the second, matched one on one against tight end Jimmy Graham, he jumped under the route, leapt high in the air and nearly snagged an interception in the end zone. The pass fell incomplete, but consider the components: tight coverage, ball skills, read and the good kind of risk taking.
10. Mike Williams
Guy is a number one receiver, minimum. His talent could make that distinction redundant.
9. Drives and time of possession
Time of possession isn't particularly essential, but it does correlate with a team that can sustain drives on offense. Seattle hasn't had that all year. It's depended on big plays, special teams and turnovers, but today, against a top ten defense, it moved the ball and managed a quality 26:15 time of possession.
No one was talking about Seattle's defense playing tired.
8. David Hawthorne interception
Heater was asked to switch from middle linebacker to weakside linebacker this season and the transition hasn't been very smooth. In the long run, and maybe even as soon as this off-season, Seattle may try and upgrade this essential position in the Pete Carroll defense. But we're not there yet, and for next few weeks, Hawthorne can compete for his job. His interception was a nice show of position, awareness and hands. He needs to show a lot more as a coverage linebacker to stick, but the pick was a small step forward.
7. Close calls breaking bad
The onside kick is perhaps the quintessential close call that broke bad. Lawyer Milloy just barely missed reestablishing himself inbound and that cost Seattle what was otherwise a perfectly executed kick by Olindo Mare and a potentially game changing recovery. But Seattle didn't recover and so they lost. But football is like that.
Look at it like this. Football doesn't generate particularly useful stats for the most part. What it does generate is a sense of dominance. When New York came to Qwest and lit up the Seahawks, no one would suggest that the game turned on a few close calls. The final score was however lopsided the Giants wanted to make it.
Seattle traveled to New Orleans and came within a few breaks of a close game, even maybe an upset. There were runs that were almost stuffed and passes that were almost picked, and calls that seemed 50-50 that broke the home team's way.
Seattle faced a team nearly New York's equal and on the road and played respectable football. That's big.
6. Two fumbles; Two fumbles lost
Fumbles drive fans and coaches crazy but are incredibly inconsistent play to play and game to game. Marshawn Lynch lost two fumbles and that's bad, but it doesn't mean Lynch is broken or will continue to fumble in the future. It hurt the Seahawks chances today but it shouldn't haunt Seattle going forward.
5. Ben Obomanu
What makes me excited about Obo is not that he's playing well or that he has seized the starting spot, but that he looks, agile, quick, dependable, good in space, fearless in traffic and like a legitimate NFL receiver.
Out of nowhere.
4. Chester Pitts and Stacy Andrews
I don't have particularly high hopes for either Chester Pitts or Stacy Andrews, but this was an overall quality game from the Seahawks interior blocking. There wasn't consistent interior pressure. There were holes to run through, if not a ton. It may seem minor, but when a bad unit can overcome and play like a serviceable unit, it can mean huge things going forward. In football, a team is often only as strong as their weakest link, and a couple of Seattle's worst performers showed that they can be good enough.
That goes triple for Sean Locklear.
3. The New Offense
Apart from misguided red zone roll out, Bates did a very good job of calling a game Matt could succeed in. Seattle actually out-gained New Orleans per play 7.0 to 6.9 yards.
After saying last week might be a turning point for the Seahawks offense, Seattle totaled 424 net yards offense. That's their second highest total of the season, the second 400 yard game in a row for the Seahawks, and against a very good defense playing at home. This is a hopeful sign. This could mean a lot more than one loss.
2. Two
Jon Ryan only punted twice today. He had averaged 5.4 for the season. Two today. One last week. Progress.
Game ball.
677 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I've been shouting against the tide
But when Hasselbeck doesn’t have a bulging disk in his back/broken ribs, and good O-line play, he’s a good quarterback.
So what was his excuse earlier in the season?
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 21, 2010 5:44 PM PST up reply actions
But Pass blocking in some of his bad games wasn't terrible.
I’m not discrediting Matt’s play. But I don’t think its because he’s all of sudden healthy. More than him and Bates have gotten on the same page.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 21, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
Perhaps Kurt Warner gave Matt Lucifer's number
and they worked out the same deal that the devil gave Warner.
The Denver game...
You are right. The OL played well, and he sucked. But the other 3 losses he’s played in (SL, Oakland, NO) he either played well or had little time.
He didn’t play well in their win vs. SD, but he didn’t have an abundance of time then, either. Factor in the fact that it’s a new offense, and the receivers have changed from training camp to now (loss of Housh, Branch, limited availability of Tate), it’s not too surprising.
Ideally, we’d get consistent QB play – somewhere in between the Matt of the last 2 weeks, and the one vs. Denver. But overall, this is a rebuilding effort, I’m not too freaked out about that.
by PerryCollective on Nov 21, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
I think a big part of it is mental.
Matt has always struggled mentally. Always.
I used to think it was Holmgren and it probably was to some extent. I think they created a bit of a negative feedback look where Holmgren would panic and throw out the running game. Matt would force passes and turnovers would happen.
I think the mental battle he had earlier this season was a mixture of personal health, and trying really hard not to force throws.
If you second guess yourself too long you end up looking like that.
I disagree.
I think the mental side of being a QB is what is separating Matt from Charlie. It sure isn’t the physical tools.
I'm not saying your're wrong
But I think there is a lot of wiggle room in the mental debate.
Matt I think is better at reading defenses. I think he knows the playbook better and has a crapload of experience to draw upon.
But the problem with all of this superior mental capacity is that it can be your downfall at times.
If you overthink things you end up creating more problems than you are solving.
Thats true.
But just letting it rip all the time would turn Charlie Whitehurst into the bad side of Jay Cutler
You don't have to defend Matt with me.
I’m a huge fan. I just don’t have problems discussing his faults :)
The good has almost always outweighed the bad with Matt.
I do think that Matt's uneven play at times is due to him "overthinking" things sometimes.
He’s such a smart football guy that sometimes when he presses he just lets his head get in the way of the “flow”
That happens to me in sports quite a bit. If I just live in the moment, everything slows down and the game is easier.
Excellent point.
I think there is a lot of wiggle room in the mental debate.
A quarterback’s “mental game” is composed of many, many parts. We can guess that Matt’s mental tools are superior to Charlie’s at this time, but any given aspect of those tools could have been failing enough to drag down the rest.
“Overthinking” is a good evaluation, but it’s also a simplification. I expect that Matt’s actual problems are pretty complicated and esoteric.
Just a hypothetical example: Maybe Matt had been trying to read the safety coverage before the snap, and then paying attention to his receivers’ potential windows after taking the ball. Then he swapped it up, and focused his pre-snap thoughts on his receivers’ individual strengths (height, speed, route) and his post-snap thoughts on the safeties.
Stuff like that isn’t so cut-and-dried (in reality, he’s still thinking about everything all of the time, it’s just a minor shift in focus) and there isn’t necessarily a “right” way to do it. It can change from year-to-year if you have more variability among your receivers’ skills, or if your arm starts to get weak, or if your experience has accumulated enough to make safety reads subconsciously, or if opponents scheme differently, etc.
My point… do I have a point? My point is: Even though Matt is an intelligent veteran, it’s reasonable to think that his mental game is still under development and that he might have turned a corner and improved his own play in recent weeks.
Is the play calling getting better?
I feel like we’re running better plays, but I have no proof to back it up.
Eat shit bum!
He can still play bad in several ways.
The biggest difference is the coaches, both coaching and the offensive adjustments. I am amazed. It is so cool. I mean I really am shocked at the difference made. The awesome receivers help out a lot, too.
Look at the RB passes today. They sucked. Hard. As usual. One of several things Matt can do poorly. That those passes barely register as mattering, is quite a thing indeed.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
I think he's also benefited from more time in the system and with the new WRs
Its not just better pass blocking, its more comfort in the pocket AND more comfort with his receivers.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not so sure.
Maybe it’s just that he’s been more successful, but the offense just looks different. Better pass pro has changed the playcalling, I don’t see how you can say it’s comfort of any kind.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
How much do you want to bet that even if Obo continues to perform well
that most fans will refuse to give Ruskell credit for drafting him?
Credit the new coaches for developing him.
Drafting late bloomers isn’t a good thing, they usually bloom on their second team, or with new coaches.
Be that as it may, Obo has talent and you do have to give some credit to Ruskell for recognizing that.
But then we can go back and say Ruskell willingly cut loose Forsett.
by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 21, 2010 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
Recognizing that Obo wouldn't be good for 3 years and then get to be adequate?
Swami says fail. On Ruskell
Not bad for a 7th-rounder
with pretty-good ST skills.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Obo's actually been good for a few years.
He just didn’t get enough opportunities under previous coaching regimes.
Actually I think Obo would have had a breakout year in 2008 but he broke his collarbone in the preseason.
He had a great preseason until Game 3 when he landed on IR.
After that we went on the Housh ride.
I don't know how much these coaches have to do with it.
I think we’d have been seeing this in 08 if he hadn’t broken his collar bone.
True
He may also have found success if we had a better offense last year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
And if Mora and Co. would actually play different people.
Always compete!!
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
That wasn't Ben Obamanu
Courtney Taylor stole his jersey last week and has been suiting up in his place.
Tats
Lots to like about that game, but it looked like Tatupu had a very tough game. A couple steps slow, not tackling well, and on at least one play I can remember, lost in space. Hope it was just an off game for him.
by jeager on Nov 21, 2010 5:38 PM PST via mobile reply actions
He made a nice play in coverage that was as close as he's been this year to an INT
But yeah, he didn’t show much today.
Love this post
I was really enjoying this game. I actually had to bail out of the game thread because there was so much negativity and “GAME OVER” shouts, when what I saw was pretty damn encouraging.
I can't decide whether I prefer a one sided performance by our defense or by our offense in a loss.
They’re both tough to swallow. I guess it’s worse watching the offense struggle.
The defense was hard to watch
But damn I love seeing the Hawks move down the field. I don’t have that urge to drink a two liter of Nyquil and walk down the train tracks that I had after the Giants/Raiders games. This was fun.
by somethingwitty on Nov 21, 2010 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
I drank the nyquil
but skipped the train tracks part.
by Moresoftness on Nov 21, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
Totally seconded.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Obie-Wan Kenobie made this game for me.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 21, 2010 5:42 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Have always said that football, perhaps more than any sport
has “moral” victories. You have to hang your hat on playing well, even when the outcome doesn’t show it. There’s not a ton of talent on this roster, but we’re finding guys who can make some plays in different places.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I think its a testament to the coaching staff
That they’re able to succeed without any all-stars. If you can assemble a competitive unit with a bunch of has-beens, cast-offs with a few pretty-goods mixed in, what are the possibilities if you are able to sign a few super stars?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
Kelly Jennings
Just thinking now that he didn’t get his name called all day. Don’t remember the ball being thrown to his side. He must have played well
Good point.
I’ve been down on him my share, but I didn’t see a ball go his way today. He must have played well.
Not sure
You can say that anyone in the secondary had a “good game” when a QB throws at will like Brees did. 4 TDs and 382 yards?
We got very little pressure on Brees all day
and when we did, he managed to slide away from while keeping his eyes downfield. It was a hell of a performance by him and his offensive line, and no secondary could have had much success in that situation.
I think the zone coverage was also a problem
There seemed to be a lot of catches where no DB was in position to defend.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Whohoo! We only lost by 20! Our OT played the WHOLE game!
Our QB threw for over 300 yards and one touchdown when it was basically over. Wow! What Red Zone presence!
Sorry, I’m not buying.
Kansas City will be a serious “pucker factor” game. A lot of well intended love will be lost if KC comes to Qwest and beats Seattle.
Moral victories are hallow. The earn you nothing but more excuses.
Sad.
It is what it is...
Agreed.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed... but...
I want wins. Either that or rebuilding, one or the other. Tired of this purgatory where we neither win nor seemingly focus on rebuilding.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:16 PM PST up reply actions
Why can't you win while rebuilding?
Establishing a culture of being relevant is important with the youth on the team.
Last year we had more talent but gave up midseason
Going 2-14 for a couple of years isn’t helpful in building a team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
You want your returning players to get a taste of relevant late season games or even playoffs.
Rather than feel like they are on a franchise headed nowhere.
I wanted the potential key position-- quarterback-- to be handed to the future guy.
I’m hearing more momentum for exactly the opposite— another year after this year for Hasselbeck.
Wait, I know— Charlie ISN’T the future. He showed that already, against the Giants.
He’s only a guy we paid a high price for that we’re willing to give 5 or so quarters to in order to judge him not ready nor (nor, apparently, ever).
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
You can't blame a head coach for sticking with his veteran QB who is playing well
When they are in first place in their division and looking at hosting a playoff game.
And I honestly think we could have still been the same place we are now-- 5-5-- if we would have gone young at the start of the season, at QB.have given him that
So I’m not saying it has to be one or the other, but if I’m going to “sell my soul” for one or the other, I’d much prefer it to be youth and the future.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:13 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to think that 5 quarters is all that Charlie should be evaluated on
And I don’t think the FO is dumb.
We didn’t trade for Charlie expecting he would be The Answer at QB and we won’t go into next season expecting him to be The Answer.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:14 PM PST up reply actions
I don't
I don’t think Charlies perfomance vs NYG means he’ll never be a starting QB but I do think it indicates he probably not ready yet and I don’t think there’s any way it should be interpreted to mean that he’s ready to be the starter.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with everything you just said
But there ARE a lot of people in Seahawk territory area who watched that game and said “bah gawd this guy’s awful! git him and his girly hair outta here!”
Personally I think the offense has been in a state of constant flux since OTAs, with guys coming and going at every position via transaction and trade. We’ve started six or seven different offensive lines in ten games. I’m pretty sure Chris Spencer is the only offensive player to start every game. That is a recipe for exactly the kind of struggles we’ve witnessed.
I think, right now, Hass is a better QB than Whitehurst and gives us a better chance to win. However, I also think that if, say, Hass was a victim of Q/PM’s culling in the offseason and Unicorn was the unquestioned starter, our record right now would be about the same. Would he have made more bad decisions than Matt has? Probably, but he also would have made more throws that made you go “HOLY FUCK WHAT A BALL”. And since Hass’ days in Seattle appear to be numbered, I agree with whiskey Whitehurst starting from day one might have been better for the franchise going forward.
Boy, that post ended up a lot more contrived than I intended.
Well said, regardless.
It’s nice to hear I’m not the only one saying it, without being obnoxiously rude about it.
I’m really trying to be polite, and to listen to all sides, and construct a fair and reasonable counter-position.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
(this isn't to imply anyone here IS being obnoxiously rude about it.)
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Dude. Hasselbeck is playing out of his MIND right now.
The guy can fucking ball. His reads are tight, his arm strength is fucking BACK, and he’s playing like a guy who has an entire organization behind him and a genius offensive coordinator who finally understands how to put him in a position to succeed.
You’re not wrong that we could be 5-5 with Whitehurst too, but I don’t see Whitehurst winning a playoff game for us. Or coming back into the game with two cracked bones, for that matter. I think next year is Whitehurst’s year, but as this team gels and the systems and belief systems (no Ken Wakamatsu) solidify, I think we have a chance to beat ANYONE come playoff time…so long as Matt is under center.
If those tipped passes are intercepted by Seahawks, if that roughing the passer penalty never happens, and Marshawn Lynch doesn’t have two freak fumbles, we may have beaten the defending champions today.
So do I, though I disagree vehemently that he is playing out of his mind right now.
He still misses throws, can’t find a tight window, and if he truly was playing out of his mind, might have more than a 1-1 TD/Int ratio, or a red zone conversion rate to write home about.
Drew Brees just had more yardage and 4 TD’s to Matt’s 1, and it wasn’t “playing out of his MIND” but was just a slightly above average week for him. If this is “out of Matt’s MIND” then I think we’ve set the bar very very low.
I want “out of his mind” to be 2-0 and 100% red zone conversion rate.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
How the red zone conversion ratio relates to the play of our QB is something you'll need to explain to me
The one time Matt got a decent playcall in a goal-to-go situation, he completed for a TD.
and I'd like to echo the appreciation for respectful and intelligent debate
I have been digging your posts since I started following FG, whiskey
by jhmg16 on Nov 21, 2010 9:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Appreciate it, man.
I personally think Matt is incapable of throwing a fade to the corner of the endzone/sideline out, and that’s a problem with red zone conversion ability considering our most talented offensive player is ideally suited to be the guy that finishes just such a play.
But yeah, haven’t been overly impressed with our red zone play selection, either.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 10:19 PM PST up reply actions
Those precision throws don't seem to be his thing, to be sure
I’d like to see a breakdown of his success rate on that exact type of play, though. I’d also like to see a larger sample size of Matt throwing to BMW in the corner of the endzone before we write that off. I seem to remember a lot more of those going to Butler and Branch this season.
Regardless, I still think the culprit here is the playcalling. Even the 1 Step Drop pass to Butler or Obomanu from 2nd and Goal would probably solve this team’s red zone woes.
I think that goes without saying
I’d like to see a lot more Forsett inside the 5 yard line. Love to see Lynch bruising in the middle of the field but I don’t think he has the vision, lateral quickness, or selectiveness to succeed if his goal line hole doesn’t open up.
That's interesting..
Most people just assume: Big back = goal line back.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Sarcasm?
I genuinely think Lynch has been horrible in these situations. ESPECIALLY for his size and reputation.
Nah, not sarcasm.
I think it’s a generally held (though not necessarily accurate) view.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
He hasn't really had much help
from the o-line. How many times yesterday did he try to hit the hole and ran into one of his own lineman who was being brutalized by a DT
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 22, 2010 4:41 AM PST up reply actions
offensive coordinator
What the hell is happenening to the play calling in the red zone? Seriously, two draws to the right with Forsett yesterday? Hawks keep getting down there, then get far too conservative. Seems like Hasselbeck has been throwing us down the field, then we decide to run it in the redzone, which isn’t working. And seriously, you’re going to have Butler run the fade in the back of the end zone, when you have Carlson and Obo in the game?
And when was the last time we threw a screen to Forsett? I think they threw that play out of the playbook and I’m not sure why
I'm not going to guess...
But I do recall watching live, seeing Hasselbeck underthrowing for picks twice in the red zone against Denver. Perhaps Bates has gone away from the fade because Hasselbeck just can’t seem to throw it with any touch, which of course severely limits the red zone options, as that tends to be a lot of teams’ bread and butter.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
When was it basically all over?
Matt had about 250 yards at the half and it certainly was a done deal at that point.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
losing by two touchdowns and a 2 pt conversion isn't 20 pts.
And getting housed by a game changing penalty out of thin air when you are rolling on offense and gives the opponent a free possession when they should be punting instead of scoring….that’s a turnover by official.
Go ahead and not buy. We’ve won 5 games in a tear down rebuild year with six to go, and are in first place with the same number of victories we had all last year.
WTF did you expect this year?
I do not expect much. But excuse making is not going to help this team.
Same offense since week 1. Great between the 20’s, and horrible in the red zone.
Same defense since week 1. Decent against the run, horrid against the pass.
This team is getting blown out week after week. I guess being negative gets old. I get that. But this game had very little redeeming about it. Whatever redeeming came from it is of no use against KC.
Don’t lose to KC, Seattle.
It is what it is...
If a few bounces had gone our way instead of NO's, we could have won this game.
Don’t let the score fool you.
Football is a game all about momentum.
If that horrible roughing the passer “penalty” hadn’t been called, I could have seen the Seahawks marching down the field and scoring. If that had happened, it probably would have been 21-20 going into halftime and all the momentum on the Seahawks’ side.
OK. I hope Seattle practices its momentum this week
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 21, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't care where on the debate you stand-- that's funny!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
It is funny.
But in all seriousness, I kind of think they do practice that.
Cake for me too, please.
I think that's what a lot of the crazy challenges are about
(maintaining/establishing momentum).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Give me a fucking break
I’m as skeptical of chemistry and momentum as the next ussmariner.com reader, but that’s just a stupid comment for the sake of being a snappy comeback. In this case, “momentum” is the way a NO coaching staff and a SEA coaching staff make decisions based on what could have been a 21-20 score at half, and that has a very real impact on the game. And no, you can’t practice it.
by jhmg16 on Nov 21, 2010 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm gonna have to agree.
We lost and it sucks, kidder95. But cool down man, there really is a lot to look forward to, now.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I'm tired of Force trying to power run inside the tackles from the one.
But, flashes of brilliance are flashes of brilliance. Mora coached one year and cost them 3.
We are rebuilding. And I like the progress.
I've seen plenty of Force runs
where he drags 2-3 defenders for 3-4 yards. I don’t think he can really be considered a power back or short-yardage specialist, but he’s got a lot of power for a short guy.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think he's very elusive
But he’s very tough, Frankly, I’m pretty psyched about where our backfield has come from the “Julius Jones is the starter and Forsett is on the Colts” nightmare of last year.
by Kingdomer on Nov 21, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And as much success as Duckett had in short yardage last year
He wasn’t successful enough to draw any interest from any other NFL team this year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:19 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm...I saw a lot of Deion Branch, Mansfield Wrotto and Thomas Jones during Week 1
To say the offense is still the same is ridiculous. You can’t expect this offense to always run smoothly, considering the amount of transition it’s going through.
Its not ridiculous
Its what you say when you ignore both the stats and the play on the field and forget about the personnel turnover.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
I remember during the Seahawks- Jets game a few years back
The whole Jones family was up in the club level bar. They all had jerseys that were half Jet and half Seahawk with Jones on the back. They were pretty cool, but not so cool as to justify what were probably a dozen very expensive jerseys. Then again, the Jones probably have enough money as of right now to buy at least some crazy shit.
Stats are not a euphemism for tits
I completely disagree
I’d rather see my team compete. Like today. Rather than get blown out completely, like they often did on east-coast road trips. Sure it was a loss, but not near as embarrassing as years past. And we got completely jobbed by the refs on the personal foul on Brees. That was shite.
Not sure we coulda shoulda won this one, but at least we were respectable, and it could have been closer with a couple plays or bounces here or there.
Better than being a completely embarrassing joke, like we were under Mora in the 2nd half of the season last year.
A team with a new coaching staff, more player turnover than anyone else, and new stables at nearly every position group aren't meeting your expectations?
It is remarkable that they are 5-5. It is what it is, some people are just negative by nature and validate it by claiming to be more in touch with reality than everyone else.
With all due respect.
You are retarded. Did you actually watch the game? Do you know what New Orleans’ average yards per game passing is? Do you realize that we were playing on the road, not at Qwest? Do you recognize that the refs basically gave the saints 6 free points? Did you see how Mike Williams and Obomanu abused the “2nd best” pass defense in the NFL? Did you notice how if even one of Tatupu’s 17 broken tackles had landed Ivory would’ve had about 3 yards rushing? Did you see how Seattle adjusted at halftime? Did you notice how we lost our starting No. 1 CB and stated competitive with his replacement?
Did you even watch the same goddamn game I did?
It's cool.
I know the answer is “no” to all of those things. Have fun cheering on the Portland Timber in MLS next year or whatever.
"With all due respect" is a terrible phrase to use when you follow with, "You're retarded."
Show more class, we’re all Hawk fans, and pretty sure we all watched the game, and we’re all disappointed with the loss. But let’s treat each other with respect, even if we disagree with each other and there is an abyss between our perspectives.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:55 PM PST up reply actions
It's up there with "No offense . . ." with presaging a insult
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
Or, "just sayin" after, as if that means it's cool to be dickish with the rest of what you've said that was rude/obnoxious.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not here to pick fights
But I am here to deflect people who are offering analysis on a game they obviously didn’t actually watch.
For example
“This team is getting blown out week after week. I guess being negative gets old. I get that. But this game had very little redeeming about it. Whatever redeeming came from it is of no use against KC.”
Seems accurate right? I mean, we DEFINITELY got blown out today. And last week. And three weeks ago. And four weeks ago. I mean, it’s every week, right?
You are correct. They are not blown out week after week.
The loses, however, are generally blowouts. We have beaten one team with a winning record. One of those wins was without an offensive touchdown or field goal (SD).
We are in the bottom five in scoring touchdowns. We have lost by margins of:
St. Louis: 17
Denver: 17
Oakland: 30
NY: 34
Saints: 15
Seattle has scored 18 touchdowns all season. That includes kickoff returns. Buffalo’s Fitzpatrick threw four today alone!
When Seattle gets beat, they get beat bad. Hasselbeck’s ratings are great, but he has thrown 8 touchdowns in 8 games played, with 7 interceptions. His overall rating is an mediocre 79.4.
So, enjoy the mediocrity.
It is what it is...
We had an offensive TD against SD.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"Enjoy the mediocrity"
And what the hell is that supposed to mean? I have no problem with expecting better but come on this is ridiculous.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Are you sure you wouldn't rather be a fan of a team from New York or Boston?
They rarely have to suffer through mediocrity.
I don't mind mediocrity if it is planned for the future.
Playing Hasselbeck gets us to the playoffs. I cannot fault that. But it does nothing to provide much growth towards the future. The Rams will be damn good for years to come. We better hit big this year.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 21, 2010 10:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So what do you propose we do?
Are you in the “start Whitehurst” camp that is quickly dwindling, or do you propose we go the Carolina route and pick up an undrafted rookie who can turn the ball over for TD’s twice in 19 seconds of game time?
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Are those our two options...
either be a part of a “dwindling camp” (implying the dwindling camp must be wrong) or chose a terrible alternative option?
Yay for options!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
That's why I asked for other options.
Start Hass.
Start Whitehurst.
Start some scrub off the street.
Are there others I’m missing?
I think starting Charlie is wrong, but not everyone else does. They’re (you’re) obviously entitled to those opinions.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
What do you expect? You want us instantly to go 12-4?
This team is mediocre. We are in the bottom quarter in the league in talent, and have been besieged with injuries over the past few years.
Yes, we can’t punch it in for TDs in the redzone. We don’t have an elite “burner” receiver, and our QB has trouble slinging downfield on a rope.
But we are making progress. Despite the fumbles today, our RBs are certainly better than last year. Our o-line is finally coming together. We had very few 3 and outs against a top-5 defense. Our WR corps is improved over last year.
A lot of guys in here are looking on the bright side. Doesn’t mean we think the team is elite, but being positive about the bright spots helps make the rough spots easier to bear. It isn’t easy being a sports fan in the northwest (unless you dig women’s basketball or soccer).
I expected 4-7 wins this year, and, now we are on track to perhaps make the playoffs. 8 wins is possible. Mediocrity is certainly preferable to being a joke like we were last year.
If we continue to draft well and play the FA market, we might even be better than average, or God forbid, good in a few years.
by IslandHawk on Nov 21, 2010 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No. I would like to see Seattle perform a true rebuild
New QB. I just see this team eventually improving and then starting over. Very much like Arizona, just without the incredible highs that Warner brought. I see mediocrity for the sake of mediocrity. I agree one must play to win the game, but I’d like to see that winning done with the future in mind.
It is what it is...
I don't get that sentiment.
The Hawks have made more transactions than any other team, how is that settling for mediocrity?
QB is the most important position
Until you make that change, you are delaying the inevitable. You are playing with fire. Cardinals can attest. I am not a believer that Hasselbeck is a Pro Bowl caliber QB at this stage in his career.
It is what it is...
Right, so you let the other players get used to losing while you find your QB and then just flip the switch?
No need to be snide, now.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
No, but they will allow this to go on, maybe for years, before they make a change.
They have to now. They would have been wise to trade Hasselbeck prior to the season, and started young and crazy. Most likely would have a similar record. Matt sure did not win the SF/SD/AZ #1 games.
It is what it is...
I don't. But I do feel that this is a year lost building an offense the Bates wants to run.
Maybe that is a good thing, to have Bates become more flexible to the players at hand. Or it delays the scheme that will be learned next year. Either way, it is an incomplete rebuild. So be it. Maybe McNabb or Kolb can come over.
Fitzpatrick would be a more exciting prospect.
8 touchdowns in 8 games played is not exciting. It is synonymous with the future.
It is what it is...
Not sure about the "synonymous" word choice there.
And McNabb isn’t going anywhere, he just signed an incredible 40mil guaranteed contract.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
40 million guaranteed...
If the team accepts the option. At the end of the year he can be dropped for 3.75 if I remember correctly.
That aspect I didn't hear.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 8:45 AM PST up reply actions
And why do they have to now?
Franchises value playoff appearances whether you think the team deserves it or not
Getting a 'franchise' QB is not the simplest of tasks.
One of the best models is to have a guy learn under a proven veteran. Unfortunately we don’t have that situation it seems. Jettisoning Matt this year would have been a change, but it wouldn’t have necessarily been the best move for the future…
I agree. But if you pay a guy 8 million, you need to give him a shot.
We keep delaying the inevitable. Eventually, we will be the Rams, an older team with a long forgotten QB. Alas, another complete rebuild three years from now. That would be sad.
It is what it is...
I actually have been clamoring to get CW some more playing time all year
I agree, he was expensive, and Hass isn’t our multi-year future, so it seems prudent to get CW some playing time to see if he is worth building around.
However, it seems increasingly difficult now to do so given Matt’s resurgence and our playoff opportunities.
So given all of that, I certainly understand those of you who would rather sacrifice the present (likely 1 or 2 and done in the playoffs at most), to sustain a brighter future. I don’t think PC sees it that way though.
I don't -- I was just saying I see the argument
At this point, I personally think we currently need to ride Matt’s hot hand as far as we can take it this year. Our window to evaluate CW has closed (barring a complete collapse).
And the assumption is that it IS either/or.
Doesn’t have to be. Charlie might just have been able to win more once he got rolling.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:41 PM PST up reply actions
Yes. I see a 2-3 year deal where Matt outperforms new guys, maybe even high picks in practice.
QB’s don’t grow in practice. They grow in games. Fitzpatrick is a prime example of this. Fitzpatrick will be a hot commodity this off season.
It is what it is...
And I am sure the Hawks will look at him. They tried to get Kolb this last offseason.
I don’t see what about this coach and what he has done so far leads you to think he will stand still with the direction of this team.
I agree there. But if Hasselbeck stays, he will out practice Fitzpatrick.
And Fitz will stay benched. God forbid Fitz have a bad day against the #1 defense at home. He will never have another shot. That is how you kill a rebuild.
It is what it is...
You seem to think you know exactly what Carroll is going to do, and alo that he'll screw up
I don’t think he’ll purposefully retard the growth of this team just to keep Matt on the field. Your arguments have too many facts not entered into evidence.
My problem is my position is based on intuition
rather than fact. I intuit based on seeing St. Louis and Arizona do the same thing.
Philly did the opposite. They made bold moves. And they continue to play at a high level.
Go figure.
It is what it is...
Philly isn't the best example.
They built up their other young talent while letting Mcnabb play. By your reasoning they would have benched him the year they drafted Kolb
Well, I wanted Sanchez
So, in that scenario, we would be ripe for a change.
Your example does show flaws in my position. Not much room for grooming.
It is what it is...
Part of my optimism comes with the fact that I think Pete knows how important the franchise QB will be
The Whitehurst deal is an example. Trade for him, check him out, maybe it works. If not, try someone else. Its just Paul Allens money, we need not worry about it. I would be more worried if they commited to Whitehurst
I say that because commiting to the wrong guy long term is worse than giving a veteran one year too many
Carroll's mode of operation at USC was to have a couple franchise QBs in the fold
This gives me hope for the ‘hawks… He does realize the importance. It is just now he can’t go out and simply recruit the talent…
Plus Andy Reid has a bit more time put in at Philly than Carroll has here.
Reid can make decisions and deal with the consequences more easily than Carroll could if in his first year he benched the franchise QB and proceeded to lose bad with CW. With the fans at least.
by Hopefulmsfan on Nov 22, 2010 1:23 AM PST up reply actions
Bulger was shell shocked because the Ram's O-Line was a shambles
If we can focus diligently on the O-line – Any QB we have will have an easier time becoming great, or even just effective. I agree with you that watching a team patch holes in a leaking ship is much more frustrating than watching a team that is willing to lose now so that they can win for a long time in the future… I guess I am just stoked that this team has matched last year’s win total after a fruit basket turnover in terms of personnel. I am also encouraged that we have remained relatively competitive with a chunk of injuries to key guys…
When do you let go? When is 8-8 and getting to the playoffs because the conference is so bad not enough?
That is when Seattle will be willing to weather the birth of the next Hasselbeck.
Seattle tried to run Hasselbeck off in ’02. I wonder if this town can ever process a new QB before ruining him.
I cry mediocrity, because that is what we are getting from Hasselbeck. He is the 28th rated passer. This team is rated 28th in touchdowns scored. We are mediocre in a historically bad conference. It is embarrassing. St. Louis will be kicking our ass for years to come. It will be the Elway years here soon.
It is what it is...
Then stop paying attention, wait until they get back to your expected level of dominance
Some of us like watching the steps it takes to get there.
I like and am enjoying the process as well.
I just don’t like reading delusion. New Orleans dominated this game. Had their way with us. Add to it another pathetic display of red zone offense, and I sigh. Mediocre, and proud of it.
It is what it is...
Man, you must be a blast to hang out with.
I’m just kidding, but seriously, why can’t you understand why some people look to the positives?
I totally understand it. Just don't see it
This is why I post in bursts. I tend to ruffle feathers.
It is what it is...
I'd rather the team be 12-4 and make the playoffs, but the number one goal is too make the playoffs.
I’m not gonna fault the coaching staff for doing all they can to get this team to the post-season, even if it means going at 7-9. I do agree to an extent with you about today’s game, while I’m happy Seattle wasn’t embarrassed by a good team like they’d been the last 2 seasons I did feel like it was over by halftime. The Saints didn’t “blow” Seattle out, but I just never really felt that we’d make a comeback.
Also, you don’t know that St. Louis will be kicking our ass for the next years to come, they are still bad and while Bradford has show some flashes I think he’s been pretty underwhelming overall, there’s a decent chance that he isn’t good.
Even with Bradford and the chance he "is not" good
They are Seattle’s biggest threat. In his Rookie year!
That is saying something. Bradford was good enough to beat Seattle in their house. I’m willing to bet Bradford gives Seattle a game in January. I sure would like to see him be average, but I’m not seeing average from him.
Put your shoes in their shoes. I suspect you would be ecstatic about the current year and the future of your favorite team, the Rams. They have a future.
Seattle clings to the past.
It is what it is...
Sure he was good enough, but the Rams defense destroyed Seattle and Bradford did just enough.
If I was a Rams fans I’d be happy with some of what I saw, but there are still things that I’d very concerned about. I see Bradford with a decent amount of completions but no yards, now that might be his receivers, but it seems like the offense is really catered to Bradford completing short passes and dump offs. Yes he’s a rookie, but that doesn’t make him guaranteed to improve…Rick Mirer looked a bit like Bradford his rookie year.
I don’t think Seattle clings to the past, some fans might, but I don’t think the coaches do, I think they feel that Matt gives them the best chance to win, which is understandable.
Yes, best chance to win is understandable.
I believe Hasselbeck and Bradford have similar YPA.
I would suspect Bradford’s to improve with quality WR and improved line play, while Hasselbeck’s to flatline with the same improvments.
There is no upside to Hasselbeck being the starter, except to win a horrific conference.
It is what it is...
Yeah, I certainly think it would be interesting to see Bradford with a much more talented group of WR's.
And don’t get me wrong, I’d trade Matt for Bradford in less than a second.
But what does that do to the other, non-qb players on the team?
Establishing a culture of winning is important.
You're acting like it's easy to just grab a franchise quarterback.
The Seahawks have had, what, three good quarterbacks in their history? And we’ve seen them try with draftees like McGwire and Mirer and both of them ended up busts. Hasselbeck isn’t Peyton Manning, but as he’s showed us the past couple of games, with good protection and a gameplan based around his skills, he can produce.
It isn't a case of letting go...
Do you remember having Jim Mora throw his O-Line under the bus? Do you remember him blaming a loss on his stellar kicker last year? I do. I just see enough positives this year to have hope. That is all I can ask for – hope for the future. I feel like it is there more than it was last year with Mora and more than it was in the waning years of Holmgren’s tenure when everyone knew he was moving on… The main problem I have with the current mediocrity is that there is enough there to get my hopes up… thereby squashing the emotional side of my fandom when we get our asses handed to us without so much as a whimper. We did a whole lot more than whimper today – that’s the gist of what many folks are saying here.
You set the philosophy and identity of a team in the early years and find the talent to go with it.
by Big E-Z on Nov 21, 2010 10:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And right now not only is Matt playing the way they want him to
but he is exemplifying the attitude they are looking for. That sets foundations that are possibly more important than Charlie getting a few snaps.
by Big E-Z on Nov 21, 2010 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I do hope you are right, as I can see a certain level of value in that...
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
Are the CW fans wanting him to start another game?
I don’t see how a head coach can bench his starting QB so their back up/future quarter back can get some experience when they have a 1 game lead in the NFC West.
Eat shit bum!
I wanted him to start from day 1, knowing this season our team was not going to win or lose on the back of our QB.
And we haven’t. But, over the course of the year, I was hoping by the end of the year that we’d have a legit young starting QB moving forward. Instead, we have a 5-5 team that has no idea what will happen to its QB position in future years.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:48 PM PST up reply actions
Our team just competed with the Super Bowl champs...
On the back (and bum left wrist) of our QB. C’mon man.
We've competed every week.
It isn’t Hass that is why “we’re competing.”
Hasselbeck was there last year when the team quit.
It’s Pete. His teams don’t appear to have quit in them, even in games we’re getting throttled.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
You're then defining "compete"
As the attitude of not quitting and playing at a high level at all times, regardless of present situation- score, etc. Great, that’s PC’s “always compete” mantra to a T. I was using compete more in the context of having a competitive game, one that would entail performances and outcomes that indicate great play. Stats would indicate such from Hasselbeck today. Watching the game support that assumption.
I don't get it...
you’re not a Seahawks fan? What the fuck will you be doing while us Seahawks fans are enjoying the mediocrity? (Dude did you catch the last game? the mediocrity was off the hook!) I’m kind of doubtful anyone actually does this.
I did enjoy the game. Just thought it was over by half.
I haven’t seen the improvement many seem to see. Makes me the minority.
I am a Seahawk fan. I just disagree with the common mood regarding this game experience. No worries. I disagree, but everyone is free to an opinion. Seems mine is not popular.
It is what it is...
I would just say that having as many wins through 10 games as all of last year is improvement.
With an outside chance to win as many as the last 2 years combined. Even if it doesn’t make us Super Bowl contenders yet.
I have seen improvement. I love the coaching/gm staff
I just think not changing the QB this year bodes ill for the future. It screams “I need to win now”
It is what it is...
They do need to win now. They need to win next year, and the year after that.
Not playing Charlie Whitehurst- Charlie WHITEHURST does not damn this teams future
Allowing Hasselbeck to out practice a highly drafted QB or traded for QB or FA QB
undermines the process.
It is what it is...
Facts not entered into evidence
How do you know how well Hass practices? Seems you’re making a lot of assumptions…maybe even a Straw Man argument.
Matt starts. One must assume Matt out practices, out competes Whitehurst on a weekly basis.
It is what it is...
Nah
Matt didn’t take a snap last week during practice and played today with a whack-a-mole club around his left arm.
I really don’t think this thing comes down to measurables. It’s about who can execute a robust playbook every Sunday against 13 different football teams, while making pro-level reads and line-of-scrimmage adjustments.
How do we know?
The hours of game evidence? Or perhaps all that time the coaching staff was focused on watching him run the 2nd team through its rigors during the practice week in between games.
No, once a player is placed on the 2nd team, they inherently become an afterthought until they are needed on the first, particularly at a position that doesn’t rotate players in and out.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
There's a lot of supposition in that comment
Carroll and Bates would have to be complete idiots not to weekly audit the QB position, especially in light of the early struggles of the offense. The fact is that Matt had struggles early, is aging and injury-prone and in the last year of his contract. There is absolutely no chance that the Pete and John aren’t thinking about the future of the QB position on a regular basis.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
This is true.
I did load that comment. But I think the “counter-side” does the same, in the appeal to authority that the coaches must know something about Charlie and that’s why he isn’t in there, and the assumption that he has from day one been given an equal chance.
I don’t think he ever was. From day 1 it feels like it was Hasselbeck’s spot to keep and Charlie would have had to have been overwhelmingly impressive to unseat him, but the QB position is such that the overwhelmingly impressive understudy is a rare thing.
Personal aside— I’ve made decisions coaching that seemed right at the time, but later proved incorrect, particularly with personnel. All coaches have. Just because a coach is trying to make his team the best it possibly can, and because he is looking at the future as well as the present doesn’t mean that he makes the best decision for either time. It means he makes what he thinks is the best decision given the information he has taken in, and the filter with which he took it in.
I’ll tell you the moment I thought Hasselbeck was playing the rest of the year no matter what, barring injury. It was the moment Carroll fell in love with his veteran warrior’s spirit.
I think you all will remember this moment… this was the “It’s Matt’s team” moment, for better or for worse.

"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
You have to admit, when that happens in GAME ONE of the season, it sets a certain tone.
One that the vet QB has bought in and will do whatever it takes to win. And coaches eat that up, whether the player’s ability to fulfill that desire matches the desire or not.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
Be careful...
Or people on here are going to think they won you over during the course of this thread…..
Nice!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Wait,
this isn’t sarcasm? (Warning: This comment itself is not sarcasm….Same with that one…and so on).
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
What I mean is
I find it hard to believe that Charlie is an “afterthought” but maybe that’s practically semantics. And the whole rotation thing didn’t even register in my head…holy crap whiskey your comments and my brain aren’t connexing right at all.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
It's okay... as long as my comments and MY BRAIN are connecting, we have a chance of something coherent..
We can dissemble the rest later.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
With all due respect Mr. Denholm, and remember, I'm saying this with ALL DUE RESPECT
…that idea aint worth a velvet paintin of a whale and a dolphin gettin it on.
by miracle_max on Nov 21, 2010 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Incoming elitist asshole opinion:
WC, there’s a difference between “playing nice with the other kids” and treating people with respect. One of these things is done out of obligation. We, as fans, should treat each other nicely because we’re all on the same team here and random flamefests are retarded and unproductive for everybody and sometimes lead to rebukes by the moderators. It’s in our own best interests to be courteous.
However, I’m not going to respect someone for no fucking reason and I’m not going to respect the ignorant opinion of an obviously emotionally guided fan. I understand kidder95’s emotional state. I wouldn’t be a fan if I didn’t understand frustration and how it leads to negative thinking. But just because he’s pissed off about how we played doesn’t mean I owe him jack shit.
“Just sayin’…”
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 21, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with this a little too much
I know I can be rather insulting at times…but then, so can stupidity.
Well, I don't know that we want to walk down the path of everybody being an asshole.
I don’t believe I’m obligated to do either, I chose to. Not because I would get banned or moderated upon, but because it is the right thing to do.
I don’t happen to think Kidder’s opinion is ignorant, in fact, I agree with the bulk of it, if not the delivery. So, when you disparage him by, essentially calling him ignorant, you are calling me the same, and saying my emotional/intellectual evaluation isn’t relevant.
I don’t really appreciate it and I’m most certainly not ignorant.
Respect is a two way street, and I apparently don’t even belong on your block, since I am ignorant for seeing Kidder’s perspective.
Just sayin’.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not insulted.
Not everyone agrees with my position. I understand that. Sometimes people use strong words to get their point across. I get that to. Got to pay to play.
No worries.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 21, 2010 10:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And my apologies as well
I realize after looking back last night that it got a little like a personal attack, and that’s not what my intention was. I was reacting to your negative response to what I thought was actually an encouraging game.
While I certainly disagree passionately with your opinion, I did not mean to make it about you personally if that’s what it turned into.
Well said.
Like your moniker by the way. Qwest is amazing, but I miss the gritty old dome…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
count me as completely fucking insulted
by your earlier tirade. but seriously, and with all due respect, no worries.
Prefacing something with "with all due respect" means you get to say whatever you want
It’s in the Geneva Conventions, look it up.
Stats are not a euphemism for tits
With all due respect,
That’s a stupid and horribly lame fucking attempt at humor by saying it’s in the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was created as a humanitarian effort. Using “With all due respect” takes away someone’s humanity by allowing a jackwagon commenter to assume they get cart blanche to say whatever the hell they want after they’ve made that statement.
What’s more, adding to that conversation at this point is an asshole thing to do and you must be a complete fucking moron to continue to do so.
See what I did there?
Seriously though, it is a phrase that is used far too often to preface information that basically will not be said “with all due respect” but will be used to disparage the other person’s thought or personage. I wish we’d stop using it as a culture instead of endorsing it as okay…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:34 PM PST up reply actions
LEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYY!!
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Jenkins?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
Hill?
Oh sorry that’s LeRoy not Leroy.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Do you know of Leroy Jenkins?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNJRfSZBU
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
No I do, I thought it was obvious, lol.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
To those of us who know, yes.
To others, not so much. But damn, if I don’t laugh every time I see that.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 23, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
It's a movie reference
Stats are not a euphemism for tits
by Trenchtown on Nov 22, 2010 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
FUCK.
My bad. Now I feel like an ass.
Oh well. I guess in this case, I wasn’t first, I was last.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
To some people
that gives you a spot in God’s kingdom actually.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Wow.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 23, 2010 3:29 AM PST up reply actions
Shallow.... moral victories are shallow
I don’t understand these kinds of posts. I thought the analysis was spot on. I also think you’re dead wrong about the importance of moral victories, but like the kids say… whatev.
I think this is the analysis you're looking for
Brees has 382 yards, 4 TDs in easy win
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/recap;_ylt=Am2sEqlUCz7cy0ZCwUziPc1DubYF?gid=20101121018
He must have just watched the newest Harry Potter movie.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 21, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Dude this team is going to kick Kansas City's teeth in.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
We are Sex Bob Omb
and we’re here to watch Scott Pilgrim Hasselbeck kick your teeth in!! Hasselbeck kicks Mike Vrabel in the teeth
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
We are Miracle Whip, and we will not tone it down.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:49 PM PST up reply actions
Pure hilarity:
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
by Cheddar28 on Nov 22, 2010 12:24 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I share your enthusiasm about this game.
It’s too bad the Seahawks did enough to beat themselves out of this game. Those dropped passes and fumbles by Marshawn Lynch could have made a huge difference in the outcome of this game. WTF Lynch? Awful…..just awful.
To be fair, one was due to officials not stopping the play after he was stood up.
They should have whistled the play dead and given him his forward progress. And the other one was a centimeter away from being down by contact.
Did you see the Ravens Bills OT game?
Where in OT 6 Ravens picked up the runner and carried him backwards while Ray Lewis molested him for 10 seconds……….
Worst forward progress call ever.
I heard on the postgame show that "63% of fans want us to re-sign Hasselbeck."
I just don’t get it, and I’m trying to stay positive.
I’m trying to, but I feel like I watched a different game from John given his Hasselbeck game ball, and the pro-Hasselbeck crowd in general. And I’m really not trying to be obstinate. I’m not really believing Whitehurst is the answer, I just have grown tired of not seeing a QB attack.
I saw a third quarter in which we put together a 7 minute drive that consisted almost entirely of check down passes to the RB’s, chewing up clock and not moving the ball all that efficiently, before ending with a fumble. I have a hard time believing his WR’s weren’t ever open downfield. I feel like he got promoted from Captain Checkdown to Lt. Colonel Checkdown, and in the process put up some monster numbers against a soft bend-don’t-break D that allowed him a ton of free low-risk yards. Now he’s got a high completion percentage and yardage to make people think he is having a resurgence.
This “resurgence” feels false. Our QB simply can’t beat a team from behind, can’t play catchup, and despite the numbers this week (and last) struggles to lead his team in the red zone (despite having one of the largest most fade-capable WR’s in the NFL). The NFL is now a pass-first league, a QB league, and we have a QB who would have been custom built to win in older evolutions of the game— when being a warrior and smart mattered more than lighting up a D… Because the first two things everyone says about Hasselbeck is “He’s a warrior” and “he’s smart.”
Great. And I don’t disagree. I just don’t see smart warriors winning football games in this NFL, but I see the temptation in going with the “smart warrior” into he simply can’t lace his shoes anymore, and that’s the scariest part of this game. It made me realize I’m 85% sure Hasselbeck is our starting QB NEXT year.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:14 PM PST reply actions
As much as I believe (know?) that Hass is our best option at QB
I really would be disappointed if he was our #1 option at QB next year. I’d like to resign him while drafting a QB and have Hasselbeck assist in the rookies development.
As much as I defend Matt, I agree with you
I don’t want the FO to reach for a QB they don’t trust, but we need to have the QBotF on the roster yesterday.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
I don't disagree
I just think we also need to have a better plan for the future. We can’t expect 16 games per year from Matt and we need a guy ready to take over for him if/when he’s not ready to play.
My ideal would be to resign Matt for 3 years and pick a QB high in the 1st (trading up if we have to), but I think we need at least another developmental guy on the roster next year (if we can’t grab a blue-chip early).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
Three more years of Matt? Really?
Ugh. Just an excuse not to change, and to carry on this mediocrity until he can’t walk or throw…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
Look around the league
There are several teams with veteran QB’s that mentor young high draft picks. They even come in for spot duty because of injuries, etc. That is the role Matt would fill if we draft high.
How many of those veteran QB's are with the team that they were a vet with?
Generally the model is to push out YOUR older QB, bring in a youngster and a “gritty vet” to tutor the youngster.
When you keep your own old guy, it eventually blows up/becomes uncomfortable. The first time our young QB goes out there and fails and Matt is standing on the sidelines, some people are going to want him to stay in.
Nope, I want the ties cut one way or another, at the end of this year, so we can move forward as a franchise. I’d prefer he retire, never play in another jersey, and go into the Ring of Honor with his reputation as the QB of the greatest era the Hawks ever had intact.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:09 PM PST up reply actions
but
who backs up Charlie if we get rid of Matt? Todd Collins, like they have in Chicago? Tyler Thigpen or Chad Pennington when one is cut from miami?
I think Matt is big enough to sit if he’s told to sit. Kerry Collins has done so in TN, with the knowledge that things go up and down, and now he’s starting again.
Regardless, they need to draft a QB for sure in next year’s draft
Kerry was not the Titans all time greatest QB. He was a journeyman that found a home late.
Totally different dynamic at play there. Kerry Collins will not be in whatever is the Titans equivalent of the Ring of Honor the moment he retires. He will not be celebrated in Tennessee 20 years from now like Hasselbeck will here.
So yes, Tyler Thigpen or Todd Collins or Bootsey Collins for all I care.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
A 3 year contract doesn't mean 3 more years of starting
I’m thinking about keeping Matt around until we have his replacement ready to go (and then maybe keeping him around as a backup for a bit). Ideally that process would last less than 2 years.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think people will ever be willing to admit "his replacement is ready to go."
Neither him, the coaching staff, or the fans… if he’s sitting there waiting in the wings.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
Last year, in Charlie's press conference
The FO explicitly didn’t rule out a 1st-round QB. I don’t think Matt is any safer now than he was then. If we draft a top 3 1st-round QB, I think he’ll get some starts within the 1st-half of the season.
The problem is if we don’t find a blue-chip QB and are forced to develop a guy for a while.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:13 PM PST up reply actions
Then we never make the move...
because the formula of keeping your own vet makes fans vested in him staying in there. The failure of the Charlie Whitehurst experience is a perfect example. We can’t give him a shot now, whether or not he’d have been any better or worse than Matt.
Nor can we next year.
Because he came out and lost to a vastly superior NYGiants team with a shell of an team supporting him, and he didn’t absolutely set the world on fire in his 5 or so quarters of legit game time, he’s a done wasted resource here.
Stupid.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think the Giants game is representative of Charlie's talent
and I don’t think the FO does either. I think he might not be ready to start yet and so does the FO. At his press conference, Pete said that he should be considered a member of the 2010 draft class. I think this means that they still view him as a work in progress with great tools.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
I hope so, but my point is that as long as Matt is there, the ability to fall back to him will supersede
Charlie’s ability to develop on the field, which is where he needs the shot to actually grow as an NFL qb.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:34 PM PST up reply actions
I'm hoping Charlie will end up 3rd on the depth chart
The FO believe in him and but they see him more as a toolsy prospect with upside than the dependable successor to Matt. When they signed him, they didn’t rule out picking a guy high in the 1st to, presumably, supersede him on the depth chart.
I hope we pick up a blue-chip QB early, keep Matt as a backup and then keep Charlie around as a developmental prospect and future backup. I’m a big fan of Charlie but I think the QB position is too important to depend entirely on him turning a corner.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:40 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough.
I’d rather not spend a 3rd round pick and a substantial trade down in the 2nd for a 3rd stringer myself.
The funny part is, you pretty much prove my point though about how Hass being here means Charlie will never get a chance.
Charlie got 5 or so quarters of opportunity from which you judge that he needs to “turn a corner.”
When you say, “the QB position is too important to depend entirely on him turning a corner” how different is that from saying, “we don’t have time to let him develop so we can’t waste any game time on him developing” ???
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
I would be willing to bet that Pete knows how important it is to find the QB of the future.
It will determine the success he has with this franchise. I would bet that is priority one.
still
what’s wrong with expecting Charlie to seize his opportunities?
He missed some plays in the giants game. He had the running game going in AZ, with protection, against the same crappy team MH was playing, and couldn’t lead the team to a score.
He almost certainly is better than he’s showed, but how long does he need?
Colt McCoy, buried 3rd on the depth chart, went TO Pitt, in his first start ever, and put up better numbers, (and it wasn’t peyton hillis going off, he had 34 yrds on 12 carries).
What’s wrong with wanting/expecting CW to play better than he has when given a shot? He’s 28, 5th year in the league, played in 4 preseasons, been coached by nfl coaches, etc etc.
I am sure that Whitehurst has had every oppotunity to take the starting job away and has not made the most of it.
That includes practice, preseason, and the Giants game. After last year Matt was on thin ice and he has beaten Charlie for the job. One throw (or decision to make a throw) like the pick in AZ can be enough for some coaches.
We shouldn't just assume CW played poorly in practice
It might be true, it might not be… Charlie still hasn’t had enough playing time to prove himself one way or the other.
We shouldn't assume anything, and as I've said on another thread...
Matt got a cushion of three terrible starts at the beginning of his Seahawk career. His fortune then was that there was no veteran long-time Seahawk legend warming up on the bench while he was given those first three games.
Because if in Matt Hasselbeck’s first Hawk start he saw veteran presence Matt Hasselbeck of 2010 sitting behind him, he would have been benched after game one and not given another chance.
Matt has gotten more chances this year than Charlie has. To assume that Charlie hasn’t taken advantage is to assume that Matt has, or that for whatever reason he deserves more opportunity to take advantage of the chance.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
True
Matt had the benefit of Holmgren having seen him practice in Green Bay. I think the fact that Charlie hasn’t wowed them in his short time here is the issue.
And he had all those 2nd team practice reps in which to do so.
And of course, that start against the Giants with 1/2 a squad around him.
I feel he was put in a position where he was set up to fail, and that frustrates me, as it was wasted resource under that context.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
If Jon Kitna can have a decent couple of games filling for Romo at 38 years old
then Hasselbeck could make for a decent backup after a year of mentoring a drafted QB. The only question is whether he would be willing to sign here if suspected that he was going to eventually be replaced.
See my comment on 12thman.
When you bring that guy back, there’s too much tendency to play him too long…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:09 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think Carroll will be cowtowed into starting Hass
Ugh, I hate making the “Pete knows how good CW does in practice, so we should just blindly accept that Hasselbeck is better” argument….but Pete isn’t a slave to the wants of the fans, either.
AS LONG AS THE SEAHAWKS DRAFT A QB EARLY (can’t overstate how vital that is), I’m cool with both Hass and Charlie coming back next year. If Pete is dumb enough to stick with his veteran QB far past the point it’s a viable option, then we’re fucked no matter what.
here here
I don’t think he should be re-signed. Even if the team drafts a young QB and that QB could benefit from his mentoring. The FO would basically be saying to Hasselbeck “We like you, we want you on the team & we respect all you’ve done for the organization: we just don’t want you to start”.
To be honest: I don’t see Hass accepting a lame duck role. Especially since he seems to be on an upswing. Even if he outplays his successor again in the pre-season the fact that he is just biding time ‘til he sits and eventually leaves the team won’t spur him to play better.
by jubelthebear on Nov 21, 2010 9:39 PM PST up reply actions
I think the idea is that if Matt keeps up this level of play, there is no problem having him start next year.
I am sure he expects us to draft a QB. I feel much better about having Hass around next year as a mentor than relying on Charlie to start and mentor.
If we're expecting Charlie to mentor, we're doing a lot of things wrong
I don’t think a player mentor is always helpful for developing a young athlete, but I don’t know how much Charlie can help.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions
I think the "mentor" thing is over-played by fans.
Why would Hasselbeck help a guy take his job from him?
I think a 2 year deal outlines the fact that he would be done after that.
He wouldn’t expect the team to wait until he is gone before they find his replacement. His battling it out to keep his job is what would make him a good mentor. A young kid could learn a lot from Matt’s intangibles and leadership
DetectiveM, I agree entirely.
I’ve always felt the QB coach and OC should do the mentoring, not someone competing for playing time.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:18 PM PST up reply actions
Because not every player is a selfish punk.
Besides, if Hass refused and the media found out they would have his head.
I would hope not
and if they did. I’d pose the question: how would they feel if they were in a similar position with their job? If Hass chose to leave over staying in a reduced capacity who could blame him? It’d be the best for both parties honestly.
by jubelthebear on Nov 22, 2010 7:59 AM PST up reply actions
The last series on offense was nothing like first few series on offense
Early in the game, Matt had 5 passes for a total of 125 yards. At the end of the game, his numbers looked almost identical to Brees (aside from having fewer TDs and no interceptions). There were a bunch of checkdowns in the 4th quarter (after BMW was out), but it wasn’t representative of the overall play at all.
These weren’t garbage-time stats by any stretch (unless you count the last 3 quarters as garbage time).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
My checkdown drive reference was the 3rd quarter, but there were a ton in general.
And of Matt’s 5 passes for 125 yards, 70ish were the Williams big play. Yes, he looked a little better early. I wonder though if he looks good until D’s adjust to his popcorn arm, then they soften up, play in front, and give minimal yards instead of big plays.
And he really seems incapable of leading us from more than a single score behind to take a lead again.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:40 PM PST up reply actions
Matt was very productive
That problem was almost entirely on the defensive side. Had we forced the Saints to use the punter even a single time this would have been a much closer game.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:44 PM PST up reply actions
Why? We only used ours twice.
Why were our problems on the defensive side, yet theirs were not?
Perhaps….because we’re terrible in the red zone?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
I don't disagree that we had problems in the redzone
but you can’t call the offense’s performance shitty overall. They performed well and were let down by the defense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
This is a pass first league.
The Saints were the SB champs because their offense embodies that fact.
You’re expecting our D to behave as if the league is still the same league it was in the 90’s and 80’s, when a team with an average offense and a slightly above average defense could win more games than it loses, and almost always compete. This is the post y2k Peyton/Brady/Brees era, and you better be able to score, and you better be able to return fire when the other team scores first.
The offense scored 19 points against the Saints. That’s not going to cut it against a legitimate offense in this NFL, particularly when the Saints D isn’t even all that great to begin with— they win on the backs of their offense. Always have, and I doubt that changes anytime soon.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
Check out some stats before you build your argument
The Saints D is top 5 in yards, points and bunch of other categories. This Saints team has been winning on the back of their defense this year, not their offense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't care.
Honestly. The Saints ride on the backs of their offensive talent, and it sets up the D.
When I see a Saints team loaded with offensive talent, I see a team that makes the other team make mistakes and then take advantage of it, because of their offensive ability. You’ll also notice that the Saints team that “has been winning on the backs of their defense” hasn’t really been winning. Not compared to last year’s offensive juggernaut, that again, won because of their amazing offense and “good enough” defense.
They’re far and away a more talented offensive team, and that sets up their D to be a little better.
But yeah, you’re right, the Saints, Colts and Patriots all had their best years because their defenses improved— but they all were offensively based first. We can keep throwing blame on the D time and time again, but in today’s NFL you need to score more than 19 points to win games, and our offense isn’t very good.
Blaming the D, or focusing on another team’s D instead of giving credit for their O doesn’t change any of that.
If it was the D’s fault, let’s do an “all play” then.
19 points beats 10 teams this week, and that includes the game being played right now, it ties two games, and loses 16.
10-16-2.
The defense needs to do a little better, I admit. But the offense is still the bigger issue.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Play the same game with the defense.
Only four teams today would have won if their defense had given up 34 points, one team would have tied.
4-23-1.
The offense needs to do a little better, I admit. But the defense was the bigger issue today.
Uh, coming into the game the Saints were ranked 7th best in defensive DVOA.
Including 8th against the pass.
Hasselbeck's yards are mostly RAC.
I don’t care at all between Whitehurst and Hasselbeck. But I can assure you that Hasselbeck will not get much better.
So, if losing by 15 to 25 points per game, yet getting lots of completions and kicking field goals is your game, come on down.
This team is no different today than it was in week 1. Remember BMW’s 50 yard curl and run for a TD in week 1?
The offense Seattle runs is predicated on perfection over a series of 12-15 plays. Unsustainable.
Yes, I do have low expectations, but this is ridiculous.
It is what it is...
This is pure supposition
Aside for the problems in the redzone, Matt’s numbers looked almost identical to Brees’.
If you’re putting up almost 20 points and losing by double digits, your problems are on defense, not offense.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
Blowout - Most likely due to lack of touchdowns scored.
Advanced NFL Stats – Seattle @ New Orleans
It is what it is...
What's the point of that chart?
It maps very closely with point differential and doesn’t take into account offensive efficiency at all. That chart does nothing to prove your point.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough
As of today, there are only three teams with fewer touchdowns than Seattle.
That means something.
It is what it is...
It means we have a shitty redzone offense
which is slightly better than no offense at all (which he had earlier). Its not something to be happy about but its certainly an improvement.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed
As frustrating as the drive down the field, get stopped and kick a field goal is, it beats the hell out of 3 and out. Gotta look at the bright side, and improvement is all good.
See my comment above.
Also, numbers may look the same, but do you not feel like we work… oh… 80 times harder for our points than the other team? That isn’t because of our defense…. it’s because of our offense.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:04 PM PST up reply actions
I love the ignorance!
The best thing to do is not to watch the games, but to look at the box scores afterwards and make assumptions. Win!!!!
I agree with some of these points.
But…
I feel like he got promoted from Captain Checkdown to Lt. Colonel Checkdown, and in the process put up some monster numbers against a soft bend-don’t-break D that allowed him a ton of free low-risk yards.
I understand we’re playing from behind, but if there are a ‘ton’ of yards to be gotten, take them. The way I see it, if you’re trying to mount a comeback with plenty of time on the clock, it’s inadvisable to get all trigger happy. Why play the risk/reward game when it’s not needed?
by Mickapeckalin on Nov 21, 2010 6:29 PM PST up reply actions
They completely backed off
Why not take the easy underneath stuff
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 21, 2010 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
Which was my point?
Unless I’m missing a trick here.
by Mickapeckalin on Nov 21, 2010 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
I'm agreeing with you.
It’s more directed at the other guy
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 21, 2010 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Cool.
Sorry, it’s just this time over here doesn’t agree with me.
by Mickapeckalin on Nov 21, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Well, because you just ran off over 7 minutes of clock to get 60ish yards..
when you are behind more than 2 scores. Sounds like the idea scenario for a defensive coach while playing from ahead.
And on “why not take the easy underneath stuff”— because it was checkdowns. In other words, each time, instead of a “hurry up offense” approach of quick slants and get back to the line of scrimmage, we sent WR’s downfield, checked down, then went to option 3/4/5. The problem with that is that we’re taking extra seconds off the clock on every single snap.
And if they are really allowing the underneath as opposed to Matt simply being unable to take the over the top, why can’t we run those “hurry up offense quick slants” instead of spending 30 seconds plus per snap, every snap, chewing up the clock as if we’re the team up two scores???
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
Down 2 scores is not really a time for the hurry up offense
In fact, I think part of that strategy was to keep our offense on the field and keep the New Orleans offense OFF the field, since it was clear our D was having trouble stopping them.
If it wasn’t for the fumble, it could’ve been a 1-score game after that drive, and eating up the clock would not have been a bad thing. It also allowed our defense time to recharge.
Earlier in the season, we were having trouble sustaining drives and everyone complained (rightly so) that our offense couldn’t stay on the field. Staying on the field TOO LONG is rarely a problem.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
by HititHere on Nov 22, 2010 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry, clarifying--down 2 scores in the 3rd quarter is not the time for a hurry up offense.
Hurry up offenses throw quick passes and the risk of mistakes/INTs tends to go up. A pick 6 there would put the game out of reach with 20 minutes to go.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Great perspective!
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
An interesting take.
If we had a better red zone percentage, I could even endorse it. As is, calling our offense down 13 “down two scores” seems unreasonable as that’s about 4 possessions the way we play. And I’m not seeing four 7 minute possessions possible with 11 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.
But I do respect what you are saying there. I just disagree that it does us that much good to let the defense rest for 7 minutes when our offense struggles to score, if our offense IS capable of more, and the “Hasselbeck camp” seems to think we are capable of more…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
It definitely doesn't work as well if the offense can't score.
But from a coaching perspective, I think you’re always thinking in terms of 7s. It’s technically is still a 2 possession game.
I guess I’m just saying I understand why we’d want our offense chugging downfield, instead of throwing bombs, hoping for a big score and giving the ball right back to the opponent—whether it’s right after we score, or because of an INT.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Those checkdowns looked to be Hasselbeck's 2nd or 3rd options.....
I’d rather he take the checkdown rather than forcing a ball into coverage.
by SeahawkSammy on Nov 21, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
I'd rather we run quick slants then, and get into an attack mode instead of passively hitting late options and chewing up clock.
And if we can’t get quick slants to work, that means we either lack the WR talent or the QB talent, or we’re playing otherworldly defenders who can take away both the deep/over the top game AND the short quick hitters.
You know which of the three I think it is… can you tell me otherwise?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
The Saints give up only 166.3 yards of passing per game.
1st in the League.
Hasselbeck completed 32 of 44 passes for 366 yards.
Keep hatin’.
Yep, because the stat tells the whole story, right?
How about this:
Brett Favre
Alex Smith
Matt Ryan
Jimmy Clausen (2nd ever start)
Max Hall (1st ever start)
Josh Freeman
Colt McCoy (2nd ever start)
Big Ben
Jimmy Clausen (again)
Matt Hasselbeck
Great numbers, sure. But what a crappy list of QB’s to face up against. Favre is a ghost of a shell of a parody of himself. The 3rd best QB on the list is Josh Freeman, and he’s still got a ton of growing to do… you know it’s a bad list of starting QB’s when there’s only 9 and you’re not sure whether Alex Smith is worst, 2nd worst, or 3rd worst.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:31 PM PST up reply actions
Conversely, Ryan and Big Ben are exceptional quarterbacks
and Freeman is playing very well also. Not sure about this debate, just food for thought.
Agreed.
Just saying that the numbers don’t mean a lot. My point is that the Saints won because their offense is better than our offense, not because our defense let us down (which sounds like an excuse for the offense that only scored 19 points.)
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:54 PM PST up reply actions
The offense might have been able to put up more points if the D could get off the field on 3rd and long more often.
You can spin this loss any way you want
Perhaps true.
But our Red Zone effectiveness and offensive capability to move the ball and put points on the board has been poor all year, and call me crazy, I’m more willing to blame that on the QB/offensive side of the ball than the defense.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
Generally I agree with you.
But today it seems the D just could not get off the field and that made the biggest difference
That I can't argue with.
However, scoring one TD in 9 possessions is on the offense’s back (not counting the 10th possession at the end of the game.)
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
heard that
I felt better about the O than the D. That being said: this team is missing some key D-linemen.
by jubelthebear on Nov 21, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
I am not a big fan of football statistics as of yet. I don't think they are terribly accurate at this point.
I’m not saying they aren’t potentially an above average D. They got to the SB because their D played well.
My point that flows through a couple threads here is that the Saints are the defending SB champs because they have a dominant, explosive offense, and Hasselbeck’s numbers are rather hollow against ANY defense that goes “bend not break” while we lose by double digits and he racks up yards, but he can’t get us 6 when we’re in the red zone.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
Saints have played Carolina twice.
I went to the game in Carolina. It was a debacle. We would improve our pass defense ranking dramatically if we played Carolina twice.
It is what it is...
DVOA is adjusted for strength of schedule
They rank the Saints 8th in pass defense and 7th in overall defense leading up to this game:
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef
Just because they played a couple of weak teams doesn’t invalidate their ranking.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
If you believe DVOA to be a perfect stat.
I do not, and you aren’t going to convince me otherwise.
(Remember, you would be attempting to convince me in order to convince me that our defense lost this game for us by giving up 31 to the SB champs, as opposed to our offense losing it by our being ineffective in the red zone and filled with hollow yardage and scoring only 19 points in a game.)
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think DVOA is a perfect stat
but almost every stat in the world supports the idea that the Saints defense has been the driving force of the 6-3 2010 Saints and that it is one of the top in the league. If you doubt the stats so much, I dare you to find any that disagree that the Saints have a very good defense.
Furthermore, on which planet should an offense be expected to put up 35+ points on the road? 19 points on the road is very, very respectable. 19 points on the road against a top-10 defense is a great performance.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
I don't believe 19 points is going to win you very many games.
I want more out of my offense, regardless of who lines up across from us, or where the game occurs.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
That's simply not true.
Well, we’re .500, and we sit in the worst division in football.
I’m pretty convinced of that.
I’m also convinced that we could be within a game of where we are right now if we started Whitehurst, though that I admit is more of an intuition.
I like MOST of what Pete has done, but I do feel the QB position wasn’t addressed effectively in any way shape or form, and I think that until we fix it, 5-5 is the best we can hope for 10 games into any season.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:55 PM PST up reply actions
You may want to watch some of those plays over again
Matt having enough time to go through his progressions and throw to someone out of the backfield is not a fail. In fact, it points to a couple positives.
Today yes.
I am overwhelmed by Seattle fans apathy. This game was a blowout. If I’m Green Bay and I don’t get into the playoffs but the Seahawks do, I would pissed.
This team is horrid. I understand looking at the bright side, but it seems childish to me.
My boss would not congratulate me on purchasing a security that only lost 15 points this week.
It is what it is...
12thman, as I wrote above..
I’d rather we run quick slants then, and get into an attack mode instead of passively hitting late options and chewing up clock.
And if we can’t get quick slants to work, that means we either lack the WR talent or the QB talent, or we’re playing otherworldly defenders who can take away both the deep/over the top game AND the short quick hitters.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
Well remember BMW went out..
He is the main option on slant routes. How about the routes Stokley ran? They looked pretty good.
You must have a horrible experience as a fan of the Seahawks
If every loss (to the reigning 6-3 SB champs in their house) causes you so much grief, you must be a very unhappy dude.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
The Seahawks weren't mediocre today.
Without Lynch’s fumbles and that ridiculous roughing the passer penality, this game couldve easily been much closer.
How can you not accept it?
What you could possibly do to change it? Write petitions?
This is a team built of scraps and chewing gum. Against obviously superior competition, moral victories are about the best you can expect. Expecting greatness is just setting yourself up for heartbreak.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Take a close look at this team
Do you really see a juggernaut waiting to be unleashed? I’d rather praise the improvement this team is showing rather than shitting on everything until they win a ring.
Mediocrity is a big step up from the last couple years.
Things aren’t perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than they’ve been.
I don't think anyone has apathy.
You have hate. Do you think Felix shouldn’t get the Cy Young as well? Or are you incapable of looking beyond the scoreboard.
I love Felix
I’m frustrated with mediocrity, and how it excites this fan base.
But I’m most likely just a curmudgeon. I can accept that. I expect to be proven wrong next Sunday. At least for the sanity of this blog, I pray I am proven wrong.
It is what it is...
Good pocket protection by the line...
A Quarterback that can go through his reads and make smart completions. I can go on…
He was getting ten yards a pop with plenty of time left to go.
New Orleans was dropping everyone back 10 yards or more. He was making the right decisions, it’s not his fault Marshawn couldn’t hold on to the ball.
Marshawn's fumbles weren't the only problems
They didn’t help, but the redzone offense and overall defense were much bigger problems.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
Then why not run quick slants in a hurry up offense, instead of waiting for patterns to develop downfield if you know they aren't going to...
and then hitting a 3rd option, eating valuable time.
And I disagree there was “plenty of time left to go” given our inability to score in the red zone. I figure we need 3 drives to get 7 points, because we need 3 field goals to get 9.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
That sounds like an issue with play calling, not Matt.
But I’m not sure how a quick slant for 10 yards is better than a pass to the back for 10 yards. They were moving the ball downfield just fine until Lynch fumbled.
I have been an avid Hasselbeck hater.
Today I thought he did pretty damn good.
Obomanu really did come out of nowhere
I love that a couple of his catches were him coming back and going up for the ball. He has been looking great these past 2 games, and is a lot of fun to watch.
I'm thinking its more an issue of trust between him and Matt
leading to more targets and thus more catches.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever it is
It’s nice to see this kind of production out of him.
Agreed
He was looking really good today. Like what we hoped Butler would turn into.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
Before I read this thread, I came away feeling fairly positive
John’s top 20 reinforced that for me. First though, I went to ESPN stats and looked at each drive. We each had 9. We had two 3 and outs, they had one. Otherwise, they all ended in scores or turnovers. We had two fumbles, they had two int’s. We moved the ball as well as they did, piled up about the same yardage, Matt played about as well as Breese. The big exception was that we made it to their 2 yard line 3 times, and only came away with 13 points. They scored TD’s mostly from outside our 20 via the passing game. Our fumbles resulted in great field position for them on two drives, but both ended in int’s, so we dodged bullets.
But the most encouraging thing for me was I didn’t see quit anywhere. They kept fighting. New Orleans last 3 drives ended in int’s in the red zone and a missed field goal. They did move the ball easily on drives 2 through 6, scoring td’s each time. The run game gashed us so well, I wondered why they didn’t stick with it until we stopped it. I don’t know how you can put a rosy picture on Ivory averaging 6.5 yards on his first 10 carries. Still, we also moved the ball pretty well, albeit primarily on Matt’s arm.
In the end, I think the game was closer than the score. Had we been able to punch in from the 2 yard line it would have been worth 8 more points and that alone would have made the game more than respectable. I was thinking that I miss TJ Duckett.
Oh, and the BS call on Brock for roughing Breese or helmet to helmet
WAS TOTAL BULL SHIT. What a terrible call, and was probably responsible for sustaining one drive that resulted in a TD. Without that call, and with our punching in from the 2, we win 35-34. Much closer game than the score indicates.
And the non call when Brock was held
He was gonna sack Brees until the tackle grabbed him. Both plays were 3rd down plays so the drives would of ended.
BMW17 Comeback Player of the Year and future Probowl Mainstay
You are overreacting to him.
He’s got a valid perspective even if you disagree with it.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:02 PM PST up reply actions
Kidder95 was negative and you ranted about whether he saw the same game as you
I was positive and you say my reaction is as retarded as his. I agree that someone is clearly retarded.
Holding happens all the time
Its the “traveling” of football. The problem comes when its not called evenly.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
Which for us is a problem every game.
Clemons is basically held on every play coming off the line and trying to get to the QB. Refs can use their discretion, but I’d take a call every once in while over this nonsense.
This is "America's team"
reigning Superbowl champ from a city suffering the worst disaster in recent history. If anyone is going to get calls they are.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:54 PM PST up reply actions
Yes holding happens every down.
But such a blatant hold that was right in front of the ref and definatly affected the outcome of the play should of been called.
BMW17 Comeback Player of the Year and future Probowl Mainstay
I happens.
You go into someone else’s house, you can’t expect to get the calls. It’s unfortunate that some real bad calls were made, and others were missed, but it happens. The Hawks are just not quite there yet where they can face adversity on the road and overcome.
They didn’t quit on the game though, and yeah, it’s small comfort. But it is comfort. And it is signs of improvement.
No, that's true
But I think there’s an expectation (for other teams at least, heh) that when you’re at home, the “bounces” are going to go your way. I’ll lump 50-50 calls in with that as well.
It was directly responsible for sustaining the drive.
I was pretty pissed off. Now I can see it’s somewhat close, but still pretty undeniably clear to me it shouldn’t have been called.
That and the Chester Pitts hold (I saw the replay barely and haven’t seen it since but it seemed questionable) put the game out of reach.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
Roughing the passer!?
Really? Are you kidding me?

by bigtrain21 on Nov 21, 2010 7:11 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
This kind of crap killed the NBA for me
Shaq shuffling his feet (while with the Lakers) and not traveling. I actually swore-off the NFL after the Steelers/Hawks superbowl as well. Just really take the wind out of your sails.
The Hawks aren’t good enough to overcome this kind of crap, against an elite team on the road.
Brock's comments on the play (via Danny O'Neil):
Raheem Brock said he was told the roughting-the-passer penalty was for making contact with the quarterback’s head.
http://twitter.com/dannyoneil/status/6525621052121088
Raheem Brock:“They said I hit the quarterback in the head, but I basically had my hands up, just trying to stop his arm from going forward.”
http://twitter.com/dannyoneil/status/6525686818803712
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
I was listening to the audio of the game at the time
At no point did Mike Carey say that the penalty was for making contact with the QB’s head. It was a straight roughing the passer call, which is as inexcusable as the horsecollar tackle call from last week,
These bulllshit calls need to start costing refs some money or we’re never going to see the end of them.
The bounces and calls didn't go our way.
The offensive play calling is getting much better, but the pass defense is crippling if we cannot stop 3rd and long.
If we played mistake free football we could have won, but the Saints are a good team and a tough match up for us.
I was really disappointed in Lynch today
His head (concentration) didn’t seem in the game and he cost the team big time (not running through the passes, fumbling twice). I thought Matt might have lead him a hair too much on the swing passes, but I think Forsett catches both balls for good gains.
See, I think this is a repercussion of a shitty offense.
When the offense is that terrible, guys take bigger risks, fight harder for smaller yards, because every little bit counts more than it does when you have a dominant offense. He was working hard to make up for the fact that the offense sucks, trying to do too much.
Offense gets better, he doesn’t risk quite as much.
Plus one of the two fumbles he really had momentum stopped and it should have been blown dead.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Sure.
Because his fumbles have been at the root of the offense’s issues all year, particularly those weeks before we picked him up.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
If he had a few more guys successfully blocking for him, maybe he doesn't get wrapped and ripped by so many defenders.
I for one, was happy that the fumbles were “good” fumbles, the kind lost from fighting multiple defenders while driving hard for hards. Of course, I’d rather not see us fumble the ball at all, every, but oh well.
by John Edwards on Nov 21, 2010 7:42 PM PST up reply actions
I think that is looking too much for a reason that he fumbled.
Even the best run blocking offenses end up with piles of defenders ripping at the ball.
But when the offense moves the ball easier, players are more likely to "drop" and not fight for that extra break.
Tomato, tohmahtoe.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:05 PM PST up reply actions
I think you're right
Lynch has an upright running style, and the reality is that we haven’t been opening many holes for him. He really tries to take what he can get. His aggressiveness is what gets us yards when he should be stuffed in the backfield, but today we got burned twice by it. It’s worth keeping an eye on down the road, I think.
Good observation -- I agree
Lynch’s style kind of reminds me of Nate Burly — often upright, juking around, often having guys flying all around. It is exciting and appreciate the effort, but having all the guys while one refuses to go down often leads to fumbles, as guys come in from the sides, the front, the back, and rip at the ball. It just requires extra concentration to hold on the rock.
The 1st fumble was the result of being stood-up and ripped
The 2nd fumble occurred during a standard tackle.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
It was the root of a lot of the offenses problems today.
I was really disappointed in Lynch today
Stop making everything an overarching statement about the season.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 21, 2010 7:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Lynch has certainly played better than this
I think it might be his first 2-fumble game and he’s run a little harder after contact this season.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
perhaps he was surprised
that he was actually running past the line of scrimmage and thought “man, this is nice,” and forgot to hold on to the ball
That's coming under my line...
but I didn’t say it. Are you responding to me or someone else?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure its a response to Big E-Z
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
I'm responding to you.
He said:
I was really disappointed in Lynch today
You said:
Because his fumbles have been at the root of the offense’s issues all year
You’re trying to twist everything into being Matt’s fault and, even for someone who earlier this year said he never wanted to see Matt play again, it’s annoying.
The aftermath
BMW has a sprained foot and Tru has a concussion:
WR Mike Williams sustained a sprained foot & CB Marcus Trufant suffered a concussion today, @PeteCarroll said
http://twitter.com/Seahawks/status/6507358494658560
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 7:23 PM PST reply actions
Possibilities
I think if Seattle won this game they would not have lost and if lynch didn’t fumble he would have held onto the ball better.
by DKrottenhawk on Nov 21, 2010 7:24 PM PST via mobile reply actions
You really shouldn't make wild claims without offering some supporting evidence.
Cake for me too, please.
Kansas City is our season
We have to win that game. KC looks poor from home and they’re a young plucky side on the rise. If we win that I feel comfy because there is no way I even think that Carolina will beat us unless Losman is starting.
KC, Carolina, San Fran. That should decide the division before the St. Louis game.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
The Rams should not be able to beat
Denver or New Orleans and both are on the road. That’d be 8 losses already.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Denver's not a gimme loss for them at this point.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
St. Louis hasn't won on the road
Orton could pick St. Louis’ D apart. Hopefully.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Weren't they tied for 1st in sacks going into this week?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Freaking James Hall (at age 33) with 7.5 sacks
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
Old dudes rock...
He’s younger than me… so I can say that.
Isn't it weird when players your age are considered "old"
or players much younger than you are considered “veterans”?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely strange.
Fortunately I’m not to the point where I need Fahv-ra to stick around so that there is someone older than me still playing in the league…
I disagree; we just need to win 2 of our next 5 games
The Rams are 4-6 right now; unless they win the next 5 games in a row — WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN — the best the Rams can hope for is an 8-7 record heading into Week 17 (and if we only get those 2 wins, we’d be 7-8).
Week 17: Rams at Seahawks. Qwest Field. Seattle in early January. We win that game, we in the division (we have a better divisional record). Short of the Seahawks falling apart AND the Rams going on a hot streak, nothing will be decided until then.
This thread is a mess
Who here genuinely expected to beat the defending champions IN NEW ORLEANS?! And don’t say “Cleveland did it so why can’t we?” because that’s a fallacy that just because an upset happened we should expect it. I’m pissed because we could’ve won the game but the fact that we didn’t embarrass ourselves on offense was very encouraging.
I see a comment there that says “I’m tired of Seattle fans accepting mediocrity”. This team is mediocre and frankly not much more can be expected from them. Look at our offensive line. Our receiving corp features a resurrected bust, a white guy, a ST gunner, and a midget (Butler) and yet we’ve found a way to make it work.
This defense struggles against great offenses (namely great QBs) and relishes against bad ones. They were poor today but Drew Brees is a top 5 QB and he was bound to find the on switch especially against our secondary.
We’re 5-5, we’re not very good, and that’s what we’ll have to deal with until we find a franchise QB and this team can mature.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
by SSreporters on Nov 21, 2010 7:54 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
I do have concerns about Tatupu though
He’s not been good for most of the season and I wonder if he’s trade bait at this point.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
Agreed
His physical game seems to have deteriorated quite a bit. Could be injuries or age or both. Still a warrior, but not what he once was.
Has to be injuries
Because he should not be declining at 28.
Michael Robinson leads the Seahawks in completion percentage, yards-per-attempt, and QB rating.
And we're fucking lightyears ahead of where we were last year.
Does anyone think the 2009 Hawks would’ve have kept this game to 15 points. Yeah. No fucking way.
Well said.
The way I look at this is to imagine what this team will be like once Pete has more than one offseason to get his guys.
Well said
Agreed on everything. We have to look at the bright side. Our guys fought hard and had some bad breaks, but can keep their heads up.
Great run
Nice Sad Manning Face.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 21, 2010 8:30 PM PST reply actions
Good luck the rest of the way, maybe we see you at Qwest later on.
I like the Saints even though it was a little bush league for Brees to throw to the end zone with 20 seconds left up 15.
Honestly, I only think they did that because Payton didn't trust the kicking game...
…but personally, I wish they would’ve just run the ball one more time on 4th down to try and let Ivory go over 100 on the day instead. Payton and Brees like to try and score on every possession. It wasn’t trying to rub anything in, I can promise you. They just want to try and get as good as they can for down the stretch with an eye on the playoffs is all…
Yeah, I see that. It seemed out of character.
On the bright side Earl padded his stats and maybe the Hawks can use it as misguided motivation if we meet down the road.
We just signed a new long snapper who was just released by the Pats...
…for his inconsistent play there this season. Our LS went on IR Friday and we tried out a few guys on Saturday before signing Jake Ingram from the Patriots one day before the game. I wonder if we’ll find someone else to take his place after he almost screwed up a couple of snaps for us in this game. His snap was good on the missed FG by Hartley though. Hartley is still having his own issues, I think too. Sean Payton sees the kicking game as a weakness and Drew Brees’ arm as a strength, so I think he leans on Drew instead of going to the kicker in cases like that one at the end of the game…
You should draft one next year.
We did 2 years ago. In fact, that guy is probably at home right now if you want to give him a ring.
Believe me, the Saints will leave no stone unturned
They may end up calling the dude, whoever he is.
Maybe we will draft a LS next year. We drafted a punter last year and he is paying dividends for us now. Of course, we didn’t use him that much in this game, did we?
We're not used to getting those kind of calls in our favor like that...
…even in our own Dome, but I guess they are trying to protect the high profile QB’s in the league since they bring in all the revenue for the NFL these days.
That was a BS call
But as a Hawks fan you kind of expect SOMEBODY to pee in the punch.
One thing I learned a few years back was...
…that you can’t ever complain and moan about bad calls against your team, but you have to rely on the fact that your team will be strong enough to overcome the bad calls and still win the games in the end. The Saints turned that corner to overcome such obstacles last season on their way to our first ever SB victory! It was awesome!
Spoken like a Steeler fan.
We agree. We just get frustrated when it is always our team being forced to overcome the calls and rarely if ever the other team.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
I was just trying to think of the last important bad call that went in our favor...
Or is that the point? You don’t notice them when it is your team
We get plenty of calls, just like every NFL team
The calls just don’t happen on drive/game-changing plays. We also don’t have a player like Drew Brees or Randy Moss who gets the “benefit of the doubt because this guy sells jerseys” type of call.
The only thing I can remember
is the PI no-call on Leroy Hill in the SF game @ Qwest that denied them the endzone on 4th down for a second consecutive time early in the game.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
But who knows if he really woulda been called on that if the refs saw it?
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I mean it seems pretty harmless...
Like imagine if Docket chest-bumped Hasselbeck, would you be upset and want a flag?
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
If I were a 45+ year old ref, probably not
But at 25, that’s a pretty egregious display of poor sportsmanship (which I loved at the time, and still love right now)
For serious???
Alrighty then! Wouldn’t irk me at all but if others see it as egregious then, yes, we had a call go our way recently.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Wouldn't bother me, personally, either
But I’m all for every manner of celebration, excessive signaling of FIRST DOWN by average receivers on average plays, signing footballs, getting your popcorn ready, and so on.
But, since rules are kind of necessary, I do think a D Lineman chestbumping a QB after sacking said QB is “poor sportsmanship”
But so hilarious :D
Yeah I can’t argue against that.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Speaking of sportsmanship...
what did everyone think of Big Ben celebrating in Seymour’s ear?
Definitely looks like he’s matured and learned his lesson, and deserved the early return from suspension that Goodell gave him.
Personally, I think he should have to serve the rest of his suspension out now, for that. Like he was on probation and just broke it.
Of course, Seymour gets ejected and Big Ben didn’t even get a flag.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:57 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't see it :(
That’s retarded.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
The thing about that philosophy is,
assume you have two evenly matched teams. Both teams execute in all three phases of the game at roughly the same level. There are mismatches for both teams of course, but overall they are two sound football teams with talent at many positions and good coaching behind them. If these teams played each other 100 times, let’s say the results would be something like 51 wins for Team A to 49 wins for Team B.
Now, in one of these games, give Team A two extra possessions in their opponents territory. Plus, Team B has a long touchdown negated because of a bogus holding penalty.
Who wins that game? At some point, officiating DOES change the outcome of games. Saying the Seahawks should have “overcome” those bad calls is like saying we should have just spotted the Saints 14 points before the coin toss. Complaints about officiating are extremely valid in a league where 4 wins separate 10-6 and 6-10.
Congratulations on the win, regardless. And props for reaching out beyond your own SN site.
by jhmg16 on Nov 21, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well summarized.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 21, 2010 11:30 PM PST up reply actions
It wasn't the fact of not kicking a FG, it was not running or even taking a knee.
Game would have been over. But whatever, I really don’t care.
Well, good luck with the Chiefs, you may need it...
…they are playing better ball than most everyone in your division this year so far.
We will probably have to play the winner of the West if we can’t beat out the Falcons to get a bye through the wildcard round, so it might as well be the Seahawks that we play then anyway, I figure.
I believe we can beat you in Qwest.
That may seem crazy, but both teams played really well today on offense and our defense can be scary at home.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Yeah as a Hawks fan I didn't have any problem with it.
The way the passing game was going, a TD with a 2-pt conversion and a successful onside kick could give Seattle the chance to send it into OT with another TD or win it outright with a second 2-pt conversion.
Warren Moon was pretty pissed about it on the broadcast, but to me I thought Payton would be irresponsible to let off the gas just yet. Something was wrong with the Saints pass defense. Sharper had a lot to do with that, but also the lack of pass rush.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:31 PM PST up reply actions
Was it really that late?
I was thinking it was about 1:40 left.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
Well if your team wasn't still blitzing they wouldn't have thrown for the end zone
It’s not running up the score if the opposing defense is still out for blood.
Besides I thought we needed a score at the end of the game to make up for the 17 points we left out on the field.
Our offense hasn’t been on fire this year and we started to get it back I cant believe Drew threw 2 picks in the end zone and our fat punk kicker missed a short field goal.
I believe we were just trying to get some mojo back at the end of the game before we move on to Dallas
Good luck the rest of the year
World Champions at last
by mississippisaintsfan on Nov 22, 2010 1:54 AM PST up reply actions
All the love in the world to another fan of another franchise but...
This entire post is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It’s the defense’s fault that the Saints decided to throw for the end zone? Did Bradley give a hand signal to Sean Payton to keep going for it so that our team could get some more blitz practice in? Would we have even blitzed if the Saints weren’t still trying to pass?
Make up for the 17 points left on the field? What for? You already had an 18 point lead. Would a 27 point victory have meant that much? Fixed the federal deficit? Overcome the limitations of faster than light travel? Brought balance to the Force?
Is your mojo going to be so much higher if you ran up the score on a team that was already defeated and had been since the failed onside kick?
Like I said, all the love in the world, but did you get hit by a bit of rubble thrown about by Katrina?
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 22, 2010 5:11 AM PST up reply actions
Your mistaken on this
We didnt play very well in the 2nd half
Drew threw 2 picks in the end zone when the game was still in doubt
It’s better to leave a game on a high note then a low note
Our offense hasn’t been all that this year and it’s still trying to get into the swing
World Champions at last
by mississippisaintsfan on Nov 22, 2010 5:32 AM PST up reply actions
No, Brees threw the second pick
while trying to run the score up with under a minute left, up by nearly three scores.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 22, 2010 7:51 AM PST up reply actions
The first interception was at the goalline, but not in the end zone.
The second interception was at the end of the game with ~20 seconds left and the Saints up by 15. Is there some miraculous 16 point play that could have happened on the ensuing Seahawks drive that would allow you to conclude that the game was “in doubt”?
The kind of miracle that would have had to happen in order for the game to really be “in doubt” would have been so minute that the game would not even be close to “in doubt”. This was AFTER the Saints called a timeout for no reason.
I don’t know, honestly, how you can be so bothered by the Saints yesterday. They looked good to me. The stats back that up.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Nov 22, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
Nice to be vindicated.
I can admit I closed the door on anticipating anything like this long ago.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:33 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
The Bucs don’t scare us much. The Falcons are the real challenge right now. Good luck to you too.
So... I can't really get 'mad' at anything about this game.
I’m never happy with a loss, but I can’t blame Lynch for the fumbles, it’s bound to happen to happen with all the contact he faces (behind and past the line). Hasselbeck far exceeded my expectations. BMW was great, and got banged up which I can’t fault him for. Drew Brees is still Drew Brees which mean lightning fast decision making so I can’t get mad that we couldn’t knock him around. Maybe this is the “apathy” someone above was explaining, but I just think the Hawks got beat by what may be the cream of the NFC crop, and I guess I’m okay with that. There were far worse ways to spend a few hours this Sunday.
I think some people are forgetting that we are in year one of a new regime.
Just being competitive is a bonus, leading a division is exceeding expectations.
I blame the Rams.
They’re getting good, real good. Quickly too. This almost feels like 2007 where “This may be our last shot in a while” which may make fans want so much success this year. If that makes any sense.
by SgtSasquatch on Nov 21, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
Might be right.
I think the difference is, Carroll and Schneider know what they are doing. I think the talent evaluation has either been extremely lucky or extremely promising. More exciting still, there’s no sense that they will stick with guys due to status, stature, tenure, or sunk costs.
This regime wants to win now and next year and 5 years from now, and as a fan after half a season with this staff, that’s extremely exciting to me.
I guess I look at it the other way. We have a coach and staff that are getting a lot out of scraps they picked up right before the season.
Pete obviously has qualities and skills that he is looking for and every year I like to think he will find more of those players. It is okay if the Rams get better, it would be nice to be a good team that beats other good teams in their own division.
I mean, don't get my wrong guys; I'm pumped.
I really like how this franchise is starting to get some traction and a direction. However, I also liked the fact that during our run our division happened to be so bad we could sew up the banner in September and roll it out in January every year.
In short, I love where we’re going as a franchise, but don’t like that other division rivals (Rams) are also going in a positive direction.
by SgtSasquatch on Nov 21, 2010 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
Let us also not lose sight of the fact
that Arizona with even a half competent QB could be pretty dece.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
So could San Francisco
if they had a solid quarterback and a good coach. I think all four of the teams in this division are just a couple of good pieces away from being pretty damn good.
by splintrdmind on Nov 22, 2010 2:09 AM PST up reply actions
Missed the second half.
Had to take a flight from Houston to Seattle. We looked alright in the first half, especially Matt. This was definetly a moral victory for me, as the Texans are just finding new ways to lose games and crush my soul every Sunday. Anyways, I made a personal bet with myself that if Earl Thomas got a pick in this game then I would go out and get his jersey, so that’s good news.
Anyone have a .gif or a video of Thomas’s interception? NFL.com and ESPN don’t seem to have it.
If you're a fan of basketball, watch a movie called Sonicsgate. It's free, just google it.
It's a SIGN!!
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Is this the sign?

"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:01 AM PST up reply actions
And the winner is..........
Jacob Stevens. (Honorable mention to whiskey chainsaw).
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
But mine's bigger,
and more convoluted…
just like our long term QB prospects!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
I'm pretty happy with this game too
For a loss this wasn’t too bad. I wish the defense hadn’t regressed as far as they have. But two starters on the defensive line usually damages a defense. So I can’t complain too much.
Overall, the offense is improving by leaps and bounds. Though I hope Mike Williams body starts to hold up a bit better. The guy is just getting back into football after a few years and I imagine he is very unused to the wear and tear. But we really need him to stay healthy. Offense isn’t the same when Williams is out.
Hope once Cole gets back the defense can bet back to respectable. But that might not be until next year.
But this was still a step in the right direction. Hope the offense continues to push the ball downfield and score points and the defense gets better.
"Hope once Cole gets back the defense can bet back to respectable. But that might not be until next year"
What a difference a year makes
In reference to a lot of the stuff above,
are we really arguing over whether Hasselbeck had a great game? The dude threw almost every kind of pass for 31 completions and 366 yards, NO interceptions AND avoided accruing a single sack against him. Seriously, guys.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I guess this was mostly in response to whiskey chainsaw
who actually thought Matt threw an INT today, which would change my perspective some, too. As for the redzone issues…it seems like playcalling and no push is at the heart of it and I dunno how much you can blame Matt. He did have that nice 9-yd toss to Carlson against SD, and a short one to Obo today.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Matt played great... the O-line did well... There were a few key plays that really shaped the game.
I’ll say this – I don’t feel nearly as badly about this loss as I did about the Raiders and Giants debacles. Would I still feel as ambivalent had the NFC Rest not lost – probably not.
True.
We could really afford to lose today’s if the rest of the division lost.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
When did I say he threw an INT?!?
I’m super frustrated at his popgun arm, and when he throws a deep ball, I cringe.
I simply look foward to the day, someday hopeful soon not very distant, when we have a QB who can throw a 32 yard strike instead of a 29 yard wobble, a QB who can wing a ball into a narrow window, instead of having perfect playcalling be a requirement for him to get a deep ball completed, or throw a red zone TD.
Yes, he had nice stats, and I realize so many of you disagree with me here, but I saw his numbers as all full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And for the record, I don’t root against him or anything like that. I want us to win, but today, Matt starting at QB reminds me of the two bulls up on the top of the hill, and playing him is the equivalent of running down the hill instead of walking down…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:17 AM PST up reply actions
Ohhhh i'm sorry man
you said 1-1 ratio and you meant for the season not today’s game. Thought you might not have seen that Matt’s interception was overturned.
Let me say that I still agree with you on one thing and think the same thing I did 3 weeks ago: That Matt’s arm leaves too much to be desired. Today, it looked like everything possible was done to make that not an issue. The question is: Can that be sustainable into next season and beyond?
For me the jury’s still out on whether or not Matt is having any kind of personal resurgence (if that’s what you were referring to at the words “signifying nothing”).
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Cool.
No prob.
I hope it’s a resurgence and he leads us to the SB… I also hope I win the lotto.
I should buy a ticket, though.
Might increase my odds just a hair.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
I can blame him.
I’m super happy with Hasselbeck’s performances lately. Well, I mean relatively speaking. There’s still a handful of things that he doesn’t do well. But what he is doing well, and how, and the consistency and the results: WOW! Love it.
But I can blame him. The redzone stuff looks almost entirely execution, to me. Some bad breaks over the past month up there, but at times we shouldn’t even be in position to get burned by bad breaks. The running game makes it more difficult, directly makes it more difficult, I’ll give him that. I’m happy with how he’s playing, and I expect the red zone woes can’t possibly continue this bad for an offense that looks so OK between the 20s.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
This, I agree with fully.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:18 AM PST up reply actions
Honestly, I'd agree with the notion that at times this team looks too good for 'moral victories' at other times they make you want to cling to whatever you can get.
I can see where people get frustrated, though I’m not there myself.
by SgtSasquatch on Nov 21, 2010 11:45 PM PST up reply actions
Aside from the moral victory thing,
our offense was just downright fun to watch today. When was it last like that?? Against the Jaguars last year maybe?? Not last week I’d say cuz inside we all knew how bad the Cardinals are.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
That wasn't a deep bomb, it was a 20 yard pass and 50 yards running!
Not that it wasn’t a great play and a nice throw.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:19 AM PST up reply actions
Looked to be about a 30 yard pass
With extra YAC. You can see the replay on NFL.com
The ball hit him perfectly in stride.
My bad. 30 still isn't a bomb to me though.
And again, it was a great throw. But I want, for once, for Seattle to have a QB who can throw those as lasers. It seems like every team has at one time or another had a top flight thrower at QB. We have the opposite.
I want OUR HoF QB, dammit. Everyone gets one eventually!!!
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 12:53 AM PST up reply actions
We had our laser throwing QB
From 1977 to 1983. And I bet his arm is still stronger now then Matts has ever been!
BMW17 Comeback Player of the Year and future Probowl Mainstay
I don't consider the one who was done when I was 8 to be only one I get to see in my lifetime.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 8:49 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with you
It is time to get to see a strong armed QB again for our team.
BMW17 Comeback Player of the Year and future Probowl Mainstay
C'mon man... throw us a bone! Considering what we're used to, that throw was DEEEEEP!
When I saw Hass start to wind up I must admit – I puckered up a bit… 5 seconds later, when he actually finished the wind up and threw it I was lemon-sour puckered…
Did you see the replay where Matt was thinking TD and was pointing toward the middle of the field – wanting BMW to cut across so he could pick up a block? I forget who was down there, but it may have been Obo running with BMW… He might’ve been able to slow down the guy who actually got the tackle…
I thought myself that BMW should have cut back to the middle. He'll never outrun DB's EVER in a straight sideline race.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 8:50 AM PST up reply actions
Anyway, I feel it hasn't been said enough: We're still in the drivers seat to a home playoff game.
Playoffs guys, playoffs.
AHHHHH!!!
Totally forgot what that feels like. I’m excited. I should never feel this good after a loss.
And that probably ticks some people off as I’m being too homer-ish and irrational but…c’mon we’re here (partially) to be excited about the Hawks together!
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Thanks John
A great post. i can’t wait to read the breakdowns for this week. This game was competitive to say the least. despite the loss i am excited. No sacks this game on ether side people. That is awesome! Last week i think there was one sack against us?
I'm elated.
I’m glad to see most people with good perspective after the game. Kinda was expecting a lot of bitterness since the officiating was tough to swallow.
Only the roughing the passer call was egregious, but they were timely and stacked up, and I thought I saw two blatant Saints holds, one on the Colston TD that took them from 21 to 27, and then one on our gunner on an unremarkable punt return. Mike Carey’s crew were definitely off their game, though. Except for the “re-establishment clause” that took Lawyer’s recovery away of course, hey, that’s tricky to keep in mind there, right.
Anyway, glad to see the good perspective. I am all kinds of excited about what’s happened these past 2 weeks.
Hey, the worst is over! Whatever FO & Burke says about our schedule, it has not been a cakewalk. Maybe for New York or New England it would be, but easy to beat teams like Denver and Chicago still have the potential to break a game open. They & Arizona might have played abysmally in a lot of games, but in others they have actually played really well. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on the effects of a really bad game? It’s only 1/16th of the season but a dramatic outlier can really skew an average.
This damn team still has the potential to win only one more the rest of the year, but they also have a lot more potential to win 5 and only drop one more the rest of the way. I say 2, and we’ll look better than 9-7 as we enter the playoffs, but anyway, this season has never been as exciting as it is now.
Frack yeah!
Gorram it.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
There is definitely not a NN vibe here...
if the Saints guys do a “Morning Aftermath” they won’t have a lot of fodder from here…
Oh yeah better do my part.
Brees! Colston! No holding penalty!

Mike Carey loves calling defensive holding and offensive pass interference so much, he wants to take those penalties back behind the middle school and tell them to wait for it. And then get them pregnant.
by jacobstevens on Nov 21, 2010 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
Is there a prevailing opinion on why Leon's snaps are nonexistent?
The way this depth chart is being managed by Pete, I’m surprised we aren’t seeing MUCH more of him
Dunno, but since the fumbles have us talking about Lynch,
I don’t care about the fumbles, I’ve been feeling for a couple games now, that Lynch wastes too much time and energy on BeefMoeing around with defenders. I now the run blocking is sub par, but Maurice Morris would have twice the yardage.
The blocking is bad. If anyone ever sees Lynch on a very good offense with good run blocing, he may be quite a bit different. I don’t think it’s a linear scale for every RB, from abysmal lines to HOF Dallas Cowboy lines. I think Lynch’s is likely steeper than some RBs. He could be awesome. His rarely getting anywhere is still mostly the fault of the line. But he’s not doing them any favors, either.
by jacobstevens on Nov 22, 2010 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
The guy looks lost and confused once he gets 5 yards out.
Unless someone’s on his back.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I also disagree with your last sentence.
He’s repeatedly turned blown blocks and TFLs into 1-2 yard gains.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I'm with you.
I’m really excited that Lynch is a Hawk. But there were some plays where I was screaming “RUN!” at the TV. He dances around too much. I swear I saw a play were there was a defender 5 yards in front him and he just froze and got hit from the back. He had a wide effin empty space in front of him. I think he’s so used to having no space that when he seen all that free room he froze up. He needs to fix that.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 22, 2010 12:56 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
The guy pretty much snapped his lower leg in two last season and he's a ridiculously good
kick and punt returner. No sense in exposing him anymore to a potential injury.
Perhaps some lingering concern over last season's leg injury.
They might be limiting him to kick returns just to ensure he stays healthy.
QB situation
I think the Hawks are poised to make a huge move this off season for a younger QB. That doesn’t mean Hass won’t start in 2011, or at least compete for the position, but I do believe we are going to see a blockbuster deal to get us a young QB. Now, who will that be? Maybe go back to the table for Kevin Kolb? Perhaps trading up in the draft?
I would not be shocked at all, if PC and JS fell in love with a guy like Andrew Luck, and take the approach of “we have to get him,” and subsequently do “what they need to do” to get that guy in Seattle.
There have been a lot of good points about PC knowing the importance of a franchise QB, and yes, he can’t simply recruit them, but I would bet anything that he would be willing to give up the farm, to get “his” guy.
Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns?
This may sound crazy, but I honestly would have no qualms about trading this year’s and next year’s first to get Andrew Luck. Steep price for an uproven guy, but it really is getting tougher to find QBs in this era of garbage spread offenses in college football.
I can see us swinging a deal with the Bills
They might be happy with Fitzpatrick, and open to swapping first rounders if they aren’t intent on drafting a QB. And if they are intent on drafting a QB I could see us trading for Fitzpatrick.
The wild card here is nobody expected the Vikings to be vying for the first draft pick, and they will be drafting a QB. The Lions and Cowboys probably won’t be drafting a QB. So as long as the Vikings and the Cardinals win a couple more games there will be opportunity to get Luck or Mallet.
I just have a feeling
That they will make a huge move. I could totally see Schneider and Carroll targeting Luck as both know first hand the importance of a top notch QB. They gave up a lot for Charlie Whitehurst, so why wouldn’t they do that for a guy like Andrew Luck? I really think we will see a huge move to lock up a QB this offseason and no matter who that is, I think you will see Hass starting and depending on how the season goes, that QB could end up redshirting the entire year. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing, even if it is Luck.
I’ve been really critical of Luck because of his O-line and run game, but this kid is going to be special. He’s just got too good of tools and an even more impressive intelligence/awareness that cannot be taught. He’s big, mobile, intelligent and I could see JS and PC just eating that up.
I love Luck
But I am very hesitant to give up too many picks since this team has places where top round picks could be very valuable.
Until you have a franchise QB the other positions don't matter (as much)
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
I'd feel much better
about the Seahawks trading a king’s ransom for the QB they want than reaching for a guy just because they need one. If that means 2011 and 2012 1sts, then I’m all for it.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Luck is the only one that I would feel good about from this class.
He seems like he could be ready week one of next year. That is the only thing that would make him worth the compensation.
Luck is this year's Bradford
Blessed with a wealth of surrounding talent (including a brilliant OL and a solid run game) you don’t know how he’d fare in circumstances that weren’t ideal. As I understand it, he’s been sacked only 9 times in his college career. While Bradford has performed incredibly well this year, the questions remain for Luck. That said, there are no question-free QB prospects ever and Luck’s questions are maybe the most minor.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I feel like a big part of why Luck gets sacked so infrequently is his ability to read defenses and make checks at the line.
Yes he has a great o-line, but he should get credit for making adjustments.
I used to be uber-critical of him
and while his O-line is great, he really should get a good bit of credit for avoiding sacks. His pocket presence/mobility is unreal. It’s very Drew Brees like.
Luck takes off for yards before taking a sack.
It’s not his first instinct, but he’s deceptively fast. I’ve seen him take off for 50+ yds a couple times this season.
He’s like a young Peyton Manning under center, with wheels.
Perhaps Bradford's O-line talent
but he’s not lining up with Gresham and Demarco Murray.
That's my thought too
I’d rather actively get the guy we want, over waiting and just taking what’s available. Losing an extra first rounder would be tough, but if you end up hitting on the QB, you are set for a long time. So much freedom entering future drafts.
Mobile, big arm, ready for new and greener pastures?
He seems like the perfect reclamation project for the Pete and John.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I hadn't brought him up, but he's enticing to me...
as long as the price isn’t too high.
If the team brings him in, I’ll be excited at the potential. If they don’t, I’ll understand they didn’t see a fit and look forward to whoever they chose.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
Vince has promise,
But his low completion rate bothers me. PS Matt has taken 23 sacks this year already… ouch…
by jubelthebear on Nov 22, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't Vince just get hurt?
Season ending surgery on his throwing hand. It might not affect his availability for next year, but it can’t be a GOOD sign, that’s for sure.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
He wanted to go back in the game...
that was part of his issue with Fisher. Sounds like a change of scenery is needed, regardless of whether he can actually be a legit NFL qb or not.
You would think Pete might be interested, given how Vince had maybe the greatest singular effort in a college football game ever against Pete’s vaunted Leinhart/Bush trojans.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:23 PM PST up reply actions
Agree with drafting the guy, if possible.
Also wouldn’t be surprised if PC/JS signed someone like JaMarcus Russell to compete for the job. Word has it that he is attempting a BMW-type comeback, and if he gets his attitude right, and if he has the mental skills, it might be worth putting him through the PC try-out machine.
Nothing to lose.
Morgan, I can't wait till you take Sando's job.
Wait, then you wouldn’t be slaving away for us. Nevermind!
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
That's what BrianL is for.
His masterful way of telling people to “Simmer” would go on to become a wildly popular internet meme.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 22, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Seattle faced a team nearly New York's equal and on the road and played respectable football.
And I am proud of them for it. Now beat KC and Carolina at Qwest, lock up the West and I’m a happy camper.
John Hancock
A loss is a loss...even if it is encouraging.
I don’t see what the sense of urgency is on making the playoffs this season with Hasselbeck. The realization is, if we do or do not make the playoffs, we will probably not re-sign Hasselbeck anyway, so we should play Charlie to transition ourselves. Sticking with the short-term was Ruskell’s legacy…and here we are, living in the long-term dealing with a broken, inconsistent team. I am happy that we have surpassed last year’s win total though already!
I would say at this point it is probable that we do re-sign Matt.
I will never understand the idea that a team should discourage making the playoffs to see what they have in a 4 year 3rd stringer. If we were 3-7? Yes, then you check Charlie out. What are you telling your team if you bench your veteran leader to see what the back up can do? That is one way that teams become disfunctional. You want to set the precedent that this coach and front office will play whoever gives them the best chance to win now. Otherwise why would anyone want to play for Seattle? This is so far from Ruskells way that comparing them makes no sense.
My point is about consistency...
This team has none. Yes, we played good the last two weeks, but it seems like every week we are like going to the “Don’t mess with Hasselbeck” well after we win (or this last week when we had signs of life) . Is Hasselbeck really in the long-term plans of this team beyond this season or maybe next? At some point, especially in the pro game, the “always compete” philosophy will wear off when they do but we keep losing…
Consistency comes with experience and with time
This is a new team, still adjusting to new schemes and personnel. It is too much to expect this team to be both very good and very consistent.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
I would think this would hurt Charlie more than Matt...
Because the rest of the division are going with new QB’s going forward, and Charlie, if he panned out, would be conceivably one year behind…so winning this year wouldn’t mean much for the future if Hasselbeck wasn’t in the long-term plans.
Performing well this season hurts draft stock but it improves the organization's ability to attract free agent talent.
And really, the team is in a very realistic playoff hunt. Pete Carroll and the front office cannot possibly justify benching Matt (who like it or not is the best QB on the roster) in the name of transition, especially given that he has looked better since coming back from injury.
If a few weeks goes by and it becomes apparent that the last two weeks was an aberration and Matt goes back to replacement-level performance, yeah you can consider starting Whitehurst instead. Right now though, I don’t think you can get away with it.
And not only all FAs, but specifically our FAs
A losing season makes it more difficult for us to re-sign Mebane and Hawthorne, BMW and Spencer. If we want these guys to come back next year, we’re either going to have to show them a boatload of cash or demonstrate that they’re a valued part of a competitive and winning team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 12:49 PM PST up reply actions
The FO isn't depending on Charlie to that extent
The day they announced he was a Seahawk they said that they wouldn’t rule out drafting a 1st-round QB. I think its likely we’ll draft a QB in 2011 and maybe one with a high pick. Charlie is a guy they like at QB, but it looks like he’s not ready to start and I don’t think they think he’s good enough to bet the franchise on.
I think the bigger issue with playing a developmental QB just to try to get him some reps is that there are 52 other guys on the team who will become disillusioned, burn-out and upset that the team isn’t fielding the best guy at QB. Pete is trying to change the culture of the locker room and a series of uncompetitive seasons isn’t going to help things. If players don’t think the team is trying to win, the players will perform poorly, will fall into bad habits and be less likely to re-sign with the team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
You make good points Humongous!
I just want to see us win long-term, that’s all. I can see us as a major player in the FA market since we don’t have a lot of money locked up in high priced players.
Humongous, let me ask you something about that then...
why was Holmgren, when he “attempted to change the culture” able to do so with a young struggling unproven Matt Hasselbeck back in 2001?
Why does Pete have to win with a vet when Holmgren was able to win with a former SB winning qb who was, at that moment in time, slightly better than young Hasselbeck, on the bench? Or perhaps who is playing QB may not be such a culture critical thing.
Or, as I’ve eluded to in a couple places here in this post, when you have a long term vet of the team, he automatically commands extra attention and you can’t simply “bench him” like you can a relative newcomer to the team. Therefore although he may or may not bring anything TO the culture, not playing him takes AWAY from the culture, as long as he’s on the team. And that’s why I just don’t ever see us moving forward, until number 8 no longer suits up…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
Pete wants to play the best guys he can
Right now, Matt is looking like the best guy behind center.
Pete is very different from Holmgren, who played guys he trusted, maybe when the play on the field dictated it. Holmgren spent a lot to get Matt and trusted in Matt in a way that Pete probably doesn’t trust Charlie. While Holmgren had faith in Matt, Pete probably has hope in Charlie.
I don’t know what lessons you want to learn from the 2001 situation but any parallels are very shallow. The coaches are very different, the QBs are very different, the coach-QB dynamics are very different and the states of the team are very different.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
*maybe when the play on the field didn't dictate it
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
No, makes some sense.
Wanted to see where you were gonna go with that. I like the hope/faith comparable, interesting take there.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
There wasn't much winning going on in 02, which is why Holmgren was forced to bench Hasselbeck
and then nearly lost his job in the offseason before giving up his GM title.
True as well.
Though I’m hesitant to call the current endeavor “winning”… in comparison to ’01, perhaps. But in comparison to really winning, no so much.
Not that I wont take it, nor do I prefer losing or want to throw games for a pick or anything like that mind you…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
This argument made sense when Matt was playing poorly.
But at this point I think theres as much to gain by seeing if Hasselbeck can keep this up as there is to seeing what they have in Whitehurst. Whoever the Seahawks draft is the future of this team, not Charlie. If Matt can continue to play well then he’d be just as good of a fill in next season as Charlie would be.
Yeah. We're still on a bridge with Charlie.
by jacobstevens on Nov 22, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I see what you did there.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
Except that rare is the time an experienced vet gives way willingly to the new kid, and a seamless transition occurs.
Because if he’s just as good a fill in next year, why not the year after, and the year after that. I mean, hell, the kid might only go 6-10 instead of 9-7, but Matt could go 9-7 and get us into the playoffs, and as long as you’re in the playoffs, you’ve got a chance.
Then the next year after that, well, the kid is unproven, but Matt, he just showed he can get us to the playoffs at 9-7, and, well, we need that vet leadership. He’s cagey, man! Pretty soon the kid is a faded busted prospect and we’ve fulfilled the perfect median line of mediocrity in today’s NFL.
HOLY SHIT.
I just realized a terrible thing. I might actually WANT the NFL to lockout next year. Might be the only way we ever get rid of Hasselbeck’s averageness and mediocrity and fully engage in the quest for something next with a higher ceiling.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
It really sounds like you think Pete and John are idiots
or hopelessly sentimental. History has shown us the opposite.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
Not at all.
I just think the tendency to hold on to the warrior’s spirit in QB helps muddle the mind of a coach, making them hold on, nearly always at least one year too long.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
I think Pete and John started looking for a Matt's replacement last year
We already know that they asked about Kolb, talked about drafting a QB early and ended up trading for Whitehurst. While Matt is starting now, this probably has more to do with Charlie not being ready enough rather than Matt’s animal magnetism. No matter how Matt ends the season, I think the QB has to be on the top of Scheider’s to-do list for the offseason.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
Jesus I hope so.
And not clipboard jesus… necessarily.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
Favre, Brees, Bledsoe, McNabb, Montana, Delhomme, Plummer, Garcia
All established vets that handed over to younger players. I get what you’re saying, but you’re taking an absolute worst case scenario approach to this.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 22, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Quite similar, in fact, to Whiskey's doomsday scenario regarding San Francisco
Who just got shut out by Tampa Bay, and are all but eliminated from postseason contention.
Sometimes things that are NOT the worst case scenario happen!
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
I'm pleased to be wrong on San Fran.
But don’t use Favre as a “successful mentor” example. Aaron Rodgers succeeded in spite of Favre in front of him, not because Favre mentored him.
The same goes for Montana and Young.
Just because a franchise has two great QB’s in a row doesn’t mean the older one mentored the younger…
cum hoc ergo propter hoc — correlation does not imply causation.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:33 PM PST up reply actions
Seriously, HititHere, I am THRILLED to be wrong there.
I wanted to address that somewhere, and I appreciate you calling it out on this thread. But… doesn’t make me feel any better about having to play TB @ TB either. They worry me, and I’m a tad jealous of a team that completely rebuilds using a ton of young players/rookies and seems to have already put the next evolution of their team in place.
I hope our methodology shows as much success in year 2 of the Carroll era.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
(as much long term success... I realize short term we may make the playoffs while they sit home, but that's a division thing more than a team talent/direction thing, in my book.)
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
I am also glad you were wrong!
But likewise, I am not looking forward to playing TB in TB either. I only hope we can scratch out enough other wins to ensure it’s not a must-win game.
Being able to win on the road sure would be nice. That would help with our long-term success, as you say below… getting to the playoffs is very exciting, but unless we can beat decent teams on the road, getting deep into the playoffs is pretty much impossible.
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
Tough loss guys
I thought you played well. Hasselbeck’s been good the last couple of weeks. Best of luck to you going forward, maybe we’ll see each other again in the playoffs.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
They left out the redzone offense part, but this was oddly prophetic
Deeper scouting says: The return of Russell Okung could lead to a resurgent performance by Matt Hasselbeck. Seattle needs to spread the field and test the Saints banged up secondary and linebacker corps, and if Matt has time and can distribute to four and five receivers, Seattle should be able to score and at least keep this close.
Hass played so good.
Whitehurst will continue to ride the bench….sorry haters.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Why do you care what I do?
Just ignore me if you don’t like my opinion.
Matt played like his bald head was on fire. And I loved it.
Yet still people try to make him out to be the problem, he’s not the reason we’ve lost 5 games.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
by RolloTomasi on Nov 22, 2010 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
with a broken wrist no less.
Big heart in that old man.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
by RolloTomasi on Nov 22, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
BrianL is a moderater.
His job is quality control basically and he’s trusted with directly helping make the community better. He’s not an unreasonable guy, you might heed him.
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I'm gonna state my opinion.
If he needs to ban me that’s on him.
Nothing I’ve said is out of line, and I wont change my tune.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Jesus, what has your panties in a bunch?
Why does this site always get negative and combative whenever we have a loss? Just look at this thread. We are in freaking playoff contention when I wasn’t sure if we would win a damn game this year.
"That's fuckin' ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It's a Swiss fuckin' watch. "
by the other side on Nov 22, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
I'm happy
everyone else seems to have a problem with my Hass love.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
I don't have a problem with anyone's player love.
Unless it’s Julius Jones or Albert Haynesworth. Fuck those guys.
"That's fuckin' ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It's a Swiss fuckin' watch. "
by the other side on Nov 22, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
or vick
he likes to kill dogs…..that aint cool.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Your opinion is fine, but you don't need to call people "haters" or any other name.
That’s really the only problem.
You're not going to find many, if any, Hasselbeck "haters" here.
What you will find are a lot of people who want to see the Seahawks win, and earlier in the season, Hasselbeck was playing like a wet fart. Of course people were going to want to see what Clipboard Jesus had going. Fortunately enough, Hasselbeck has elevated his play over the last few games and Whitehurst is (very hopefully) learning from him.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 22, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions
That said
There are comments in this very thread suggesting that Matt is playing poorly overall, isn’t throwing any long passes, faced a cupcake defense and is the main reason why the team didn’t win.
I don’t know if all of these comments are driven by “hate”, but you really have to bend over backwards to try to argue that Matt isn’t performing well right now.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
egg-zack-lee
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
His current play should not halt our planning for the future though.
This team needs a long term QB. That hasn’t changed.
"That's fuckin' ingenious, if I understand it correctly. It's a Swiss fuckin' watch. "
by the other side on Nov 22, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
Hass can mentor our future QB (either TD Jesus or draft pick #?)
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Again, this "mentor" philosophy.
Maybe football is completely different than basketball and baseball, both of which I coached and played at levels beyond high school.
But I NEVER saw a player “mentor” another player more effectively than did a coach. Players play. Coaches should mentor. Hire the right OC, the right QB coach, and leave the coaching/mentoring to them.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
I'm also doubtful of the athlete-mentor phenomenon
I think it happens on rare occasions but its not something you can depend on. Matt seems like a nice guy, an effective communicator and relatively smart, but there’s no evidence he’s done much to boost the prospects of developmental QBs on the team in the past (or at least been effective in doing so).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know why I held that same belief.
Seems like Bradford and Stafford are off to good starts without the hand-off/tutelage of the established vet.
I wonder if it’s just player speak when guys give credit to the help they got from watching the guy they replaced.
If I'm going to root for an all-tools QB starting for my Seahawks it better be Jake Locker.
by The Manchild on Nov 22, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Except for the fact that
Stafford can’t stay on the field.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
He would if he had a savy vet tutoring him though.......
If I'm going to root for an all-tools QB starting for my Seahawks it better be Jake Locker.
by The Manchild on Nov 22, 2010 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
He needs a decent O-line
but alas it’s Detroit
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Lots of Pro QB's have talked about it.
Tom Bardy has talked about Bledso helping him alongthe way durring the 2001 playoffs.
Kurt Warner said similar things about whatshisname (Mr head injury)
I’ll take their word on it.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Its not that it doesn't happen at all
I just question whether it happens in a dependable fashion (such that we could expect Hasselbeck to fill that role just by having him on the roster).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
It's worth a shot.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
I don't think its worth being the only reason to keep a player on the roster
If Matt’s playing fine or is okay as a backup, I’m happy to keep him around. If we’re just holding on to him as a coach-in-uniform because he’s clearly done as a player, I don’t think he’s worth the roster spot.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
But Matt has some tread on his tires still….I mean Jesus, Kitna is still slinging it.
"From the womb to the tomb, spit sick lyrics like MF Doom"
Semper Fi'
Pain don't hurt...
Too bad Peyton didn't have a savvy vet to mentor him.
He coulda really been a player.
Phillip Rivers turned out pretty well, as did Aaron Rodgers, but as I recall, their dynamics with the older starter were tenuous at best.
Because lots of QB’s have talked about the benefit doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong, nor that you can expect it to work, or to not. It may, given the right context, and I would assume given his tools and ability to vocalize his thoughts, that Matt would be better than most.
But that doesn’t mean we can expect it, set up for it, nor that the dynamic would work in Seattle given his past and his competitive spirit of still thinking he’s the guy that can lead the team forward. My hunch is he would be best as the savvy vet mentor in another franchise’s city.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't bring Hasselbeck back to be a backup
I’d agree with Whiskey there that thats only asking for trouble. If Matt can continue to play well for the rest of the year and the Hawks want a fill in starter for next season, and barring something whacky they’re going to need a fill in starter, then I’d be ok with bringing him back.
But if all you want is for him to be a backup there are other quarterbacks that would give a young QB a better shot than Matt would.
Aaron RoDgers...
damn alternative spellings…
This from a Jim Trotter SI article when Rodgers was finally handed the keys...
“Rodgers has displayed tremendous poise throughout his career, dating to that 2005 draft. He was projected in many mocks to go No. 1 overall, but wound up free-falling to No. 24. As if that weren’t painful enough, his arrival did not get Favre’s stamp of approval. Favre felt the team could have used the pick on other areas of need, and early on he gave Rodgers the cold shoulder, saying on one occasion that it wasn’t his job to mentor understudies.
Rodgers never groused. He went about his business, working and studying to get better. He showed Favre the ultimate respect this morning by declining through his agent to speak about his ascension to the starting lineup until after Favre has spoken publicly about his retirement."
That’s about as far as anyone would go in ’08 speaking poorly of Favre (my times have changed) and about as nice a way as you can think of to say “Brett Favre was a dick to Rodgers.”
Incidentally, that was the first thing that popped up when I googled “Aaron Rodgers Brett Favre mentor”
Mentor fail.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
Conversely, I think he had a good relationship with Hasselbeck
Though I’m not sure if that lead to an real improvements in Matt’s play.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
Oops. Hazbro24 beat me by a few seconds.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
True
and it was also probably before Favre was getting frustrated with GB not building enough around him.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
True.
But Hasselbeck was also not a threat to Favre. Matt was a 6th round pick when Favre was relatively young, and playing at MVP type levels.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:49 PM PST up reply actions
Good reasoning... I guess I should have been a bit more liberal with the sarcasm...
For the record: I don’t believe that Favre literally tutored/mentored/learned/whatever Aaron Rodgers to be the QB that he is today… In fact, there may be evidence to suggest that Rodgers learned more of what NOT to do from watching various aspects of Favre’s dwindling career in GB.
by dassler10 on Nov 22, 2010 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
*like*
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 7:18 PM PST up reply actions
How about a scale button.
Rec/Like with a 1-5 rating… see if comments pick up points instead of rec’s?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions
I could see a line of stars on each comment
With people competing for five star comments.Lots, lots of trolling.
Nailed it.
I think Hass would be concentrating on being the starting QB and have little time for mentoring.
Would like to see Zorn back as QB coach though.
egg-zack-lee
Even if he continues playing at the current level, we can’t expect him to play 16 (or 19) games per year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 22, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
It's the same people on here with the same tired rhetoric though.
There are a few people that I just stopped reading posts from and it has increased my ability to enjoy the blog again. It’s amazing actually. It’s kind of annoying to scan to the bottom of the post to see who authored it but it’s well worth the time.
It makes me wonder if a certain percentage of people simply can’t just enjoy the game unless it supports every belief they had about each player going into the game. I like that about sports. Players can surprise you.
Obo- good surprise
Marshawn- bad surprise
If I'm going to root for an all-tools QB starting for my Seahawks it better be Jake Locker.
by The Manchild on Nov 22, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
I hope you aren't referring to me, and if you are I think that's unfortunate.
This entire subthread, not just you uniquely.
I absolutely do NOT hate Hasselbeck, I’m an intense and supportive Hawk supporter. To the point of awkwardness given the 4 years I lived in Bronco country… yesterday I was the same as everyone else, cautiously optimistic. But the Saints were too good, and a big reason why is their QB being among the best in the game. There was a time, around 2005-2007, when I would go to the hilt with any fan of any team in the league and explain why Matt was a top5 NFL QB. Those days are long past, but I do long for a new day when I can look at my QB and know he’s among the best in the game. You could even say I’m driven to see that day, and what I mean by that is I’m so driven to see us elevate beyond the mediocrity that I’m willing to take a sideways or even a slow backward step or two or three in order to be able to sprint forward 5 or 10 steps.
Do not mistake my perception here for being negative, or expressing “tired rhetoric,” as I assure you I am spirited by these conversations, and I hope others are as well, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum.
I learn from the other perspectives here, and amend my perception as well. And every game I do the same thing, and every game I hope we can somehow look like natural born world beaters out there.
But I am not okay with mediocrity in a league that is designed to have parity. I want more, and I want it instantly. I want the now, and I want the future both at once. The day I’m pleasantly surprised by Matt and we win, I’m a happy camper enjoying the win. But we didn’t win, and I’m most certainly not cool with an offense that is crappy in the red zone while many are celebrating the quality play of the QB.
He goes 3-3 on red zone attempts, I’m a thrilled puppy— regardless of how many yards he puts up, or if all three scores are on the ground, if he is 22 or 42 years old. I don’t care. I just want a team that can put the fucking ball in the endzone, and if we can’t, I’m putting more than the lion’s share of blame on the QB— the same QB everyone is celebrating as having a resurgence. A resurgence in which his team is 1-1 and in the loss, had a 33% red zone conversion percentage. I have a problem with that, and I apologize if that sounds like the same tired rhetoric.
Losing fucking sucks.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions
Understood.
Blame needs to go somewhere. I put it on the QB and his limitations. Others put it on the playbook. Impossible for us to tell which is more at fault.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
Pete Carroll chimed in on the debate today, for what it's worth
In his Monday conference, he cited woes in red zone as a result of the Seahawks inability to run, and have that be a legitimate threat inside the 20. Those back-to-back draws (trying to run off the pass threat) back up that the coach’s believe this is the main issue.
Well, we've well established that we can't run it in.
Roll Matt out and let him chuck it. It can’t be worse than the 0% at the goal line we’ve got going now.
Yeah, it can.
At least run-fail = 3 point FG.
Roll out fail might = interception, zero points. And Matt has definitely thrown a few of those red zone head scratching INT’s the last 14 months or so.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
Except those fumbles weren't in the red zone.
And one was from a Hasselbeck dink-down pass not a run.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely agreed.
The one the officials didn’t stop play when he was stopped moreso. Seems we never get a call go our way, be it legitimate or simply perception.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, but we gotta play to win.
So doing something we know won’t work = kicking a field goal on 1st down from the 5.
Run the pistol, a fade to BMW, anything. Because getting stuffed at the 1 is getting old.
I agree.
But I am starting to think it is the fact that Bates doesn’t trust Hasselbeck to capably throw the fade…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 22, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions
Penalties have been our undoing as well.
LOCKLEAR! Grrr..
This wooden soul of mine, it cannot ever climb from places it has fallen: In between where light can shine. It never falls in line, it barely has a spine, like branches severed from the vine. Like it was faulty by design.
I guess my question for you is when does it stop....or even take a break?
Everyone has heard your opinion. Many times over. You are good at putting different dressing on it, but it is the same salad.
You are not changing anyone’s mind. Minds were not changed when Matt was playing terrible and Charlie hadn’t played. They are not changing now that Charlie played as poorly or worse than some expected and Matt is playing better than most expected. The fact that you can nit-pick his performance and (mistakenly IMO) believe that we can’t score in the Red Zone because of him (and conveniently ignore the fact that not being able to run the ball allows the defense to flood the endzone with pass defenders) doesn’t mean that your negativity is enjoyable.
I’m not saying you are wrong about Matt not being the future. It just appears you refuse to enjoy the present even when he plays well. It appears (to me) that you do that to prevent being “wrong” with all your previous ranting and raving.
If I'm going to root for an all-tools QB starting for my Seahawks it better be Jake Locker.
by The Manchild on Nov 24, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

by 



































