Postgame: Chiefs 42 - Seahawks 24
by John Morgan on Nov 28, 2010 5:12 PM PST
Email
Print
When one covers a bad team, there's an urge to look for the positive in everything. Seattle lost badly last week, but at the same time, the Seahawks netted 424 yards of total offense against a top ten ranked defense and hung with the Super Bowl champion New Orleans Saints. And "hung with" is ambiguous enough that I can write that, but it's sort of bogus.
That inclination to accentuate the positive can become habit, and soon enough I lost perspective. I thought good players on the Seahawks were NFL-good, and many are not. They are NFL-ok on a team rife with NFL-bad talent. I thought injuries could probably be weathered, but for the most part that hasn't proven true either. Seattle's rush defense has not collapsed entirely because of Red Bryant, some of it is a big step up in quality of opponent, but it's suffered and suffered badly. There was a contradiction there to begin with. How can a player be good and simultaneously replaceable?
The more one becomes gut-invested in something, the less clearly they see it for it what it is, and though I have made a point to say Seattle is not a good team, is in fact a bad team, I don't think I've always recognized where and why they're bad.
For instance, at what point do we wonder aloud if Marcus Trufant is a capable corner? Yes, he's often facing the opponent's top receiver, but that's his job. That is why Tru is signed to a six-year, $50.2 million contract. He's supposed to run with the big dogs. And he hasn't. Against New York, he was burned by Steve Smith and Hakeem Nicks. Dwayne Bowe is electric, for sure, but he's not unstoppable. He was today. We know Kelly Jennings is bad, but which Seahawks corner is good? And I don't mean relatively good. I mean, makes plays, performs, shows up against the good and the bad, good. The standard we would hold any other corner to.
Or, how about this linebacker corps? Kansas City ran wild against around the edges, and though the Leo package contributes, the linebackers have to step up. That's the trade off. Seattle was supposed to have the talent to contain rushes on the edge, but not today.
This was the line going into the half: 4, 0, 3, 23 (Cassel), 4, 27, 12, 2, 7, 0, 4
And runs listed as "end" in the second half: 8, 5, 6, 29, 2, 10, 16
That's backyard football. Seattle looked like Portland State playing the Ducks.
I certainly have defended the defensive brain trust, even if I was dubious about the Leo package, and went a long ways to champion every little thing they did right, but this defense is terrible, and we just cannot excuse Gus Bradley, Dan Quinn and Pete Carroll forever. It's not enough to occasionally craft a creative blitz or exploit a weakness. Seattle needs more young talent. It hasn't found value in undrafted free agents, and most of the young players are a lot closer to replacement-level than capable. It needs better coached talent. Some things have paid off. I love the tip drills the Seahawks emphasized in training camp, but contain, coverage when quarterbacks scramble and plays break down, zone awareness, recovering from misdirection, defending the screen -- a team can't have this many glaring and fundamental weaknesses and still compete.
And this season's grinding and rather sad run for the NFC West is beginning to grow very sour. It's between Seattle and St. Louis and St. Louis is starting a rookie quarterback. That seems like two ships passing in the night; One heading towards prosperity and the other choking out wins through fortune and hired guns. I'm wrong a lot, and the less I look into the something, the more fallible I am. I didn't watch Sam Bradford a ton because I knew Seattle would not draft him. I watched Trent Williams and Gerald McCoy and noticed that a lot, and I mean a lot, of Bradford's production at OU was created by scheme and run after the catch. My impression was that he was risky and that his ceiling isn't very high. I didn't think he couldn't be good. Eleven regular season starts later, a lot more and a lot better evidence argues Bradford is good and can be great. He's a rookie, and he's playing at a near league average level. He's blooming. He's giving St. Louis a future.
And if Bradford becomes a franchise quarterback, the NFC West will be the Rams division to lose. And while Seattle is winning today, or winning enough, the Cardinals and 49ers are establishing draft position. Think the 49ers couldn't use an elite edge rusher? Think the Cardinals couldn't use a young quarterback? Both should have top ten picks and the player of their choosing.
The Seahawks just are not good, and they're not particularly young, and I don't think the talent they need is going to fall to them. I was in the habit of finding good in everything, as best as I could and still swallow it, but things seem pretty bleak. Franchises do crumble and franchises can become mired in defeat, and this is what it looks like.
Now, that said, nothing is ever hopeless.
After week two, I said Seattle should start Charlie Whitehurst. It wasn't because I thought Whitehurst was excellent or would turn around the franchise, but because the Whitehurst scenario had more potential winning outcomes, in my opinion. If Whitehurst was terrible, then Seattle would know that they needed a young quarterback and likely be bad enough to be in a position to draft one. If Whitehurst was good or average, then Seattle would likely be a better team and have a bridge quarterback that could get them through a few seasons while the search for a franchise quarterback continued. The problem with continuing to start Matt Hasselbeck isn't that Matt is just horrible horrible horrible, though sometimes he is. It's that he's never likely to get any better. Even if Hasselbeck continued to have a strong end of the season, and today suggests otherwise, would it be prudent to re-sign him? Does he want to re-sign? And, seeing this team for what it is, why sacrifice any future potential for a better team in 2010?
When I say nothing is hopeless, it doesn't mean I think Seattle can recover this season. I've mostly lost faith in that possibility. And if a new quarterback is more than likely next year, it doesn't mean I think Seattle will be good in 2011. It means I know Seattle can be good again, and I don't believe that Carroll is a bad head coach or talent evaluator and I don't think John Schneider is a bad general manager. Maybe they are, but I don't want to assume that. I think things might get worse before they get better, but that's exactly what happened when Mike Holmgren was in charge too. Things got worse, but then things got better. Way better.
This team was not going to turn on a light and become great again, but it can become great again. We can escape the endless cycle of making the best of the bad, rationalizing consistent failure, overestimating what little good talent is on this team, and actually become a good team with good talent and good coaching again. It's that hard thing that doesn't come right away: progress. It's not that thing I've suffered and sometimes spread because I myself wanted to believe: false hope.
Game Ball
Brian Schneider
Seattle should lock this guy up to something exorbitant, because he is quite possibly the best special teams coach in the NFL. Before he coached for Seattle, he coached for Oakland and check some of the those Oakland special teams. He's an honest to God NFL talent and one of the big bright spots in a benighted season. Craig Terrill blocked a field goal and Kennard Cox blocked a punt, and though both plays proved irrelevant over the long term, both plays gave the Seahawks a stay of execution. Special teams kept Seattle in the game. Helped delay the blowout this truly was.
258 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You're right about the Cardinals drafting a young QB
Us Cardinals fans are definitely leaning towards that. But we’ve also been talking about trading for Kevin Kolb, though the Eagles are going to make him pricey.
I hope they do trade for Kolb.
Not impressed by the guy.
Unfortunately, I've lost faith in key personnel that is supposed to have a future with this team.
Lofa and Trufant appear to have hit a brick wall physically. And in Lofa’s case, it’s particularly frustrating because he’s not that old. The Tatupu that was such a force in coverage is long since gone. On the coaching front, I can’t jump off of the Gus Bradley bandwagon fast enough. His defense has lacked discipline all year, and his schemes have been lit up far too often for it just to be a talent thing.
And regardless of how the season plays out, it’s hard to get excited about the future prospects of Hasselbeck, Clemons, and Milloy.
Yes it is.
But after the mess Mora made, we were all pretty sure the next Seahawks team wasn’t to be built completely in one offseason. Those are the replacement level talents that we needed to look better than we actually are, fill some of the holes that we had, although Cole is more of an inherited hole-filler.
Unless you are saying you want only the future Seahawks to be playing right now and to lose and get draft position, I don’t have a problem with what is going on.
They built an interesting defense out of scrap parts, while adding one franchise defender (Thomas) and a couple more possible pieces of our future defense (Chancellor and Thurmond) all while trying out Clemons and moving Red to a position where he dominated.
When you look at what they actually used to build this defense, even after today I am impressed with what was done. Elite talent cannot be manufactered, but I like what we’ve seen.
Offensively, there is a lot left to be desired, but I also feel like there were real strides taken. Mike Williams, Okung, shockingly Obomanu, even Lynch, are all giving us something we didn’t have before, and the few times we’ve had Williams, Okung, and Lynch together at the same time, some good-looking offense has appeared.
I’m encouraged from what I’ve seen, we actually made a better team than a year ago, and I think it could happen again next year with another offseason for this front office.
by cashless on Nov 28, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't find this defense very interesting.
And most of what separates this team from last year’s team is age and the retirement of Kurt Warner.
by John Morgan on Nov 28, 2010 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not as it is now.
But a healthy defense with Red could have meant a very different outcome today. Probably not against the Giants.
I do think that even with him, we topped out because of the lack of good pass rush, but it showed enough for them to build with him in mind. There were games that because of the dominant run defense, we were able to pass rush a lot, and get something out of it. The more high leverage situations the defense puts an offense in, the more chances they have of making stops. As you’ve often mentioned, game situation dictates sacks more than pass rush ability.
But why choose "replacement level" players who had no fresh ceiling and are on the decline, instead of younger talent with some upside.
Vickerson… the guy from Ohio State with the video game addiction… anyone UNDER 30…
No. They chose max capability in the TODAY, trying to steal a division championship instead.
"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 28, 2010 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
Having those two cut was especially bad
when you consider how talent-poor the DT group has been on this team. Mebane is the only truly good DT we’ve had in years.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 4:30 AM PST up reply actions
I understand the angle where a coach can look at a team and decide no one without a future in the league plays.
But I don’t know how well that really works building a cohesive team. I think that the ability to win, and the “right way to play” are things that shouldn’t be ignored, and in team construction I think they are important parts.
I think it’s easy to want to go the Madden team-building route and just load up on as many unpolished, talented youngsters as you can, but how long does a team stay uncompetitive, and what kind of bad habits does that breed?
I say, take the studs you can each year, fill the rest of the roster with the best players you can and keep trying to win. Siavii has played decently well, and have you forgotten about the buy-low trade for Balmer? He’s the talented, unpolished player you’re asking about at the DT position.
I hear you.
For the record, Cincy would probably be the alternative model, and they’ve been quite competitive in a very tough division. I don’t think there is any reason we couldn’t go that route as opposed to the complete opposite, “Good guys first” mode of the Ruskell era.
Also, “take the studs you can each year” assumes there are studs, but when you walk away from the more talented less proven less established less focused guys, you lose out on more potential studs, in order to be safe and get “the best players you can to keep trying to win.”
And let’s be honest here— the Seahawks have been taking the approach of “trying to win now” with older vet low ceiling slightly higher floor guys for almost five years, and it has netted us nothing. We need a young talent infusion, not a bunch of guys who “play the game the right way” and lose.
We’re (mostly) uncompetitive now with (apparently) good habits because we took the vet route.
Lot of good it’s done us.
"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 29, 2010 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
How do we get a young talent infusion?
I think that PC inherited a team that almost universally does not resemble the type of team he wants.
I think he started with a few building blocks, the kind we’ve not even added in the past 3-4 years, and then filled in the holes. I feel like John’s position now would be more satisfied if we traded down 10 times throughout the draft so we could have young prospects at every position, but I’d rather do it this way. Take the draft we had, fill in the rest of the holes, and the next draft build some more.
BALCO has a syringe for it, I'm pretty sure.
I feel the same way, though. I feel like there is a lot to build on here even though there could very well be more loss of current good personnel. and of course good is relative.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
At least Stokley is good.
The others? Ehh.
by Coach Owens on Nov 28, 2010 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
I am still OK with Lofa and Trufant.
They both play positions that depend entirely on the defensive line, and both looked good early on when we had the full complement of defensive lineman.
I think Lofa can have a career like Urlacher… he might lose a little speed, but his smarts and improved line play will help him maintain a spot in the middle. He’ll be OK in the long run.
Trufant worries me, but the only reason I see him not on the team is because of his contract. I find it very hard to judge corners because so frequently they’re left out to dry by the lack of pass rush, and against good teams the Seahawks have had serious issues getting pressure. We definitely need to look at bring in a new corner or two, but I’d think of it as a low priority until we are sure on Thurmond.
The difference between Lofa and Urlacher
is that Urlacher was blessed with incredible physical tools. I’m not sure Lofa can afford to lose a step. And while Urlacher isn’t what he was in coverage or running sideline to sideline, he still has the size to hold up against the run. Lofa will continue to get swallowed up by blockers if the d-line doesn’t keep him clean at all times.
Yeah, I can see that.
I guess I’m just saying that we can either a) replace both Lofa and the DT in front of him or b) replace the DT in front of him and hope that Lofa pans out.
We can’t transform the entire team at once. Lofa’s a fan favourite, fairly young, and smart, I think of all the “iffy” players he’s one we should wait until the last minute to replace.
Additionally, linebackers are a little like running backs: they don’t face particularly long adaptation times from college. I’d worry more about QB, DE, DT, and OL than linebacker.
Are we even sure he's playing at a higher level than Hawthorne did in his place last season?
If Lofa’s coverage skills are a thing of the past, there’s very little to like about him. He can’t blitz and he struggles taking on blockers because of his size.
I'm not sure about anything.
I just have a hard time understanding how players can decline so quickly. If you (and others) say he’s not a good player, I’ll definitely defer to that, but my inclination is to think that his decreased performance has more to do with the lack of consistently good DT play and the middling quality of his OLB friends.
I wonder if most of the defensive players in question would look when playing with a lead or playing with less to lose
Playing from behind, or playing where you cannot give up even three points, you press.
That said, Trufant looks broken, Tatupu makes as many plays as Curry (and that is a damning statement), and Mebane is someone who needs a play maker playing next to him to shine.
Long road ahead. St. Louis may just have Elway II.
God help us.
It is what it is...
We've invested a ton in the defensive side of the ball in the Ruskell (and even Carroll) era.
I have a hard time blaming the offense when we haven’t used a first round pick on a QB, RB, or WR since 2001. The defense should be the strength of this team, and it appears to be no better/worse than our talent starved offense.
No intent to blame.
However, when Seattle wins, they play with a lead. Generally, a healthy lead. Defenses, like Indy’s, play much better with the lead then when behind.
Our defense has to play flawless to keep our offense in it.
One first down in the first 28 minutes is pretty tough on a defense.
It is what it is...
I agree with this, broadly, and wrote extensively about it some time ago
but while a lead might make this defense better, it has plenty of problems of its own.
The corollary:
Offenses also play better when they have a lead. The defense didn’t do anything to help the cause for the first half or so.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 28, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
Corollary...
nor did the offense.
Round and round we go…
Personally, I don’t think ANY defense is going to stop an offense in today’s NFL, consistently. The league has designed itself with all rules benefiting the offense. To attempt to compete by building a defense-first team is the folly of swimming against the natural current.
Fix the defense, the team will still lose.
Fix the offense, maybe the defense stands a 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 28, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I hated how Ruskell tried to make the Seahawks a defensive-oriented team.
The Seahawks were best with a high-flying, exciting offense, and just enough defense to win. Remember all the shootouts we were in?
I agree with your point. And I'm not blaming the defense or giving the offense a free pass.
But I expect more out of the side of the ball that we’ve invested the most in.
On a side note, God didn't just do a number on the Seahawks today.
He totally screwed over Stevie Johnson of the Bills, too.
I saw the press conference and he was on the verge of tears.
Poor kid.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
If there wasn't a ban on chatspeak I'd lollerskate this comment so bad.
I strongly empathize with him. Steelers, man. And the Bills; feels like 2/3rds of their best games the past several years have come in close losses.
by jacobstevens on Nov 28, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Chat speak doesn't bother me personally.
Not sure we’re going to keep up that particular prohibition. Chat speak is rarely the problem. People that use chat speak and what else they write is the problem.
Well, there's a difference between the occasional "LOL"
and something like “lollerskate.” “Lollerskate,” really? Are we 13 years old?
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 4:38 AM PST up reply actions
damn
that’s sad. Worst part is; he’s probably gonna get vilified by the more religious folks for this. But I can understand his frustration.
by jubelthebear on Nov 28, 2010 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
i agree with the linebacking corp it has most definately been a weakness.
Hawthornes position-change has been atrocious in my opinion, lofa just ain’t the same and Aaron Curry, as much as I love the guy, just isn’t making enough plays. I’m wondering if another stud D-tackle would seriously transform this D or just mask more weaknesses.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 5:48 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Well, it would only "mask more weaknesses" if the defense played better, so that sounds OK.
Very many great defenses have been built on two good defensive tackles, and I’d bet the linebackers on those teams probably wouldn’t look nearly as good on other teams.
I wonder what options are out there regarding DT’s, draft and FA.
No? I would have thought you would love the idea.
I thought I remembered you writing an article about how playing a star DT opposite Mebane would transform the defense. Obviously we need a QB, but what other position would transform the team as quickly as DT?
Oh yeah, I've wanted a DT forever, but I don't like this class and I'm not wild about taking a DT
when positions like CB, QB and DE are left unfilled.
Mmm Hmm the quality of the class is a key.
And I don’t follow enough college ball to know who’s out there. But if it’s up to finding a star DT, CB or DE I’d take DT in a second… maybe I’m just falling for that old argument that you “build from the inside out”.
That argument was constructed when NFL rules favored the run game and defense.
Now it favors the passing game.
Fix the offense first.
You might just fix the defense in the process.
"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 28, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Supposedly its a deep class for QBs, real deep for corners, and a lot of talent along the D-line this year.
Should be exciting.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 6:28 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
There's only a few QB's that I think would be successful at te NFL level or atleast have a good chance.
Luck, Locker, Mallett, and possibly Cam Newton….I think he’s all hype though. Barkley looks pretty good too. There is also a few corners that I’d love to see in Hawks blue too, such as P. Peterson and Prince. I know the talent for DEs in deep, which could possibly wait to picked up in a later round (I wish we had a 3rd). The DTs don’t excite me though, there’s just not a Suh type talent coming out. It’s almost going to come down to BPA though if were drafting in the 20’s.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Nov 28, 2010 11:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If you watch any Auburn games, Newton has skills.
He could benefit from some instruction on his footwork, but he’s got a pretty accurate, BIG arm. When you consider his mobility, he’d probably be pretty awesome in Bates’ offense.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 4:42 AM PST up reply actions
Next year is always a deep QB class
This year always sucks for QBs (beyond the top one or two). Always.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 29, 2010 7:32 PM PST up reply actions
John, what about getting Marvin Austin?
His stock has pretty much tanked after being excused from UNC’s football team, so more than likely he’d be available in the 4th (like Walter except non-injury related).
Lakers,LeBron,Yankees,Colts,Giants,Dolphins,Steelers, & Jets: These are a few of my least favorite things.
Not much for free agency by the looks of it.
Other then Mebane re-signing with us the only free agent who might be remotely excitng would be pat williams. Haloti Nugata is a free agent but I seriously doubt either of them leave there teams.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 6:02 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
If Ngata is available, and it is an uncapped year...
BREAK THE FUCKING BANK.
PAY PAY PAY for his ass. He’s like having an extra guy on the line, like you get 12 vs 11.
"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 28, 2010 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
Mmmmm....
Ngata and Mebane……
Lakers,LeBron,Yankees,Colts,Giants,Dolphins,Steelers, & Jets: These are a few of my least favorite things.
Whats up with John Carlson this year?
I know he blocks a lot but even when running routes hes not much of a factor
He's blocking a lot and even when he's running routes he isn't targeted.
On the 4th down play win the 1st quarter he was wide open and Hasselbeck opted to target a covered Tate on a jump ball.
That one was really odd
Matt completely locked on Tate and seemed to not even look at Carlson
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 28, 2010 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
This inquiry calls for a series of investigative posts.
by jacobstevens on Nov 28, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
It looked like he was running a decoy route on Baker's TD.
Very odd that they gave Baker the glamour route on that play.
Isn't he our FB with Robinson out?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 28, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
Yes but he still gets plenty of plays as TE
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 28, 2010 5:59 PM PST up reply actions
Speaking of fullbacks........
Why did we let Leonard Weaver walk?? I never understood that he wanted to stay with us.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 6:06 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Oh well good thing that whole mess turned out as good as it did.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 6:15 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I see a lot of the same cracks you all do.
I’m not in denial, and I’m not being myopic, but I’d kind of like to see what those cracks look like with a better QB on the team.
Sigh.
Agreed, 1000x’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 28, 2010 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
Gotta get a QB
And no, not a mid round project. Do what you gotta do, trade who you gotta trade to get Andrew Luck. If you have a good QB, you have a chance to win. I AM NOT SAYING HASS LOST THIS GAME, but the future hope of this team lies in having a young QB who everybody has confidence in.
The defense has struggled mightily, but I am wondering how they will perform when the offense can pick up yards and eat clock with any consistency. It has to be demoralizing to get behind knowing the offense will struggle.
All in all, there’s very little talent on this team. Obviously every position needs to be fixed, but it starts with a QB. Get your guy, then build to his strengths.
Leslie Nielsen died today.
R.I.P. Lt. Frank Drebin.
Wow.
I think it’s appropriate to make a very lame joke in his honor. Although while I’m normally resourceful at lame jokes, I have none at the moment.
by jacobstevens on Nov 28, 2010 6:09 PM PST up reply actions
A parachute not opening...
that’s a way to die. Getting caught in the gears of a combine… having your nuts bit off by a Laplander, that’s the way I wanna go!
by SmartAssCoug on Nov 29, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
Surely you can't be serious?
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
by Benne on Nov 28, 2010 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
He is serious... and don't call him Shirley
by farmer cam on Nov 28, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
You know what's scary
I had a deliberate Leslie Nielsen quote in the game thread, and now this happens. Remind me not to quote Denzel or Christian Bale for awhile.
OK but how do we all feel about our receiving corps?
Are we not wicked at the position and ready to tear a hole in the stattape continuum of the league when we get a QB, an upgraded offensive interior and right side and a running game?
Obomanu is like Steve Breaston to BMW’s Fitz. Tate, Butler and Carlson have some stepping up to do, but what great 3rd through 5th options to have!
Nothing remains static, though. That best LB corps in the league thing…ended before it began. We have to upgrade at so many positions. But man since trading DJack I’ve been so thirsty at this position, and boy is it nice to have guys who can make things happen.
Obo & BMW + our massive black holes
Unless an obvious WR talent falls to our pick in the second round, we have too many other major needs to fill to worry about drafting a WR really high. The position does need an upgrade and I’d love to have some serious top end talent there, but Obo and BMW have proven to be pretty darn good.
I’d be happy with taking a mid-late round flier or two on a high upside project WR.
I'm still very high on Tate.
The real challenge will be locking up BMW.
I don't think that will be a problem.
Carroll coached BMW, and gave him a second chance. If he goes somewhere else he’ll look like a total asshole.
I get the feeling BMW will stay.
Pete Carroll was the only guy who gave him a shot and should prove a good recruit when it comes to free agency.
7 picks for 7 quarterbacks in Draft 2011! EFF IT!
by Seatown_Sport_Head321 on Nov 28, 2010 6:18 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I still have hopes for Tate
But I think he’s more of a gadget player than a true WR in the NFL. That’s not meant to be a diss on Tate, but he’s very unique and I think you will get more out of him by not trying to force him into a conventional role. Just a thought.
I still like the Steve Smith (Carolina) comparisons.
He has the domiannt physical tools to be a #1 WR. The question is whether he has the head for the game.
He's almost perfectly matched Smith's rookie season in production so far so there's that.
Clearly his career path is also destined to follow suit.
by jacobstevens on Nov 28, 2010 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
So... what do you mean by this comment?
Are you saying that Tate is also competitive, or not?
I take it to mean that Smith is more competitive
Some guys just have a crazy drive, and Smith (although possessing some world-class tools) also brought a crazy level of competitiveness and focus to each play. Tate, not so much — not saying Tate is not competitive, but just that Smith was “special” in this regard.
I've never believed the Steve Smith comps
Not trying to be negative, but Tate @ ND never looked that explosive or fast to me. Granted, he always made big plays, but Steve Smith is/was like rubber band explosive with his movements. Tate to me is more like a RB who seems to break a lot of tackles and you don’t know how. Not really a “out run” you type of guy.
Raise your hand if you paid close enough attention to know we had a player named Jay Richardson.
- made quite an impact today. Not in a good way. Did he sign this week? I’d been extremely swamped and mostly offline this week.
Did Mebane have limited snaps in the first half or something? Maybe it was just series by series and the series he was subbed out for, by some amazing coincidence ran long. In the 2nd half it felt like he played about double the snaps of the first.
That was supposed to say,
“number 99 made quite an impact today,” but with the number symbol which I’m afraid to type again now.
by jacobstevens on Nov 28, 2010 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
Of course, then I think of that goal line play
in which Mebane and Balmer were in the back field, and Charles still scored.
I remember that.
And I think both of them got good penetration, but Charles just ran by them. I almost think the Chiefs were expecting it and used it to their advantage.
That was ug-ly
Mebane gets great penetration and looks to have a sack/TFL but misses the tackle. Balmer is a little occupied but looks to be in position to make the play (still a TFL) and just completely misses. Something(s) went horribly wrong on that play.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 28, 2010 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
Looking forward...
It’s a seniors-only board, I think, and thus very likely to change.
DE – 7
DT – 5
LB – 6
DB – 8
So, just over half of Rang’s top 50 are defensive players.
I’m hoping that perhaps Marvin Austin could be pushed down to us, perhaps in the 2nd round, as more people declare.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I am bewildered Justin Forsett
Is not used in this offense more often. This is killing me. Either Lynch or Forsett will be gone at season’s end and I’m convinced of this. It’s probably going to be the latter.
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
Why do you think they will both be gone?
They seem to compliment each other well, and their camaraderie is a good thing for morale.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 4:45 AM PST up reply actions
I said one of them will be gone
Unless Bates figures out how to work them into the system properly.
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
I doubt either of them will be released.
Of course, I also wrongly predicted the departure of Kelly Jennings, Colin Cole, and Craig Terrill.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 7:18 AM PST up reply actions
I still don't understand why Terrill was playing Sunday and Vickerson isn't on the team
Must be “attitude/buy-in”-related, as Vickerson seemed to have a very strong preseason, so much so that John and others were thinking he was going to replace Cole as the starter next to Mebane.
Pitts and Hamilton had durability issues
Must’ve been something else. He seems to be holding up fine in Denver, though i have no idea how well he’s playing.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 29, 2010 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
I keep bitching and moaning about bad starts at home
So I might as well (off the top of my head) just list the starts we get off to since…2009:
2009
vs. STL – Three first quarter turnovers, W 28-0.
vs. CHI – Julius Jones TD to make it 7-0, L 25-19.
vs. JAC – Field goals in the first. W 41-0.
vs. ARI – DeHaven’d. L 27-3.
vs. DET – Captain Checkdown is born and Seattle is 17-0 down. W 32-20.
vs. SF – Curry bites on an Alex Smith play-action. 7-0 SF in the 1st. W 20-17.
vs. TB – Mora loses the team. L 24-7.
vs. TEN – Down 7-0 right off the bat. L 17-13.
2010
vs. SF – Hasselception. W 31-6
vs. SD – Scoreless first quarter. W 27-20.
vs. ARI – Can’t score from the 1, lead 3-0 after 1. W 22-10.
vs. NYG – You know what happened. L 41-0.
vs. KC – Special teams delays the blowout. L 42-24.
And since for the most part we know Seattle never gets off to quick starts on the road this team is putting itself in difficult situations over and over again, or in last year’s game against Chicago, refusing to put the game away.
I suffer from IBS, otherwise known as "Influx of Billick Syndrome".
Draft position
Is not that simply advantageous. The salaries for the top picks are insane. I wonder if there is much correlation between draft pos. And winning… Doesn’t seem like it.
I understand why you wrote this John but it seems a bit drastic to me.
I think we talked about the depth at defensive end earlier this year but watching the last two games Seahawks defensive ends have shown a lack of ability to control and shorten the edges. All of those outside runs it seemed like the chiefs were running with two blockers in front of the runner. Red Bryant I believe makes a huge difference on how the concepts of this defense is supposed to work.
by Joshua Kasparek on Nov 28, 2010 10:48 PM PST reply actions
Kicked in the Stomach
As a long time season ticket holder, this game feels like a kick in the stomach. By the coaches and players. I can’t blame individual players because the team as a whole played like they either gave up or they were inadequately prepared. Uh, well, I can blame one guy: Kelly Jennings. I have seen him beat on plays too many times.
Someone here said Trufant looks like he is broken. Looks that way to me too. Tatupu is playing a different system and he also is coming off a torn pectoral muscle, so I have to see how he does over a couple of seasons post injury.
“Rome wasn’t built in a day”. I was hoping the team would win no more than 6 games so they could get a good position in the draft. It looks like that wish is coming to fruition. But they could at least put up a fight in these losses, and today they dropped passes and allowed the opponent to run all over them. This year is just the beginning, and I do see this as a major rebuilt, and therefore it will take years, not months, to get the great big ocean liner turned around. I don’t see any good QB solutions in this draft. Locker would be nice to get, though.
Always start and end your day with a smile, and just for today, do something for someone else and don't tell anyone about it.
by Fuster Beeshit on Nov 28, 2010 11:25 PM PST reply actions
You don't see any good QB solutions other than Locker?
I don’t think you’re paying enough attention.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 4:46 AM PST up reply actions
It was a bit painful to watch
But there was so much to question this game, from the playcalling to the choices made by the players, not even sure what to think, maybe I need some sleep.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Probably the poorest game the coaches have called
which affirms to myself that I’ve liked the coaches. Big question mark on Bradley, though. But that in turn is a question mark on Carroll; if there’s a significant scheme, gameplanning or playcalling issue, Carroll has no excuse not to be on top of it.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
I wish something would have come of working out Bobby Engram.
I bet he would have made the catches that Butler dropped.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
Butler had a really tough game
It will be interesting to see if a strong-armed QB makes him more valuable, but he looked like a bottom-tier WR out there Sunday. As someone else said, if Tate can’t beat out Butler, it doesn’t say a lot for our WR talent level. We absolutely need to lock up BMFMW for a multi-year contract, as our WR corps looks so weak without him. Stokely has been a great pickup, but is mostly a great possession/3rd-down/role-player receiver.
Butler has occasionally made some big plays (e.g. last week’s long touchdown), but I don’t know if he would beat out many other WRs for a starting role on other teams.
Also, do we have an excessive amount of almost-inbounds long pass plays over the past few years, or what? Seems like almost every other game we have a load of one-foot or both-feet-out long pass plays. Is this on bad routes from the WRs, bad throws from Matt, or what? Do other teams miss on sideline routes as often as the Hawks? Really frustrating, and seems low-percentage. I guess it may also have to do with the amount of picks Matt is throwing over the middle, leading to more sideline play calls from Bates. sigh
A strong armed QB would ABSOLUTELY make both Butler and Tate more effective.
Look at it this way— Hasselbeck seems to need his WR’s to make themselves open, because he can’t hit a narrow window to save his life. This works antithetically to Tate’s ability, as he isn’t sharp in his route running, but is talented.
Give him a qb where he can just run and catch he’ll be better off than with a guy that needs him to get open in order to throw it to him. Imagine Tate with a QB who can wing it 25 yards on a rope— Tate becomes a star.
Same goes for Butler in a lesser degree, though he is better for Matt because he is a tighter route runner. Stokely of course perfectly aligns to Matt’s need— a guy who can run tight crisp patterns clearing just enough room for Matt to hit him 8 yards out.
And YES, Matt has failed to hit a fade pattern to the sideline consistently for pretty much his entire career. It can’t be a mere coincidence that every WR who comes here happens to flow out of bounds while trying to catch 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 29, 2010 1:06 PM PST up reply actions
A strong, *accurate* QB
I just saw this (Sports Science — Drew Brees) for the first time last week. Made me sad, although it was borderline unbelievable (because we don’t have a QB anywhere near that caliber):
This team
can neither run nor stop the run, IF they make the playoffs, they will be one and done. It seems that they give up on the run far too early and then make some really stupid playcalls on offense such as that pass on 4/1.
Defense? What fucking dense?
John Hancock
Personally
I think it’d be sorta funny if we made the playoffs at 7-9, and then beat our first opponent.
Especially if it was the Rams.
Carroll could do the Mike Martz Happy Dance.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Looking at the schedule
I think it’s possible and maybe even likely that we face StL in week 17 with both teams 7-8, and the winner wins the NFC West at 8-8. Obviously there are no gimme games with these 2 teams, but hey, meaningful football in December!
I keep going back to the three-and-out after the blocked field goal.
That was kind of the season in a nutshell for me. Good play, unable to capitalize on offense. Yeah, the defense didn’t play well, but KC is the number 1 rushing team in the NFL for a reason. I kind of expected a shoot out as a result. I didn’t expect the offense to grind it’s gears so badly after seeming to really start to gel over the last 2 weeks.
Well, Hasselbeck was throwing to Stokely like he would have thrown to BMW.
Williams is a bigtime difference maker for us and pretty much the reason for the difference in this midseason Hasselbeck and that of the past 3 years. But, with Williams out Hasselbeck should have been able to adjust accordingly. It was kind of shocking how even in the 3rd quarter he really hadn’t.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
It is pretty sobering to read what a rookie (Bradford) has done with his no-name receivers
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/28364/seahawks-open-door-for-rams-in-nfc-west
We gripe a lot about our injuries over the years, and our depleted WR corps, but somehow a rookie is able to be productive with absolute no-names, after losing his #1, and #2 receivers.
Hass reverted to his typical game (of the past few years) Sunday after looking like he may have revived his career the two previous games.
You mean to tell me four years of similar results appear more true to form than two games showing otherwise?
Shocking.
"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 29, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe I want more than that?
No. I love Matt. You mistake my pragmatism and practicality for hatred.
You know what I really want—
I want, for the first time since 2005, to see Matt benched when he plays poorly. He deserved to sit his ass on the bench in the 4th quarter. If we really want to have it be about who’s playing well and most likely to get us into the playoffs, we all know Matt has bad games and good games, and when he’s having a bad one, sit him.
I wouldn’t even complain if he gets to start every game, if when he struggles, he gets benched. Just once, I’d like to see him benched for performance. Just once.
"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 29, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not punishing anyone.
I’m simply going with the “hot hand” theory, only applying it to QB.
Tell me what good did it service for the team OR Matt to have him out there in the 4th quarter.
Give Charlie those snaps.
"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 29, 2010 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
If they're going to give Charlie snaps they should let him prepare with the first team and have him start the game.
If they’re going to start Matt they shouldn’t just wait for him to screw up and then yank him. Shuffling them in and out doesn’t help Charlie and it doesn’t help the team.
Agreed to a point...
But again, how does keeping Matt in help the team?
I would love to see, if nothing else, a split in first team snaps during the week, and go ahead and start Matt, but if he isn’t kicking ass and taking names, switch QB’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 29, 2010 5:52 PM PST up reply actions
Oh no, I'm saying use a "college" type quick trigger and yank him if he starts slow.
BEFORE the game is out of reach.
Never going to happen though. This is Matt’s team, and damn the consequences in regard to next year.
Sigh.
"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 29, 2010 10:29 PM PST up reply actions
How is sitting an ineffective veteran becoming the Cardinals?
I fail to see the connect.
Or was that thinly veiled sarcasm designed to lesson my point that Hasselbeck was ineffective and yet we still avoid developing our “bridge” QB in any way shape or form (well, aside from 2nd team snaps at practice.)
"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 29, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
Leinart was struggling so they started Anderson, Anderson struggled so they started Hall, Hall struggled so they went back to Anderson.
It just becomes a cycle you can’t get out of.
But the only way out of it is to have a QB who doesn't suck
Arizona is screwed at the QB position no matter what, like Seattle.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 29, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Except now Arizona knows a little more of what they have in Max Hall
Seattle still knows little of what they have in Whitehurst (unless they do, which is why he isn’t starting)
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 29, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty sweet to think that undrafted rookie FA Max Hall got more of an opportunity than Whitehurst then, to prove himself.
"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 29, 2010 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
He'll be gone after this season regardless.
Though it would be nice to see what Clipboard Jesus can do in more than one game
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
I don't AT ALL trust that he'll be gone after this season.
He SHOULD be, but that doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.
"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 29, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
QB aside, the question of benching any starters is active and legit after this game.
Not because change for change’s sake brings results. I know there’s no where to turn even though the LBs are playing poorly, the secondary is playing poorly, the offensive line except Okung is playing poorly. I know that.
But Carroll’s core value of competition is somewhat at stake here. He did start Obomanu over Butler, and that looks like the right call. I don’t have hope that sitting some poor performing starters will yield any results, but I’m interested in what Carroll will do because whatever he will do will reflect on that competition thing and all the mantras.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
I have a strong sense that about 2 personnel changes will be coming this week.
The highlight clip of Carroll’s postgame conference sounds like he’s looking in that direction. I don’t think it will be Hasselbeck. I do think it will be Stacy Andrews and someone in the back seven.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
What happened to Roy Lewis?
Did I miss him getting hurt? He played a bunch earlier in the season but I haven’t seen him since the Raiders game.
Good question, I dunno.
I have seen him out there. He is ST team captain and I caught the beginning of the game on radio and Raible said he was there for the coin flip. I don’t know how much he’s out there, or what accounts for the difference from earlier til now.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
At what point do we start questioning the Defensive scheme
I think today is the first time I’ve ever questioned Bradley. Before I’d put it all down to injuries, an overall lack of talent (especially pass rush) and Kelly Jennings. I can’t tell you how sick I am of seeing QBs rip apart our zones on the first drive of the game and go something like 8/10. The DBs are always 3-4 yards off allowing the reception. It looks so easy for opposing QBs and they take these easy completions and get into a rhythm early. Maybe there’s too much emphasis on preventing the big play and not enough emphasis on preventing receptions. It seems to me that to play this type of Bend-don’t break D you need a prolific offense
Another thing. I don’t like the way Earl Thomas is being used. So often he is 10-15 yards deep and plays like the gatekeeper whose only purpose is to prevent big plays. With his instincts and ball skills I’d love to see him closer, and making an impact on those short to intermediate routes. I want them to let him be a playmaker! This is what he did at Texas.
I will put yesterdays schibocle of a run D down to talent- with Craig Terrill, Jay Richardson, Junior Siavii and Kentwan Balmer receiving considerable playing time. They just won’t cut it against the leagues no.1 rushing. But the DB talent is by no means awful and we should expect much better.
It's also worth noting with regards to performance of the Run D
The first half of the season, even with Red Bryant, the quality of our competition was significantly lower than the teams that have been running over us lately. Chicago, SF, Denver, San Diego, and STL are all in the bottom half of the league in rushing YPA. Oakland, NYG, and KC are objectively good at running the ball. And we gave up 239, 201, and 270 respectively against them. New Orleans is not a good running team and we were able to at least hold them to their average YPA. Our performance against Arizona, which is actually a team that’s pretty high up there, is kind of hard to explain. Luck? Derek Anderson? Regardless, it’s not that we’re not getting it done against running teams, it’s that we’re not even showing up to play.
With regards to scheme, though
I don’t think any D coordinator in the league looks at a front four involving Richardson, Siavii, or Terrill in any significant capacity and says “Boy I’d like a piece of that action”. It’s not like there’s better players inexplicably spending time on the bench, it kind of is what it is. I think overall talent level is more of a factor with this defense than anything.
Thats why I'm kind of excusing the run D and lack of pass rush
It’s those easy quick passes I have a problem with
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 29, 2010 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
I hear ya.
It drove me crazy yesterday when KC would drop back on like a 3rd and 4, and Bowe would just run across the defense to get open for an easy 5 and the first. I’m not trying to excuse Bradley, but I’m starting to wonder if we really have the personnel to be effective in any scheme.
But is the DB talent much better in San Diego, Chicago, Indianapolis.....
Even KC were playing without they’re best 2 corners and and starting safety.
Some plays were a result of poor pass rush, but a lot were quick easy completions where rush wouldn’t have made an enormous difference
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 29, 2010 6:58 AM PST up reply actions
That's a good point
I wouldn’t want to go team by team, but I think, to take your examples, the CB/LB talent in San Diego is definitely better than ours. Indy and Chicago probably not so much.
I’m pretty sure we’re real bad in Y/PA and that’s where I do start to wonder about the scheme (yep, we’re 25th with 7.6 y/pa allowed, that’s real bad). But then we’re 5th in opponent completion percentage, which even allowing for the level of QB competition to factor in the Max Halls and Derek Andersons, says that we can play some defense.
were 5th in completion percentage?
Come to think of it we did do a nice job on Cutler, Philip Rivers (1st half), so its shows that we are capable, just not consistent, which points to scheme
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 29, 2010 7:13 AM PST up reply actions
Consistency is definitely an issue
Probably both in scheme and execution. I guess our performance in road games like the Chicago and Arizona games, and even the first 3 quarters of the San Diego game lead me to believe that the scheme CAN be effective. There have been plenty of stinkers too, though. And while I think you’re completely right that that inconsistency is killing us, I’m not sure that can be put more heavily on Bradley than on the players.
It’s unfortunate that you can’t really figure out the answer without replacing the guy and putting in a new scheme. But regardless, after the defensive play the last few games, I’m ready to see something new, whether it’s within Bradley’s “scheme” or not.
Well, I am sure there is a combination of both scheme and execution
The play Sunday where Trufant was at safety on the touchdown route made me throw up in my mouth. So easy.
Clearly the pass rush was terrible and it seemed as if there were a bunch of blatant holds not called, but the zones looked so incredibly soft Sunday.
It isn’t completely clear from just the TV cameras whether they are soft by design, or whether the DBs are just not executing coverage properly, but once again, we just were abused by easy pitch-and-catch.
It is far easier for me to take when the opposition just rifles throws into coverage and the WRs make great plays that no defense could have prevented. But yesterday, I could have made some of those throws and catches. So easy.
I am losing faith in Bradley as well. I am also increasingly starting to question Bate’s continual high risk plays on 3rd and 4th down and short. I understand we may not be able to run it up the gut with our incredibly weak offensive line, but at least don’t go for a 5-10% chance long pass play, time after time.
Trufant wasn't at safety, he just had a deep zone.
What was frustrating about that play was, kind of like a touchdown in the preseason with Josh Wilson, was that Trufant was screwed no matter what. Moeaki was outrunning a linebacker to the endzone and Bowe was running free, it didn’t matter where Trufant went because he would have been leaving someone open.
Well, if true, that is just a broken scheme
Setting players up for failure is not acceptable, and must be fairly hard on morale as well.
Even when we are healthy and at full-strength, we likely do not have even average talent, but we at least need to put our guys in position to make plays.
Yep, Bradley pretty much screwed Trufant on that play.
NFL.com has a clip of it, it’s Bowe’s second touchdown. Not really sure what Tru is supposed to do there with Moeaki (I think) only slightly less open than Bowe.
I realize that our CBs have been underwhelming this year
But given how Bowe was killing us in the 1st half (and other teams all year), I am disappointed we couldn’t make any half-time adjustments (e.g. go to man/double-coverage, and make the other guys beat us).
Clearly, the success they had cramming the ball down our throats in the run game (as well as the rest of the league) opened up the passing game as well.
We got completely annihilated at home by a team that went 2-14 and 4-12 the previous two years. Hard to take.
Carroll said that because of what KC is able to do with their running game and what they do with Charles out of the backfield that they weren't able to play much man or double up Bowe.
It makes sense that they couldn’t double Bowe as much with Charles’ ability to catch the ball, but I’d never heard that a good running game can keep teams from playing man to man in the secondary.
Well, I sure messed with it a lot in Madden.
If I was running a sweep to the right, I’d motion the right side WR to the left side and force the CB to follow him. YAY! No contain!
I understand, but I disagree with him.
Remember when we clouded Steve Smith with 4 guys? That running game and this running game are two very different things, but honestly, going into the game with the innovation Carroll & his staff have shown — admittedly mostly on offense — I truly expected to see bracketing on Bowe and selling out to stop the run.
I’m also convinced it would have worked. Not won the game; can’t make up for Hasselbeck’s game. But it would have worked. Our pass rush was close enough without much blitzing that more reads could have made a big difference. It wouldn’t shut down their passing but non-Bowe receivers wouldn’t have made the same difference.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 1:01 PM PST up reply actions
I'm with you
Maybe it would have worked, maybe not, but the soft zones weren’t working, and we certainly weren’t stopping the run. We ended up taking away nothing from the Chiefs.
Bradley is not succeeding by any stretch right now. He has little talent to work with, but he isn’t even putting them in position to make plays.
If all we play is zone and sit our CBs 7 yards off the line
what was the point getting rid of Wilson? I didn’t agree with it at the time, but at least understood that he didn’t fit the scheme when we were talking about playing more physical, bump coverage at the line. All day yesterday, Jennings and Tru were starting 5-yards back, and already back-peddling before the snap.
by SmartAssCoug on Nov 29, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ughh yes, good point
I still hate the Wilson move. Jennings is our starter and we are all surprised any time he defends a pass. Ridiculous.
Lofa ended Goings season.
What a great hit…
One thing to remember, KC is a much improved team getting better every week, Bowe did NOTHING the first 4 games and is now among the league leaders at WR, and Cassel is extremely underrated given his precision play this year.
I’m not sure how to stop them, they’re designed to grind you down, and they did exactly that against our 2nd team DL, but I doubt it would be much different against our— or most other teams’— first team DL.
"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 29, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
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 29, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, like I said, 2 different running games.
Point simply being, I think it would have worked. I think it would have made a bigger difference than how we played, anyway. Selling out to stop the run and bracket Bowe definitely opens up things for their other players, but they don’t hang 42 points on us at least.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 1:21 PM PST up reply actions
I think you just end up giving up a ton of receiving yards to Charles if you do that.
But yeah, maybe that slows them down some.
Cutting down on the turnovers would have done that too.
I believe the issue with not playing man on Bowe was the CB not watching the backfield
That’s what I thought Carroll said after the game anyway. In man, the CB has eyes only on the WR, meaning that if/when Charles broke contain, the CB wouldn’t be in position to make a play. By playing zone, the CB would still peer into the backfield to read the handoff.
by SmartAssCoug on Nov 29, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Right. And the cornerbacks were definitely peering into the backfield
as receivers ran wild behind them.
It makes you wonder what things would be like had Cole and Bryant not got injured
Would things be much different?
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 29, 2010 6:49 AM PST up reply actions
I always forget that Cole is hurt
Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think much of him as a player. I personally don’t think the drop off between him and Siavii is too high, but him being hurt gives playing time to Terrill in the rotation, and that I do think is a bad thing.
And Richardson, eesh. There’s got to be a better way.
Seriously though..
Why do other shitty teams get to have a glimmer of hope and we can’t? Why do the Rams get to all of a sudden flip the switch after 5 yrs of shitty play while the Seahawks are stuck between shit and below average? It really irritates me. We can only hope that Q & PM go balls to the wall in the 2011 Draft.
Lakers,LeBron,Yankees,Colts,Giants,Dolphins,Steelers, & Jets: These are a few of my least favorite things.
Picking up an elite QB makes a huge difference.
And their defense, which has been young the last few years, is starting to come together. I realize it was probably a somewhat hypothetical question, but I answer to point out that the same can be true for the Hawks. A couple more drafts like we had this year, and I think we’ll be on the rise again like the Rams.
We had hope.
It was a pretty satisfying season for me.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
The Rams have five years of top tier draft picks
Which allowed them to re-stock their talent. They drafted well, which is key to that point. I’d say it’s less of “flipping the switch” all of a sudden, and more of things finally gelling for that team. Another year or two, and I think we’ll be in pretty good shape ourselves.
by splintrdmind on Nov 29, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Simply having top tier draft picks means nothing
The Patriots have only had 3 top-10 picks in the last 15 years. The Colts haven’t had a top-10 pick since 1999. In the last 10 years, those teams have combined for a 4-2 Super Bowl record.
The Lions, on the other hand, have had 8 top-10 picks in the last 10 years.
Two of those teams have found elite quarterbacks (one in the 1st round, one in the 6th) and have successfully developed later-round talent. The other has drafted Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers and Mike Williams (pre-version 2010).
by SmartAssCoug on Nov 29, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
Picking well. Having a good QB. We see the value in these factors.
Having top tier draft picks certainly means more than nothing, though. Not everything, but not nothing.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
I think you missed the part where I said
“They drafted well, which is key to that point”. The Pats and Colts have both drafted well over time. The Lions have not.
That said, it does become immensely easier if the elite quarterback is found, and it looks like the Rams have found a good QB in Bradford.
by splintrdmind on Nov 29, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
Now I agree with you because I have been feeling that Seattle’s poor players do not deserve the team’s jersey. Someone told me that, opinions are allowed and that it was just my opinion. Now you share the same opinion right? Meaning that anyone’s opinion can be another’s as well.
Is Michael Jordan God?
Couple thoughts...
I thought good players on the Seahawks were NFL-good, and many are not. They are NFL-ok on a team rife with NFL-bad talent…
This, to me, is the essence of the post. Seattle’s roster is not altogether talent-depleted, but the bottom of this roster is absolute dreck—well below replacement level. And some of those guys are playing major snaps.
Seattle is caught in the NFL’s personnel hell—the hell of 7-10 wins. We don’t have much top-end talent and really can’t get any. (Seattle has only 3 top-10 selections since 2000, and two of those are in the last two years.) You watch Okung play and you see the difference that top-end talent can make just being on the field.
So most of our “NFL okay” players are playing about like you’d expect—competent starters—occasionally great, but no more than that. To get out of that morass you have to get really lucky in the draft, or you have to try to build a roster with replacement-level or better talent across the board. Unless you’re awful for a long enough period to accumulate a lot of high picks you’re stuck trying to pull off the latter—the toughest way to build a roster.
That’s where Seattle is.
I think Schneider and Carroll may actually have the chops to pull it off, but it’s going to be messy and it’ll probably take a while.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Lots of teams push past that "middling" zone through excellent drafting.
Pittsburgh and Green Bay come to mind. They’re perennial playoff teams, but they still manage to get great players out of lower picks (by this I mean, lower in the first round).
This is why I’m optimistic about our long-term success. Schneider seems to me to be a very capable drafter.
This isn’t to pooh-pooh high draft picks. Certainly Okung is a valuable pick, and God knows I’d love a shot at an elite quarterback.
As much as we like to bag on the QB and Recievers
Still no run game all year. We’re dead last now in rushing offense. This team really does need a full rebuild.
It is hard to get the running game going
when a team puts 10 men on the line and challenges you to beat them over the top.
BMW17 Comeback Player of the Year and future Probowl Mainstay
Cassell seems to be good enough
He’s got a 60% completion rate and it’s the rare game where he throws for more than 250 yards. He actually looks less impressive this year than he did last year. I think the most important thing he does is not throw picks. Hasselbeck had 282 yards and a 54% completion rate in 19 minutes TOP. He accounted for more than 90% of total offense yesterday. He also accounted for 100% of our turnovers.
There are teams that are playing well with quarterbacks that are only pretty good: Jacksonville, Dallas, Tampa, Chicago. The Bills, Brocos, Texans and Titans look like they could be good even without changing quarterbacks.
Seattle has a terrible problem with depth on defense – Oakland, KC and NO scored a lot in the fourth quarter by running over our defensive line when we absolutely needed to stop them – but there is something really, really wrong with our run game that goes beyond the backs. KC is 9th in run defense, which is good but it should not be good enough to hold any team’s run game to 20 total yards.
I would like to be one of the five or so teams with an outstanding quarterback but I’d also like to see a better rotation at the defensive tackles and some run blocking interior linemen.
I would argue that Schaub is more than a QB who is "only pretty good."
He’s definitely top 15 in the league, and led the league in passing yardage last 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 29, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
What has the franchise done to hinder rebuilding aside from winning games?
People point to the young talent that was traded off, but in every case it was more to the fact that the talent in question wasn’t the perfect ‘fit’ for the roster, rather than they were trying to win now.
You can argue whether or not a player was a good fit, or a trade was a good move, but the closest thing I’ve seen to selling off our future was the Lynch trade and it wasn’t that much of an investment, and it could have payed off in the long run.
Also, with people complaining about the older journeymen on the team (Siavii, Richardson, Stokley et all) I don’t have a problem with them either. No, they’re not good. However, I’m damned sure they fill out the roster better than a half dozen UDFA’s and they make this team better—in the now. There’s value to not being putrid. There’s value to being able to drive to the Q, or flipping on TV and thinking “We have a chance.” I know for most people the goal is to win championships, plural. An absolute clunker of a season would go a long way towards that goal, however this fan appreciates the fact that the players, coaches and front office are doing everything they can do win now AND in the future. If the only way they’re shooting themselves in the foot is by winning, I’m still in.
It is certainly a balance between winning now and developing for the future
Surprisingly, though, we aren’t that young: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/19677/age-rankings-for-every-nfl-team
(granted, the range is quite tight: 25-27.33)
I think a lot of people would rather see a stronger emphasis on getting younger with raw developmental potential rather than relying on older free agents, although that would almost certainly hurt our ability to win football games in the short term.
No easy answers on this one — it is not like there are a ton of available guys with high ceilings. On the other hand, the last five weeks have shown we aren’t a viable playoff team either, even with Milloy, Stokely, Terrill, etc. But the blowouts would likely be that much worse without them, and I’m not sure how many games we win this year without Milloy, for example.
What I'm trying to say is they haven't been dumping youth.
They seem older because they signed older journeymen to fill out the roster. What are they to do, just. I can’t see the logic behind saying “No, we don’t want to pick up a journeyman like Stokley on the cheap, we’d rather pick up an undrafted free agent, or 24 year-old draft bust that was cut from another team because he flamed out to be our 4th wide reciever.”
People shouldn’t get upset that this team is adding journeymen to fill out the roster, especially when there’s a lack of quality youth out there to fill it out anyway.
by SgtSasquatch on Nov 29, 2010 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
The old guys are spackle to fill in the cracks in the roster
The problem is that there are so many cracks.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 29, 2010 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly. I would rather have my cracks filled by someone who knows what they're doing
rather than painfully by someone who doesn’t.
by SgtSasquatch on Nov 29, 2010 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
These guys don't really look like they know what they're doing.
They’ve lost all six games by an average of 22 points.
You can't fix the wall with more spackle when there's no drywall to begin with... we don't have cracks, we're missing the sheets entirely.
"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 29, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I am mostly personally agreeing with you
However, I do see the logic for the people wanting us to get younger at the same time, and perhaps give more playing time to a Golden Tate over a Brandon Stokely, or a Cameron Morrah over a Chris Baker (for example).
It isn’t black or white, and a youth/development focus would almost certainly result in fewer wins and less competitive losses (which have mostly been blowouts to begin with).
They've had younger players that should be able to play as well as some of these vets pass through here.
Barbre instead of Locklear, Wrotto instead of Pitts, Vickerson and Pitcock instead of Terrill and Siavii, Robinson instead of Losman, and Carlson and Morrah seem to be losing snaps to Baker.
One wonders what's going through the minds of the coaching staff regarding this.
I’m not justifying the use of veterans, but we know PC is all about “competition”, and if the vets are winning out the competitions than he must see some value in that. I’d guess it’s that the vets look better in practice, maybe vastly better. I can’t see any other reasoning for it.
It will be interesting to see what happens if this team really falls out of the playoff race… but of course we may not do so.
Nate, thanks for posting the evidence of that weird Trufant safety play.
You’re right, he wasn’t at safety. But now that I look again, the announcer (Gannon?) had it right, Trufant got turned around. Even that doesn’t fully explain how far out of position he gets:
Take a shot a few ticks later.
81 keeps running but Tats doesn’t. Trufant played that poorly (not a huge surprise as he’s a great cover corner, not really a zone guy) but it was a no win scenario either way.
If you take a shot a few tick earlier you’ll get to see Milloy pointing at Bowe as if to say “Hey, someone should cover him!” as he realizes he doesn’t have any help over the top.
It looks to me like the ball is out before Tatupu lets Moeki break away.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
Yep.
The ball’s already in the air when this shot is taken.
Yeah, I still think Tats is beat though.
But if Trufant plays that better Cassell’s throw is at least challenged.
I posted down here because responding to your comment clipped the pic.
They send Bowe in motion and Trufant shows man. Milloy presses him at the line and goes underneath him but can’t keep up. Tatupu had Moeki well covered.
Trufant I suppose could have been in what would effectively be safety coverage, possibly even jumping the ball if it went to Moeki. but he was well covered and since Trufant came over on Bowe’s motion I’m sure his responsibility was bracketing Bowe with Milloy.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
I gained a lot of respect for Todd Haley as a game coach.
Beyond all the yelling at the refs and his players and looking like a big jerk, he oversaw quite a game.
His challenge after the blocked field goal was pretty dumb.
Other than that I can’t really think of anything he did during the game.
I do believe that challenge netted him a few yards, no?
We got the ball on the 38, but the kick landed out of bounds somewhere past the fifty, didn’t it?
It was a little more than 10 yards
but it was first and ten, Seahawks ball either way. He was right, but it seemed pretty petty.
It was petty
Perhaps he was just so confident they would be able to roll the Seahawks that he did it on principle. If we were a more fearsome team, using his challenge on something so trivial would have had a chance to bite him later on for a play that mattered (e.g. big play / interception / touchdown). Sad.
There's also the fact that the spot and call that the ball crossed the line of scrimmage also denied a 10 yard penalty on top of the backward spot.
So it was more like 30 yards or so net.
"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 29, 2010 2:33 PM PST up reply actions
The penalty had been declined since the ball was kicked farther than the penalty would have moved them.
The penalty was from the spot of the illegal kick, not from where the ball ended up.
My bad.
"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 29, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Ten yards is one more first down needed on the way to the end zone or a field goal
In a close game, that could be the difference
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 29, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah.
If you know you’re right, make that challenge every time. It can’t hurt you. Or… can it? I get confused by the challenge rules all the time.
It might have impacted whether or not he challenges the Baker touchdown later.
Since he only had the one left, and if he had been wrong he’d be out of challenges with a chunk of game left.
And on my Tivo, Baker's knee was clearly down
with the ball on about the 1/2 yard line. And we are last in the league at short yardage, I believe:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/28420/need-a-yard-call-rams-not-seahwaks
I dunno. I think you are limited to 3 challenges a game
Given how uneven the officiating has been, I would personally not have used one for a play that doesn’t have large potential to either change momentum or the scoreboard. This challenge seems to have been over 10-20 yards, and uses up one of three potential challenges (if successful)
And I think you only get an extra challenge past two if you are successful
If you are wrong, you also lose a timeout
2 challenges, unless you win both, then you get a third.
"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 29, 2010 5:56 PM PST up reply actions
Throwing on 3rd & 1.
Not that that’s special. It works when you can run. But in other opportunities, when it’s still a game, mixing it up might be anticipated. Run. During a long 2nd half drive filled with runs, milking the clock sitting on a lead, that’s when he passes on a most-obvious running down.
The timeout called to ice Hasselbeck. We call a timeout and Carroll and Hasselbeck can’t get enough dialog in before the ref is pulling Carroll away and risking a penalty. Seemingly a timeout there would be a waste, right? KC ought to have already prepared as much as they needed to with the 30 seconds both teams got there. And why give Hasselbeck, Bates & Carroll more time?
Because they went back on the field to make an attempt with the time they had. And they showed formation and some hint of what they were going to attempt in that crucial situation. I think the psychological aspect of it was part of it. Dunno if it was effective, but very good handling of calling a timeout.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
I found the challenge after the blocked field goal to be momentum-mitigating.
He coached for the Cardinals so he’s been to Qwest regularly and he’s beneftted from the effect of Arrowhead. He paid homage to the 12th man in his post game presser. I thought it was not a bad challenge.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, exactly.
It's STILL Great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Nov 29, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions
I thought the ruling on that challenge was bullshit as were several other calls
Haley challenged that the ball had traveled past the line of scrimmage, in which case it would have been dead where it was touched. They ruled that it didn’t go beyond the LOS, but instead ruled that the runner who picked it up was down by contact before he was lost the ball. Unless they had different camera angles than we did, there was no way in hell they could tell if the runner was in control of the ball or not.
That play should never have been overturned, as there was nowhere near any evidence to tell if the guy was down or not. Maybe I’m wrong, but last time I checked kicking a loose ball is a 15 yard, Loss-of-down penalty, and not something anyone would ever decline. Also, what happens when Haley challenges for one thing and the refs see something else? He was wrong, the ball didn’t travel past the LOS, why does he win the challenge and keep his time out?
There was also the non-call against Cassel for intentional grounding right before the blocked punt. He never left the pocket, and totally threw that ball to no-one. It was obvious intentional grounding. Yet the ref comes out and says “he left the pocket and the ball got back to the LOS”. Bullshit. He never got anywhere outside the pocket, in fact he stepped up into it.
A few minutes later the next time Seattle’s offense had the ball, the refs then called intentional grounding on Matt after Stokely and Obamanu ran into each other. That call was total bullshit, and the stupid refs all got together to figure it out. How the hell does nobody see Stokely laying on the ground and then wonder if that was part of his pattern or not?
These calls were bullshit, and that officiating crew sucked. It didn’t change the outcome, but those were terrible calls.
It's a ten yard penalty
per the NFL Rules Digest. Also, when a coach throws a challenge flag the entire play is under review. A coach can ask that something specific be looked at but it’s not limited to that.
I didn't think he should have gotten that challenge, either.
But I didn’t fully understand what was being considered, and the LOS being relevant at all was confusing to me, so I ignored it.
The pair of intentional grounding incidents both were called incorrectly, and both results went against us. I didn’t really find it that egregious, though. Not like the New Orleans game.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
They were both awful
Neither call was even close. Cassel never moved anywhere near the edge of the pocket, and there was nobody within 20 yards of the throw. He was at least a yard within the hash mark, and nowhere near where the tackle started off.
On the play where Obamanu and Stokely collide, it simply boggles the mind to think that 4 officials can get together and come out with that stupid of a ruling. It was an obvious timing pattern, and there was a back judge right in front of the play! It was a terrible call. Matt wasn’t even being pressured. I don’t understand how anyone who was actually watching the game could make either call.
Haley is nothing like McDaniels. At all.
I eat nails for breakfast, tacks for snacks, and I sh*t nickel.
by SupremeChief on Nov 30, 2010 7:00 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
