Postgame: Seahawks Lose
Here's my belated Christmas present to myself: I am not writing about this game.
Use this thread to bitch, be hopeless, wonder why the hell Seattle traded for Charlie Whitehurst, use Whitehurst's apparent terribleness as a twisted semi-defense of Matt Hasselbeck, call for a coach to be fired, pin this on Tim Ruskell, slaver over Josh Freeman, wishcast the future, ask aloud how the Giants beat the living crap out of the Seahawks, remember "oh yeah, because Seattle is one of the five worst teams in the NFL," and remember too that next week is for the playoffs, because why not?
This team is bad and crumbling. This team is bad and a long, long way from being good.
443 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hasselbeck
Put together a drive. Scored a TD. Didn’t lose the game for us.
by Trojan Knight on Dec 26, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
He's tackling better.
But I only saw the first half and listen to the rest on the radio.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 26, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Hawthorne looked solid.
At this rate, he should be our starting MLB
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 5:44 PM PST up reply actions
Tats had 8 tackles, 2 assists, a sack, and a forced fumble.
Works for me.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 27, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
At least he played like a professional NFL player
Can’t say that about too many others today. Competency == Game ball.
by somethingwitty on Dec 26, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Somebody mentioned Leon in the other thread
I can get behind that.
by somethingwitty on Dec 26, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
How about Mike Singletary?
His team’s craptitude means that as awful as this team is, they could actually play a postseason game. At HOME.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll second that. Singletary gets the game ball.
Mike Singletary did more for the Seahawks’ playoff chances today than anyone else. Seriously. I think we owe him a big thank you for everything he did for us today.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 6:22 PM PST up reply actions
Or a big "FUCK YOU!" if you don't want your team to be the "going nowhere in the playoffs" team.
Plus, if they would have gotten in, then perhaps he wouldn’t have gotten fired, and we would stand a better chance in the future moving forward.
As is, I’m afraid if they hire a “real coach” we’re gonna be in trouble moving forward…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions
hey we could still be the first losing team to make the playoffs
that’s an honor we should have.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on Dec 27, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Home field means nothing
Qwest is a shell of its former self in that….the team is terrible.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I get what you're saying.
But home-field advantage is real, whether it’s Qwest, or any other stadium. Secondly, the games are still selling out, the people are still there and you can argue that this coming game is going to be the biggest game since ‘07 (’06?). We have the home-field advantage regardless of the condition of the Qwest crowd, but if anything is going to wake them up maybe this will.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
If the team is bad
It’s non-existent. They’ve had 5 double digit losses in the last two years alone.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
The Front Office... for NOT signing Blount.
And NOT drafting Mike Williams TB. I’m glad we don’t have character concerns like those guys on OUR team!
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
Also, dump Frank Okam and keep Craig Terrill!
Hell yeah, always compete!
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 5:36 PM PST up reply actions
Hey now
that blocked FG was probably the defensive highlight of the game. Dude’s a game changer….
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 26, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
yeah
Terrill may just absolutely crapolutely unequivocally suck at playing on the D-line, but that man has serious skill when it comes to blocking FG’s.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 6:58 PM PST up reply actions
When the opponent is attempting a FG
is the only time Terrill should be on the field.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
Well, why would we want a 25 year old 350 lb DT.
When we could have, instead, Ruvell Martin and Craig Terrill!!!
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
Craig Terrill plays guitar
that’s important and he went to Purdue so he’s smart – that too is important.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on Dec 27, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
LaGarret Blount
Yea, is isn’t good enough to be drafted by the Seahawks in the 7th round, we wouldn’t want him!
Nor would we give him a tryout...
nor bring him in after Tennessee let him go either.
Sigh.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
You would think Carroll would want Blount
Since Blount ran over and through his USC team last year.
My mistake, he didn't play
But he would have if he did play against him, like he did the year before. Its not like he was a stranger
He talks about travel, his colon, and of course, he implies in his commentary about how great Brett Favre's colon tastes.
Wait, not sure where credibility comes from in that…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 9:33 PM PST up reply actions
I don't care for reporters passing themselves off as experts.
King has enough contact with people that he could create content solely off of inside information. His choice to interject his own very bizarre and often unfounded opinions puts me off.
The fact that King is so close with players and coaches and gront officers tells me that he is often fed misinformation on purpose.
I don’t trust PK to filter his sources too carefully.
This is all I'm going to say about Charlie vs Matt.
At this point, they both suck. They’re both awful. They’re both replacement level or worse QBs. Neither one of them deserves to start in the NFL.
This team is bad. It’s awful. It’s so bad that I’m actually nonplussed about them having a chance to get into the playoffs.
This team needs talent everywhere. Perhaps most importantly, they need it at QB. If someone interesting is ever available to them, I hope the team signs them.
This team needs line help on both sides of the ball and a revamped secondary.
This team is awful and it’s absolutely surreal that they’re going to be playing for a playoff spot next week.
by BrianL on Dec 26, 2010 4:34 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Did someone say PLAYOFFS WOOHOOO
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 9:48 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I know this question cannot be answered in any definitive way...
but since I know your also a baseball fan…. let’s say we finish 8-8 (since we are favored in next Sunday’s game)
What sort of an expected win increase would you give by simply adding a good or great QB to this exact team? I know that there isn’t a pythagorean expectation formula for football… but if you were giving it an “eyeball test”…. what would you say?
Typo?
We’re already 6-9 so we can’t end up 8-8 even if you count playoffs.
If we win next week we finish 7-9.
I can’t say what our record would be next season if we drafted an above average to great QB. All I can say is that QB is a major issue for this team, and given that position has the biggest talent scarcity, you have to address that issue if the opportunity presents.
No question about it..
I guess the question becomes… what constitutes an opportunity. If we were to win against the Rams and ends up at 21 in the draft… it seems unlikely there would be any “money” QB’s there.
As a fan, you would love to see the improbable march through the playoffs and win a SB… but it would sacrifice our immediate future. Picking 8-12 I think gives us a far brighter future than 21.
This is scary…
wow, that whitehurst
He can sure hand the ball off like nobody’s business.
Sports and Bremertonians. Because we can.
I don't care what anyone says but this year is way worse than last year.
And 2009 was one shitty year
I know you don't care what I say, but I disagree.
Reasons:
Earl Thomas
Russell Okung
Mike Williams
Kam Chancellor
Walter Thurmond III
Red Bryant
Jon Ryan
Leon Washington
Even Golden Tate.
Last year felt hopeless to me because we were holding onto crappy players and no youth was being played. We had no idea how good any of the youth on our team was, and kept letting any youth we had leave to other teams. I have more hope now, than I did a year ago.
Last year you also had the "OMG MORA SUX" thing going...
…which actually makes you a little more hopeful because there was that chance that replacing a crap coach with a good one could have helped the team. This year we learned the sobering truth that beyond the coaching change the team was just not very talented. It’s more sobering than disappointing but I think the 2010 team is a much closer to being good team than the 2009 one was.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:43 PM PST up reply actions
Really, you thought the team might be alright but the coach sucked?
I’m not sure how many felt the same way. I didn’t see much potential at nearly any position. Nothing at safety, maybe Josh Wilson at CB, although he didn’t look like a starter. Aaron Curry and Hawthorne. Nothing on the DL past Mebane. Nothing on the OL period, not at QB, not at WR. Maybe Forsett, Owen Schmitt, and John Carlson/Morrah(who we’d seen nothing from).
Last year was pretty bleak. There is at least more potential going into next year. Also, the FO/coaching staff encouraged me at the way they were able to reclaim stalled careers at so many positions. Clemons, Red, Mike Williams, Lawyer Milloy, even Leon Washington was acquired for dirt cheap.
I am looking forward to watching the team get built with more legitimate talent as the years go by, through the draft and through taking chances on players and putting them in good positions to produce for the team.
Spencer is.
Last year good might have been a stretch, but improved would have been fair for him last year.
I did forget about him and Sims though.
Why?
We were suppose to win 3 games this year.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 26, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
Didn't expect double digit losses in 9 games though
I expected this team to improve as the season went along, not regress
by hawksfan1401 on Dec 26, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
I had us pegged for about 6 wins at the beginning of the season.
Although I do find it somewhat encouraging that the team hasn’t quit on Carroll like they did with Mora. I think there’s hope for the future here.
by splintrdmind on Dec 26, 2010 5:01 PM PST up reply actions
The uh, distant future, yah?
Assuming Q/PM hold onto their jobs that long. By the way, which one’s the Q?
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 26, 2010 5:06 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I've said for awhile now that we're 2-3 years from being good.
They had a good draft last year, another couple of good drafts, and we should be in a solid position. There’s a lot of crap that they need to clear out, and you can’t do it all in one year.
by splintrdmind on Dec 26, 2010 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
I fully agree.
And what “good” we had didn’t fit the schemes of what is going to be built.
I was wondering that too...
my only thought is that Charlie hasn’t played much in the NFL and he used to be able to outrun people in college. He’s yet to realize that players are a tad quicker at this level.
FIRE JEREMY BATES
Nah, I can’t bring myself to do it. I need to see this team for a couple more years.
....

Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 27, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Our last 10 games
3-7 record
Victories: ARI, @ARI, CAR (horrible teams, these are the only two teams with a worse DVOA than Seattle through Week 15)
Average margin of losses: 22.1 points
Lowest margin of loss: 15 points
I mean, of course we can make the playoffs by beating a pretty terrible Rams team at home.
But what if we can't?
Beating the Rams at home is not a gimme.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 6:26 PM PST up reply actions
It's far from a gimme
In this division momentum is fairly important, and St. Louis has it at the moment.
--Shrug
Field Gulls - The SBN Seattle Seahawks Blog
when it comes to the hawks, though
momentum means nothing. If we win on the road, we will make sure to suck badly the next week.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
Do you really want them to win?
At this point, I’d rather take my lumps now. I’m rooting for STL, SF, and every other 5 or 6 win team to get a W this week so we can improve our draft position.
I know we all want a QB....
but I think the worst thing you can do for a young QB is to throw him in to a position in which he cannot succeed and right now we are that situation (made even worse by a stud LT who’s ankles are evidently 110 years old)….
This team has many other positions to fill right now other than QB. We need a foundation before we get a QB. This team needs a MLB badly. This team needs another corner badly. This team need more d-linemen badly. This team needs better blockers up front.
Right now I’d address any of these needs before a QB unless Andrew Luck declares that he’s going to go become a Shaolin Monk unless he plays for the Seahawks and I am not giving that very good odds.
I don't see any reason why not to spend a high pick on a QB.
It really looks like QB is the biggest suckpoint on the offense right now.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:44 PM PST up reply actions
I don't know.
QB seems to have a long learning curve in the NFL. If we wait a few seasons to establish a foundation and then draft a QB, that foundation could be falling apart by the time that QB is hitting their prime.
See Peyton, Clausen, Bradford, McCoy,
Matt Ryan, Stafford, Freeman.
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 think that a QB give us a better shot...
at getting into shootouts at least. If we grab another o-lineman in the 2nd, that could help the games at least be closer.
by splintrdmind on Dec 26, 2010 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
Hopefully
Carroll and Schneider won’t be so stubborn and shortsighted that they stick with Whitehurst next year. The guy is terrible. Chalk it it to a mistake and move on ASAP!
They'll make a move
but it’ll be under the cover of Competition.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 7:01 PM PST up reply actions
They've shown zero faith in Whitehurst, and only signed him for two years
I don’t think moving will be a problem. It was a gamble from the start.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 26, 2010 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder if the Pete Carrol show is still on late
or if they moved it up because there’s no SNF..
by somethingwitty on Dec 26, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
SEC Championship!!!
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Bears were over confident
hibernating during the week of practice
A lot of sensationalism around these here parts
shitty season, still great for the first year of a rebuild
I'm really not interested in whether the 2008 team would beat the 2010 team at this point, though.
I’m interested in how far off the 2010 team is from being good again. In hindsight, at least, the 2008 team was as far as the 2010 team is + 2 years.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
Can't include year's before moves
It’s a whole new direction from a new Coach/GM duo. Everyone predicted 1-4 wins with abysmal talent, we’ve surpassed that and we’ve seen a lot of flashes of talent
Not winning hasn't helped the Lions or Oakland out much these last 10 years
I believe that atmosphere of winning crap, and the draft is too big of a crap shoot to root for top5 rookie contracts.
The dynasty Cowboys built themselves with the draft.
Really, one single draft.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
The one single draft is via being terrible
and having about all of the vikings picks for Herschel Walker.
Holding all the picks for two crap tastic teams.
This team has been rebuilding since at least 2008.
The disconcerting thing is that they’ve gotten dramatically worse since that point.
They had a crappy, crappy GM.
You have to get worse sometimes before you get better. In this case, you have to be such crap that you fire the guy who is making you crap.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
Three years in you'd figure that you would see at least some kind of improvement somewhere.
There’s been nothing. The team has gotten older and the talent worse.
I agree, it's frustrating.
But it’s also a new group of people working on that team. I think it’s clear now that the former regime was a load of crap. I’ll hold my frustration with Carroll and co. for if they go into this offseason dumping picks and kids for “veterans who know how to win”.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
There's been a continual focus on "winning football" ahead of rebuilding for real.
Everyone is too damn full of themselves to realize they’re in the middle of a quagmire, and the only way to truly get out of it is to really honestly go through a rebuilding process. The layers of slap on paint trying to hide the cracks in the foundation is getting fucking ridiculously old.
Holmgren and Ruskell pretended we were a couple pieces away, and Pete and John are repeating the past mistakes. Pretty frustrating really.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
I agree to an extent but Carroll did shuffle through a lot of people this offseason.
It definitely looked more like complete roster turnover than being a couple pieces away.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
True.
But almost every time, when it came to keeping a younger guy with a higher ceiling or an older guy who is a little better today, he chose today vs. tomorrow.
That was his failing, and one that I see him paying for next year in spades.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions
Again, I won't totally disagree with that.
But I think this year was a lot more about trying to figure out what on this team was good and what wasn’t than it was about installing the Carroll Attitude or what have you. I think Carroll really did want Hasselbeck, for example, to prove he still had something left (and hey, he did pass for 3000 yards despite being completely done).
It may just have been that he thought the young talent was mostly crap and he didn’t want to get what of the young talent that wasn’t to get complacent. If he’s still doing this in late 2011 or 2012 I’ll agree with you even retroactively.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
In a 16 game schedule, 3000 yards is 187 per game.
Close to 20 QB’s this year will pass that “benchmark.”
It’s just a number, means nothing in this day and age. Color me unenthused.
Trying to figure out who was good and who wasn’t? Why trade a young Sims for an old Hamilton? Why trade a young Vickerson for an old Siavii?
I do hope you are right and this isn’t a repeat script next year, and we do start to get younger and better.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
In Ruskell's first season, the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl
and after a season like Carroll and Schneider’s first season, he was more or less forced to resign.
The guy wasn’t great, but he’s quickly turning into a bogeyman to which any failure can be assigned.
Leroy Hill and Tatupu were the only Ruskell picks that played with impact on the Super Bowl team, right?
In fairness, Ruskell also signed several FAs.
Off the top of my head, Joe Jurevicius and DJ Hackett.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions
As I remember
when Ruskell was hired Hasselbeck, Jones and Alexander all at the end of their contracts, and only 1 Franchise tag available. Ruskell was able to keep all 3 cornerstone players that season, without which we never get to the Super Bowl.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 26, 2010 5:45 PM PST up reply actions
You're right
Matt’s deal and Shaun’s franchising were done the day before Ruskell was announced as GM. Jones was the week before. I’d forgotten that Mike Reinfeldt was consulting and managing the cap before we promoted him to a VP position.
by SmartAssCoug on Dec 26, 2010 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
I honestly subscribe to the idea that most GMs, like most coaches, are neither good nor bad.
But I have to say that a GM doesn’t build mediocrity into the Super Bowl in one year. Ruskell did a great job of picking out the extra players the team needed to get to that next level but in the end IMO that was his downfall as well: he didn’t have that vision to see beyond the next couple pieces he could use to patch the team together.
I think Ruskell was good for the time he was hired but he stuck around about 2 years too long.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
And of course, the defense is what everyone deemed to be the team's weakness...
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
Everyone considered us to have a bend-but-don't-break defense.
That’s just revisionist history.
by BrettJMiller on Dec 27, 2010 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
Our defense went from bad (or really bad) to above average in a single year, in 2005
That improvement was nothing to sneer at….it’s just that a lot of those defenders have regressed since that wonderful season.
I'm actually feeling pretty okay about this club.
This is not a good team but it’s a bad team that has some really nice parts coupled with some awful ones. I’d much, much, much rather have that kind of bad than the kind (see: last year) which was all mediocre parts with nothing good to stand out.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:46 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Fire Gus Bradley
13 times in 31 games the team has conceded more than 30. I don’t think the Marshall Era even reached 13.
More coming in the fanpost I’m writing up.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
The team was ranked ~9th in the NFL in defensive DVOA somewhere around the Oakland team.
Don’t put all the blame on Bradley.
Our opposition before the Oakland game is now a combined
40-50 and only the Bears are going to the playoffs.
Not all of it goes on Bradley but he’s a HUGE part of the problem.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
At the same time, I just can't believe that Red's injury was THAT disruptive to this defense
There is something foul in the kingdome of Seahawks D, and it goes beyond replacing our strongside DE.
I would like to see the argument for this
Basically why the scheme and the playcalling is the problem instead of the terrible athletes on the field.
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 4:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I never said Bradley was be all and end all
But they’re atrocious and have gotten worse this year with an easier schedule and worse QBs.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I don't disagree with you
I just hate emotionally charged scapegoating of coaches so I’m looking forward to reading your post
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 4:58 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The players the Hawks are fielding are not all terrible
There are black spots, places where the D is not as good as it maybe should be, but consider the skill sets: Clemons is not a run stopper but he is a semi-major pass-disruptor. Cole is a run stuffer, period. Red Bryant was all-out awesome when he was in. Kelly Jennings is an okay cover corner who can match with undersized receivers who aren’t terribly fast, but he’s not really as good as what the Hawks should have. Tru isn’t good. Tats is still the anchor of the D, calling out the plays. ET has a lot of potential. Milloy is an asset, but likely to never reciprocate this year’s relative success. Curry has a lot of potential but is still improving. The D is not that bad talent wise, but the scheming has to fit the types of players we have. We have very situational players who should be used as such. The scheme has to use them as such.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
Hey, I hear JaMarcus Russell is available!
Maybe he and Golden can discuss it over donuts.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 6:35 PM PST up reply actions
Those doughnut jokes just never get old.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Amusing Subplot:
The Seattle Times trying to hype a playoff appearance by the Hawks
I expect a Steve Kelley article about how meaningful this will be.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
This
is meaningful.
Sometimes you have to look.
At the present.
Not the future.
A win against StL?
It proves something.
It proves something to fans.
It proves something to Pete.
It proves something to Paul Allen.
It proves something to the rest of the NFL.
It isn’t in us
to ask what is proves.
It is only us who need to know
It proves something.
And that is why
I had to write this mock article
by
Steve
Kelley.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 10 recs
I hate you.
You are the worst.
Even worse than Griffey.
I hate Steve Kelley.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
In Defense of Tenure
By Steve Kelley
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 5:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
PLAYOFFS FUCK YES WE'RE ONE WIN AWAY
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 9:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Which coach? Not Pete
The secondary just stinks right now. It just stinks. ET is a bright spot, but the rest of the secondary is sucking. Tru made me sick today. CW didn’t do that good, but think about it: the game plan was for Matt, not him. Look at the calls that were coming in with CW. They were all over the place.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 4:50 PM PST reply actions
In a sense, this year was a test to see if Tru and Jennings were still worth anything.
Clearly the answer is “no”. So they’ll get cut and 2 FAs will be out there next year. Let’s hope one of them isn’t a scrappy white guy.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:51 PM PST up reply actions
How big was Tru's signing bonus?
Because frankly I’d be surprised if he comes back too.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
Damn. That's a lot to expect them to eat.
Especiall given that sports people do not understand the concept of sunk cost.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Too big
Tru used to be good, but he’s not anymore. That’s just the fact. Develop Thurmond, maybe pick up another CB in 4-5th round of the draft.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't mind seeing them pick up
Prince Amukamara if it wouldn’t cost us a chance at a good QB prospect.
Not sure you totally understand how gameplans work
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 4:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Okay
Elaborate w/o making objective assumptions, please.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
"Objective"? I think objectivity is more beneficial.
I think you meant “subjective”.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 26, 2010 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
HE CAN GO OUT ON TOP!
HE ENDED HIS CAREER WITH A TD!
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 26, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
The worst possible bit about this...
…is that this might not end Hasselbeck’s Seattle career. If Carroll hadn’t made his mind up about him after last week, who’s to say that what he did this week got him any closer to that decision?
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think he's stupid either...
…but it’s not like Whitehurst is looking like the answer and I can just see him thinking about bringing Hass back as a backup, which to me is a huge mistake.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
Well
I stick by the statement that I would rather ride Whitehurst into the last game and the playoffs (If he plays well).
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 26, 2010 4:52 PM PST up reply actions
I would kind of like to see how he looks against a team that isn't the Giants with a full week to work with people.
I’m still guessing “not well” but let’s see it! And maybe Carroll will have the decision taken away from him anyway.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah
Let’s see how he is against the Rams, who are decidedly a worse team than TB or NY.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
TB's defense is real bad now due to injury.
And I can say without equivocation that Whitehurst looked like shit playing against it. We scored less points than Carolina did against them when they were healthy.
I would like to ride Whitehurst through a meadow
Or pick up a girl for a date on Whitehurst
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 5:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
RIDE THE WHITEHURST INTO THE PLAYOFFS
DALLAS HERE WE COME
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Undisclosed, "freak" muscle pull?
Yeah. He’s definitely not playing.
I'll bet I'll be drunk earlier than any of you next Sunday
I’m going to make a point of it. You know it’s going to be an ugly game with a hilarious result. I can’t wait.
UGH.
So what’s going to be worse, here? Being the first 7-9 team to make the playoffs and then having the honor of getting blown out at home, or being the team that lost to the only 7-9 team to make the playoffs in the final week?
wouldn't the Rams be 8-8?
they’re not losers, they’re mediocre!
Hooray! And 2 teams have been that crappy!
Aesthetically, I find myself being more offended by the idea of the Seahawks winning. Crap on a stick.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
PLAYOFFS NOT WORSE
PLAYOFFS AWESOME
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Roffle @ Q-13 announcers calling people who just aren't that interested in being a 7-9 playoff team "not real fans".
You know who isn’t a real fan? Someone who refuses to look at this club with a critical eye, and who just goes out and finds something else to watch when the team sucks.
Exactly
Fuck that weird pasty bastard. What’s wrong with his neck, anyway?
by somethingwitty on Dec 26, 2010 5:09 PM PST up reply actions
Blaming the defensive collapse on CW
Beautiful. If only Hasselbeck was in..
by somethingwitty on Dec 26, 2010 5:11 PM PST up reply actions
Roffle @ the phonetical spelling of "roffle."
Also, I was pretty damn offended by that statement, too. That’s what I get for being too lazy to change the channel.
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 26, 2010 9:31 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'M THE REALEST FAN BECAUSE PLAYOFFS
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:03 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We still have a great chance to win the division and host a playoff game!
That’s just funny. The NFC west is comedy. A team this bad could actually be a division winner. Playoffs!?!?

Griffey!
I don't see why not.
Ask me again in 6 months.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
Hard to say. I've liked some thing this organization has done and disliked other things.
Proof will be in the pudding I guess.
The impact of losing next week.
Of course, if we win we pick 21st. If we lose, however…
We should pick 10th if we lose to the Rams. Not much room to drop back. The only movement would be up, and that’s if Cleveland beats Pittsburgh, Houston beats Jacksonville, or if Dallas beats Philly. None very likely, but any of those would move up us a notch by them moving into the 6-10 group.
Likely pick ahead of us: (9 teams)
CAR
CIN
BUF
DEN
CLE
DAL
DET-MIN Loser
AZ-SF Loser
HOU
We’ll be tied with the following teams, and have the “Strength of Schedule” tiebreaker for the group, except if the Cards beat SF. So we need to root for the Niners, and a nice bonus if the Browns, Cowboys, or Texans pull upsets.
Tied with: (all 6-10)
AZ-SF Winner
DET-MIN Winner
TEN
WA
If the Titans beat Indy or the Skins beat the Gents they would move up to the 7-9 group, but we already own the tiebreaker with them so it’s irrelevant. WE will win the group tiebreaker against everyone listed here except Arizona. So let’s hope they lose and we jump ahead of SF,
The winning formula is losing
I agree, they need to lose one for the team
No
Lose one for the future, not the team. But your sentiments are mine exactly
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 6:49 PM PST up reply actions
I hope the Seahawks lose next week for a shot at Cam Newton.
For the good of the team in the long run, To have any chance of drafting Cam Newton (Josh Freeman 2.0), they need to lose! The team will lose to anybody they play against in the playoffs anyway.
Do we have a realistic shot at Newton?
Wouldn’t we have a 15-20 draft pick? I think he would be selected in the top 10.
Oh hell yes.
There's no way we pick in that range. It will be 10th or 21st.
Outside chance of picking slightly higher (or 31st or 32nd!).
Why is he Josh Freeman 2.0?
Why isn’t he Jason Campbell 2.0?
I’m not saying he is or isn’t anything, but I do hate the analogy of calling someone 2.0 of someone else…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
Pre.
Although a lot more accurate in college.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Actually Newton is a lot bigger
Newton is 6-6 ,245lbs
Vick is 6-0 215 lbs , 30 yrs old
Actually, Vick's age is my biggest issue with Newton.
It seems like mobile QBs, when they do develop, seem to take forever to do so. Vick and Randall Cunningham are the two biggies I can think of. I just don’t see Seattle hanging onto a guy like that waiting for him to develop for 8 years.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
Cunningham's 3rd year (first as a full time starter, at 24 yrs old.)
12 games, 12 started. 54.9%, 23 TD/12 Int, 2789 passing, with 505 yards rushing.
I’d take two years of mediocrity to get that in year three with an upward track from there… hell, two years of mediocrity would be a fair improvement on the last THREE years.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:46 PM PST up reply actions
Passing % were lower back then too
I remember Wade Wilson led the league with 60% in 1989 I think.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Even taking into account the lower passing numbers, are those numbers really that good?
2800 yards passing is kind of average nowadays. I checked the team passing numbers and the Eagles’ numbers from ’86 through ’89 are good but not outstanding by any means (between 9th and 18th the entire time). Also, not included in that is the fact that Cunningham led the league in sacks 5 times in his career and sack yardage lost 6 times. A good QB, sure, but at his best a flawed one until he went off to Minnesota and took over that offense.
Vick had a good 2nd year but after that was average to mediocre for the Falcons as a passer. Okay, with both of these guys the running added a lot to their games, and Vick at least didn’t get sacked a million times, but the jury is still out for me… bearing in mind, of course, that mobile QBs seem to be much more plentiful than the classic dropback and throw accurate passes variety coming out of college nowadays.
I will say that Cam Newton’s numbers look really, really good. He’s like in the top 10 in the nation in accuracy. I don’t remember where Vick was in that conversation but IIRC the big thing about him was that he had an arm and a release like Dan Marino but a running back’s speed. I don’t remember hearing a lot about his accuracy.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:05 PM PST up reply actions
I didn't mention this but I looked at teams by AYPA, not straight yardage or what have you.
The Eagles threw a lot of passes in the late 80s. In a couple years, Cunningham was 2nd to Dan Marino in attempts. He wasn’t particularly successful on those attempts. He wasn’t particularly unsuccessful either, I guess.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I'd gladly take his numbers to what we've had.
You quote his sack totals, but not his rushing yardage?
Because it was very significant, and as you say, in a time when that wasn’t common. Not only was it not common, but you have to wonder if his coordinators maxed his potential.
Regardless, he had six seasons prior to 1992 that are comparable to Marshawn’s 2010 with the Seahawks, rushing wise.
“2800 is kind of average nowadays.”
Remember, he did that in 12 games. The next 3 years, he was over 3400 each year (while still rushing for 500+ yards per season.) His Philly days compare more than favorably with Hasselbeck’s Seahawks apex, only with a big time rushing threat added to boot.
I don’t know. I don’t think he was the greatest thing ever… but I do think he was certainly above average, and I’d happily take his numbers for us in a newer model going forward starting next year.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 12:06 AM PST up reply actions
Lot's of draft boards have Cam going late first round
or early second. He’s seen as a long term project.
I seriously doubt he slips past 20.
Too many teams need a QB and he’s got a ton of upside. At this point, he’s the guy I think we should take if possible. Of course, it’s early and I may change my mind after a couple weeks of bowl games and the combine.
Big game next week!!
Never let it be said we don’t back our guys 100% . Regardless . Go Seahawks!!!!
Gus Bradley MUST GO.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
I don't really think he should go.
I think the players should. We should get rid of like, Jennings, and get more players up in front who can actually put more pressure. The blitz packages are questionable, to say the least. I think his play calling is ok.
Oh hell yes.
His playcalling is iffy
The blitzing was creative, but he’s back to this Bullcrap 3 man rush with our BEST PASS RUSHER in coverage.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I've got mixed feelings about that
I’d be up for grabbing Wade Phillips or any coach with a successful history as DC. But if they’re gonna get some other new coach or one with a mixed history of success I’d rather they stick to Bradley and see if he improves if we build an offense that can help him out with time of possession. His blitzing looked awesome earlier this season, would be nice if we can get a lead and see that comes back
Our offense only needs a couple (albeit big) pieces.
The defense must be re-tooled. Jennings and Trufant, Cole, Terrill, even Tatupu are cut-worthy.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 6:03 PM PST up reply actions
It's easier to hide flaws the the Defense though
you don’t need to fix every single aspect of a team, creating pressure from the front 7 can cover up a bad secondary, a good offense that controls the clock can cover up a bad defense.
Imagine
a beast of a DE, or a Nose Tackle. Someone who cheeses through O-lines like a hot woman through a crowd. Someone who can be the sack machine week in, week out. Someone who can also double as a run-stuffer, who demands double and perhaps even triple teams.
I think I play too much Madden. Character customization can do that to someone…
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
That won't solve everything
It’ll make the secondary look better, but won’t matter if our offense is all 3 and outs again. Look at the Cardinals, Dansby is still a monster but the Anderson led offense makes him a non story
You don't get that kind of DT/NG at 11 or 21, though... at least not very often.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
Looking at the silver lining
IF we lose to St. Louis, at 6-10 we should slip into top ten for the draft and perhaps be able to land Newton, Locker or Gabbert, who would provide me with significant hope for next year and beyond.
IF we win next week, we’re hosting a playoff game and I’ll be there.
Local news has a story on Rex Ryan's foot fetish.
I wonder what muckraker sold his soul for that juicy footage.
They've been fellating that story for a few days now.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 26, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
That's a personal matter.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
That's a personal matter.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That's a personal matter.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
That's a personal matter.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
That's a personell matter.
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 27, 2010 3:15 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Charlie Whitehurst
There’s something to be said to taking all the first-team snaps for the week leading up to the game, having the game plan centered on you being the starting QB, etc. and I have been in the camp saying that Charlie needs to play if only to see where he is in a live fire exercise and so forth.
But, Jeezy Chreezy, he was fucking terrible today. Not average. Not struggled. At some point excuses are like assholes, unwashed, homeless assholes. Every few weeks some no-name has to play for a starter who’s gone down unexpectedly and it’s not unheard of for them to at least have some success. Whether this fault lies with Bates, Carroll, Whitehurst, or some combination I have no idea, but the back-up QB to Old Man Winter (who broke his hip walking into the endzone) should be better prepared to play than this; there should be something he can do well. What is it? Why wasn’t he doing it?
I don’t buy the no talent around him argument, and for those that say, “Pete and Bates knew, that’s why Chuck’s been sitting”, then I’m sorry, but you’ve got to at least have someone on board that can learn the playbook. His physical tools are pointless. The Buccaneers are not that good, but we sure made them look it today.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
That's fine and well,
but he didn’t throw an interception. Which is better than we can say for Hasselbeck in any of his last few games. He sucked, but it wasn’t quite a Hasselbeckian level of suckage.
I agree that at some point we admit that the rest of the team isn’t the problem. The O-line didn’t allow excessive sacks, and he had minimal but acceptable time to make his throws. Williams and Obo can be relied upon to catch those occasional balls that are actually thrown into their general vicinity. The throws went wild, randomly, and were mostly uncatchable… but at least this time he didn’t throw a pick.
I’d call that an improvement.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions
The offense was more composed under Hasselbeck
Once Whitehurst went in their defense just run blitzed every play and totally shut everything down. Hasselbeck gives you a small hope that something will happen. In this game and Charlie’s start against the NYG I never got the feeling that we even had a chance at winning
I watched Josh Wilson play some good starting corner today for the Ravens.
Good for you, Pistol.
I’m doubtful about Carroll and Schneider because I haven’t loved either their moves or the apparent philosophy behind them. In order to rebuild, you have to turn present value into maximal future value. They paid heavily in future value for a likely terrible Whitehurst and gave up valuable youngish players with their sea legs under them for a poor return. Then they went out and punted the present anyway by bringing in old and bad players. I haven’t loved the eye for talent and I don’t agree with the impulsive roster turnover. Other than the draft, Mike Williams, and the Leon Washington trade, I’m not seeing the vision. From a scheme standpoint, the specialization in the use of the Leo and Lawyer seems like the kind of thing that a team would do only when pressed into the need as opposed to building that as part of the plan. I think Pete is overmatched. Boy do I hope they make me eat this next year, but I’ll be dubious until then.
by abender20 on Dec 26, 2010 6:39 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
I do have to say I am thankful for not having Mike Singletary as a coach.
Watching him lace into Troy Smith and get up in his face was uncomfortable and borderline inappropriate. 4 more years! 4 more years!
Yeah
here’s to hoping that somehow, someway Singletary stays in SF. A combination of the Independence Day Aliens, Darth Vader, The Most Interesting Man In The World, and a jug full of pure Vodka should to it. No particular order.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 26, 2010 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
They have already announced he is fired.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Game Ball -> Mike Singletary
for keeping our playoff hopes alive!
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
And a lump of coal for Spags
For not finishing us off when you were 6-0 against KC.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
That SF-StL game had no bearing on our playoff status.
The deal was if we lose next week, the winner of today’s SF/StL goes to the playoffs.
SF just eliminated themselves today, that’s all.
Actually, no.
If we lost today and San Francisco won, they would have to win against Arizona next week to advance to the playoffs. Basically, if San Francisco won out and we went 7-9, we could not go to the playoffs.
by splintrdmind on Dec 26, 2010 8:48 PM PST up reply actions
SF's loss was in fact necessary.
If SF had won both of their games (this week’s and the AZ game next week), then assuming we beat StL we would have been tied with SF on top of the division — and they would have won the tiebreaker, because they’ve got a better division record than we do. Our playoff hopes would have been dashed.
Since SF probably WILL win next week, losing this week really saved our bacon. And by ‘saving our bacon’ I mean they prolonged the chances that we might win the opportunity to be blown out in a playoff game.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 10:15 PM PST up reply actions
I'm starting to think scheme>talent is the worst philosophy ever
I mean, I can see the argument for it but man, if it goes wrong… you get a team full of role players.
That's why talent ALWAYS trumps anything else when acquiring players.
You sort the rest out later.
Then (and only then) if you have TOO MUCH talent, you trade it for something valuable. (I.E., a 3rd string QB with some upside, who suddenly nets you a high draft pick in trade, despite his being unproven AND third string.)
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
Scheme > Talent
This is probably one of the main reasons that I loved Bill Parcells so much. Year to year, he’d SCHEME for whatever he had, always looking to upgrade TALENT during the offseason. Lawrence Taylor commented in his book that he was always an instinctual player, was never dedicated to film study and the like; he would sometimes do his own thing and Parcells just schemed around him given Taylor’s results. I’d hate to think any team would turn down a talent like LT just because he doesn’t fit your scheme.
Parcells and OC Maurice Carthon also streamlined their offense to get enough out of Quincy Carter at QB to eek out a 10-6 season. Make the shoe fit the foot.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Agreed.
However, you made the scheme greater than the talent in your equation… I don’t think that was your intent.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 10:34 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with this.
Remember how Chuck Knox was known as “Ground Chuck” before coming to Seattle? Yet when Curt Warner went down with an injury in 1984 he opened the offense way up; IIRC the team leader in rushing yards had like 330.
Having a philosophy is helpful in that it gives you something to build around. That being said, if you have a QB who isn’t accurate but has a gun and receivers who are small but fast, running a West Coast Offense would be a terrible idea.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:11 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't alive in 1984, so, no, I don't remember.
by Coach Owens on Dec 26, 2010 11:16 PM PST up reply actions
God dammit, shut up you whippersnapper and just pretend like you remember.
Now I feel old.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
Anyway, though, there is a point to this.
The reason Bill Walsh went with the West Coast Offense in SF isn’t because he was a WCO man (although he did help develop it with Paul Brown WHO IS THE FREAKING EINSTEIN OF FOOTBALL seriously look up the stuff he came up with it’s basically called “the modern offense”), it’s because the closest thing to a franchise QB he could acquire was a guy from Notre Dame who had a C+ arm but A+ accuracy. Also, that man was named after a state but that’s irrelevant.
The problems that I see seem to come when successful college coaches running a particular successful college scheme come to the pros and try to run that exact same scheme for the existing players. The issue isn’t with the scheme per se, it’s with the fact that the personnel you have probably doesn’t match up with the scheme terribly well.
Oh well. I wish Barry Switzer would have made this mistake because it would have been awesome to see an NFL team running the wishbone. But nooo he just had to keep running the Jimmy Johnson offense because it “worked”.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
THIS IS THE STOP BITCHING LINE.
Because we have to get our asses in gear for a prime time playoff game.
It’s seven more days, go all in, then we’ll have an entire offseason (Give or take a wildcard week) to commiserate.
or not.
I get the frustration, but if when the schedule came out someone circled the week 17 rams game
and said “If you win that one you’re in the playoffs” most of us would have high fived and been excited. Well, that’s the situation. Damn the system. Damn the doubters. If we win in seven days we’ll be one of the last 12 teams to have a chance at a title this year. Enjoy that, because if this teams as bad as everyone’s making it out to be we may not have this opportunity for a while.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
One playoff game vs 10 spots in the upcoming draft
Given that the chances of us winning a playoff game this year are slim to none, I am one of those that would gladly give up that game to improve upon our chances of obtaining a high-draft pick in the upcoming draft.
What's the appoximate value a 4th? 5th?
By no means insignificant. But our odds are infinitely better to win a championship if we make the playoffs than if we miss them. Sure ‘losing out’ is rationally the best option, but being a fan isn’t rational. It’s a repeated willingness to invest your time, money and emotions into a one-way relationship you have no control over. If the basis of our fan-hood is irrational like any fan, does it really hurt to throw reality to the wind one week and hope for the best?
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
"odds are infinitely better to win a championship if we make the playoffs than if we miss them"
Only in so much as you can’t win the Super Bowl without getting to the playoffs that specific year. This year is irrelevent since there is no way the ‘Hawks are winning the Super Bowl. I’ll bet a hollow point to my temple they don’t.
The 2010 Seattle Seahawks: The Worst Team to Ever Make the Playoffs. (record irrelevent at this point).
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
No no no no!
I do not want to listen to three hours of Chris Collinsworth yacking about how the Seahawks don’t deserve to be in the playoffs.
Nominated Mr. Off-Topic 2010
Collinsworth will talk over and over again about the god damn Hutchinson move
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Bought my tickets off craigslist immediately following the 49ers loss
I need to be in attendance to witness history: the first sub-.500 team to make the playoffs. I don’t give a shit if we suck, I am so damn pumped to be in a game that means “something”…even if the rest of the NFL is laughing at us.
by SeparationSunday on Dec 26, 2010 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
I am embarrassed our next blowout loss will be in Primetime
Call me a bad fan or whatever but I am rooting for them to lose now so they can win later.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I wanna be clear and say I'm not calling anyone a 'bad fan' for rooting for the team to lose.
That’s rationally the best option in terms of value being added to the team. I would just rather root for the option that my protagonists aren’t trying their hardest to avoid.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
I can understand this thinking.
But the thought of us being beaten by the Rams at home, and the Rams celebrating a division title and a trip to the playoffs on our turf is far too distasteful for me to root for it.
It’ll be worth losing out on better draft position just to keep the Rams out. Fuck the Rams.
It's unnoticed because of the offense and Trufant
But Curry was horrible. While it’s not some overdramatic franchise crippling mistake like some have it, Curry just doesn’t seem to get it.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Hop on over here, I've got something to say...
That, my friend, was a fearless comment.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:55 PM PST up reply actions
Couple of ugly whiffs
And he bounced right off of Blount on that hurdle run.
Also took a bad angle on a screen pass.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Do you mean he was horrible in this game?
Or that it was horrible that he was drafted as high as he was?
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Horrible in this game
He’s been mediocre, which is an upgrade from horrendous, but he’s probably got one more year to prove himself.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
That was my impression as well.
Could be a false impression, wouldn’t be the first time, but I thought he played as badly today as I’d ever seen him play.
It's unfortunate because from an athletic standpoint
Curry is a fucking beast. But yeah. Watch Curry, then go watch Clay Matthews.
Llama's cut/release list:
Gus Bradley,Terrill, Trufant, Jennings, Locklear, Hasselbeck, Andrews, and so many more.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 27, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
Curry needs to be developed into a pass rusher
Based on his athletic abilities.
Orakpo is clearly not working out at LB but he’s a monster pass rusher.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
Questions
Can we not overreact to a meaningless game playing a better team at home with their backs against the wall?
Can we safely declare both sides of the Hasselbeck/Whitehurst debate losers now and move on to less crazy talk?
Am I the only person here that is totally stoked that we are one win from our first playoff appearance in 3 years?
Answers
1.) That’s 8 double digit losses with our starting “everything” other than Hass. Josh Freeman had as many incomplete passes as touchdown passes.
2.) Yes.
3.) You and a few others. I’m not one of them.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 26, 2010 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I am one of the few then
It seems like people want the hawks to fail so that they can get a higher draft pick. I for one disagree with that. Wins improve the team, not the draft, free agency, and all the other Off-season nuisances. I agree with Kevaru. We are one game away from being in the playoffs again and so what if we played shitty for the last 3-4 games. We still have a chance to bounce back and anything can happen in the playoffs.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 26, 2010 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
Wins don't improve the team.
Players doing well improves the team, or rather reveals that the team is good. I want to see the team win too, or more accurately I want to see them play well. If the Seahawks go out next week and beat the crap out of the Rams because they are suddenly awesome, I will be happy as a clam (do clams ever get happy? I am skeptical of that cliche). If they continue to suck the way that they have for the past 16 weeks, I’m not sure how a playoff berth magically makes them not sucky.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
According to my coaches a win does
essentially their both the same thing because you get a win because your players played well. At the end of the day a win is a win. Don’t care if it was in thriving fashion or an ugly fashion a win is a win and a team gains momentum from it no matter what(Unless your the Colts where the fans expect Manning to throw for at least 300 yards a game). But let me ask you this? Will you be rooting for the Seahawks to be "suddenlly awesome’ as you say? I for one do. I do that every week and why I’ve been a fan for my whole life.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 26, 2010 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
According to your coaches? Wha?
First up, a win in HS or college ball is a lot different than a win in the pros. At those levels you can come up with crazy schemes which allow you to “win ugly” game after game until your “winning ugly” is actually indistinguishable from winning “well”. Not so much in the case with the pros, where every team has advanced scouts and access to reams of tape to figure out what you’re doing. That’s also, by the way, a huge reason why you see innovation like the recent return to the single wing at the college and HS level before you see it in the pros.
Second, “momentum”, as much as it’s tossed around, is really not something that actually exists that I can see anyway and too often is just a stand-in for things that do exist like “luck”, “talent”, and the all-too-common “lack of talent”. I mean, there are things that exist that are like momentum in that they build on themselves: for example, a team with a good running game will often run as well or better in the 4th against a team keyed to stop them because they’ve worn the defense down, or a QB who’s gotten hit a lot might not perform as well because he’s skittish and/or slightly concussed. But those aren’t *really" momentum the way a Chris Collinsworth describes momentum. The game would be significantly more boring if that kind of momentum existed, so I’m glad it doesn’t.
And yes, I will be rooting for the team to get suddenly better. I doubt it will happen but I’ve been a fan of this team for going on 30 years and I’m not about to stop now just because they’re a bad 7-9 club. Part of being a fan of the sport itself, though, is knowing good football when you see it. This team is not playing good football and hasn’t since Week 6 or so.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:45 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think so
The mentallity of a win in HS college and the pros is all the same. But hey I wouldn’t know because I’m not in the pros. As HW Bush’s saying of “big mo”, the process is still the same from politics to football. Momentum gives you confidence and boost in a game. Not sure what you mean by the Chris Collinsworth remark though. And the team has shown signs of brilliances in past weeks though they have resulted in losses. Earl Thomas is improving every game and his tackling is much better. I’ll be rooting for the team sunday night and hope that we can get to the playoffs for the first time in 3 years regardless of the crappiness we’ve been through. That’s what’s so great about football is its unpredictability and that we still have a shot to make it.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 27, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Signs of brilliance? Where?
Earl Thomas is showing signs of being a good player who is lost on a crappy defense but I wouldn’t call that “brilliant”. Who, then? Olindo Mare has been kicking the heck out of the ball. I’d love to see what Mike Williams could do with an actual NFL quality quarterback. But otherwise… I’m just not seeing “brilliance”.
And no, the “mentality of a win” is not the same for the reasons I already stated.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 27, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Leon Washington, Chris Clemons, and Colin Cole
those are a few that have improved their game. Forgot to mention Mike Williams as well.
And about the mentality of a win, i’m not sure either you nor I can have a say in that because I’m assuming that you haven’t played in the pros like I haven’t. So who knows. We should ask them ourselves.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 27, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, look at all that momentum the Seahawks built when they beat the Panthers
If you’re talking about the psychological value of winning, go here and read this thread.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 11:50 PM PST up reply actions
What in god's name...?
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 27, 2010 12:06 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I would really consider the Whitehurst supporters "losers", except for those that legitimately argued that he IS good.
From what I’ve gathered, the Whitehurst supporters wanted him to play simply because we don’t know what we have in him, and we do know what we have in Matt—epic suckitude. Not playing Whitehurst meant entering next year pointlessly unaware of the value of a certain asset (at an important position, nonetheless). Sacrificing that understanding could be acceptable if Hass had something to offer, but he’s proven he has next to nothing to offer.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
Whoops, that should read
“I wouldn’t really consider the Whitehurst supporters … "
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Can we agree?
2010 Matt Hasselbeck = Well Below Average
Ryan Leaf = Epic Suckitude
Considering that Dan MacGuire had a higher career QB rating that he did…
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
This smacks of semantics to me
Where do you draw the line between well below average and epic suckitude? Because epic suckitude is definitely well below average. This all being said with a smile and in good humor…
I will admit that Matt has had his good moments this year. He’s made some pretty passes every now and then. But he’s also delivered some of the most athletically incompetent performances I have ever witnessed. While his numbers may not bear out quite how badly he’s sucked, his decision-making and astuteness under pressure have been appalling.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions
The difference is I would accept Matt's performance from my backup QB. Leaf's? Not from my 3rd.
I think some people have overstated how back Matt’s been this year. Statistically, he’s been better than Bradford. (The difference being that Bradford is going up, and Matt’s going down, of course.)
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
He's only been better than Bradford in ANY/A by a very slim margin
mostly because Hasselbeck has a better yards/attempt. And that seems really odd since Bradford has thrown three less picks that Matt and 5 more touchdowns.
Bradford > Hasselbeck
I’m just trying to mitigate the use of the word “epic” with regards to Matt’s bad play.
There’s precedence for Bradford. McNabb was a notorious short-baller in his first couple years. Then, things changed. =)
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Plus, Bradford has nobody to throw to.
That’s the irony. The Rams have got a good QB and no receivers; we’ve got good receivers and no QB. It’s clear that a functioning offense really requires both.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 10:29 PM PST up reply actions
TDs don't really give you a lot extra in ANYA.
Only around 20 yards per TD, actually. In fact, if memory serves Palmer and Thorn thought that number was on the high side. TDs passing are more a function of scheme than QB talent (although there is definitely a skill in floating balls into the back of the end zone).
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think ANY of us considered him "good" we just considered him NOT someone else who isn't good anymore.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
I was only referring to the few I've read that seem to honestly think Charlie has the potential to be legitimately "good."
The prevailing opinion within the Charlie camp is definitely as you stated.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
I think he has the potential to be "legitimately good," and I think that honestly.
Potential is a funny thing though, and having potential and reaching it are two different things. Don’t make a judgement that takes the potential for him to have potential away. He absolutely has “the potential to be legitimately good.”
The probability is NOT the potential.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm, good points
I suppose I could see him having the potential to be legitimately good. But considering his age and the talent with which he is currently surrounded (will will likely be for next year as well), the probability that he lives up to that potential decreases. So then would you say that he has less potential? Or just a lower probability of reaching that potential?
I think my brain just froze up.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 26, 2010 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
Lower probability.
Mine is freezing too…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think I disagree, though I'm not even sure anymore
It seems that as he gets older, not only does the probability (of him reaching his potential) decrease, but his potential itself decreases, correct?
If Player A and Player B both have have a “Potential Score” of 10 (arbitrary number) at age 23, if all factors hypothetically remain the same, we could expect both of them to have the same Potential Score at the age of 35—and it would be much lower, say 3 (also arbitrary number), since they have likely reached their potential and headed back down the other side.
However, that potential never has to be realized for it to decrease. If Player A has a long illustrious career as a Pro Bowl starter between ages 23 and 35, and Player B spends the same entire time on the bench behind another Pro Bowl starter, no one will ever know if Player B would have reached the same height as Player A. Both would have started with the same potential and ended with the same potential, and only one would have reached it—but either way, both had less potential at 35 than they did at 23.
That was a long fucking confusing way of saying that it seems that as Charlie gets older, not only does his “reach-his-potential” probability decrease, but his potential itself decreases.
Fucking intangibles.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 27, 2010 12:59 AM PST up reply actions
I just don't understand
Why anyone would be stoked by a playoff appearence at 7-9. That doesn’t feel like something earned through merit, but something given out of charity, like a participation ribbon or pity sex.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
The argument is "anything can happen in the playoffs"
Yeah well “anything can happen in the lottery” but most of the time you win nothing and you miss your numbers decisively.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Anything can happen in the playoffs is really more of a baseball thing, where a short series can cause all sorts of wacky things.
In football, it’s more a continuation of the regular season. If you dominated in the regular season, chances are good you’ll excel in the postseason.
Post a -107 point differential in the regular season and make the postseason? Chances are you’re going to get trounced in your first game.
The ultimate "anything can happen" is hockey
Where a goaltender can get hot at the right time. Baseball as you said is another example because of the short series and the fact that home field advantage (at least in my limited knowledge) is not as vital as it is in other sports.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
What's wrong with pity sex.
It’s like cold pizza… not the best scenario, but dammit, it’s still pizza!
For the record, I’d rather have pity sex than sofa pizza 8 days a week.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Right now I want to cut this season off Lorreina Bobbitt style.
So that there is no pity sex.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 26, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Just because you don't want pity sex
doesn’t mean you should spoil the fun for everyone.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Dec 26, 2010 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
Because I might not live long enough to see the Seahawks play meaningful January football again
Because being a hardcore Seahawks fan through the 90’s taught me that every playoff appearance is special.
Because there are Houston Texan fans or Detroit Lion fans or Buffalo Bill fans who would sell you their own mother to see their team in the playoffs
But mostly because I really, really hate losing to the fucking Rams. I mean doesn’t the thought of Josh Brown jumping up and down after kicking the game-winning field goal at Qwest make you physically ill?
I don't think a 42-3 beat down to the ____s counts as "meaningful"
But we all spend out recreation time as we will.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Well maybe you could start exercising and watching your cholesterol or something so that the rest of us don't have to be subjected to terrible football and the mortgaging of the future all for the sake of a fluky playoff appearance
by jhmg16 on Dec 26, 2010 9:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
It's true!
I saw him refer to the Internet as “the old Victorola” in another thread.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Pity sex is still sex. You still get laid.
I think what you’re looking for in this metaphor is good sex v. bad sex. The Seahawks are somewhere between “awful sex” and “not getting laid at all.” Winning next week being a lack of sex, cause if I get some, it better be with someone in their early twenties.
Clearly, this has no bearing on anything. While I don’t mind being laughed at by the rest of the NFL, I do most certainly mind sacrificing future wins in the name of whatever the fuck it is a win against STL would be called.
Love the game, love the beer, love your team.
by THolt on Dec 27, 2010 5:40 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I believe a win next week would be called necrophilia... but hey, it's better than no win, right?
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 7:08 AM PST up reply actions
It's not overreacting
WE. ARE. TERRIBLE.
I can’t be stoked about a team that would be in third place or lower in every other division in the NFL. That’s not even accounting for a higher SOS. We’d probably have 4 wins right now anywhere else.
Swap us with Buffalo and what do you see?
Number 1 pick staring at me!
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
STOKED JACKED FIRED UP PLAYOFFS
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:13 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Could he be an option for a new DC?
Seems like SF has been pretty good on that side of the ball. My worry is that Pete has his hands so far into the D that we may not get a true DC because Pete will want to run his scheme.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
He was never a scheme guy.
I don’t even know if he can map out the plays the 9ers run on either side of the ball. I think he’d make an excellent linebackers coach but the biggest issue with him was that he didn’t have that grounding in football theory you expect HCs to have. That caused him to make dumb, fan-like mistakes like flip flop QBs 3 times in today’s game.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 26, 2010 11:17 PM PST up reply actions
Not yet
If we lose and they win I think we get a higher draft pick (SOS) so maybe, just maybe, we get a QB before they do.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I think that was with respect to Singletary being fired.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions
They're "better" with Sing out
But to get better they need a new QB.
McNabb just asked for a release. I assume Arizona will take him so it’s down to SF and Seattle battling for the new QB.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
Middling QBs
There will be a bunch of them floating around in the offseason. I hope we pass on all of them and draft one (assuming one’s available of course).
by surfmonkey89 on Dec 26, 2010 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
The more I think about it
The more I’m on board for Cam Newton.
We’ll have the ultimate college scandal offense that will kick ass.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
I really hope we don't win next week
I know they’ll never try to throw the game. I can’t root for a loss. But I don’t see any advantage in winning next week for this team given their talent.
I want to get to the offseason. There were a couple of nice games this year. But for the most part, the best part of this season was the draft. I want to get to another offseason and see if more roster moves and another solid draft can get us some hope for the future. Maybe a change at defensive coordinator as well would help. I don’t have any belief in Bradley. I’ve tried to research is resume and I can’t find anything extraordinary about his college background or his NFL background. All he had going for him was Monte Kiffin’s endorsement and I would say that has probably kept him around longer than he should have been around.
Gus Bradley
makes me ask, in what profession besides his and politics can you suck so mightily at your job and still keep it?
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Dec 27, 2010 8:17 AM PST up reply actions
Prostitution?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
ASK NOT FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
IT TOLLS FOR THEE PLAYOFFS
RIDE THE WHITEHURTS TO THE SUPER BOWEL
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:16 PM PST via mobile reply actions
NO BOOZE HIGH ON LIFE AND PLAYOFF FEVER
by lemonverbena on Dec 26, 2010 10:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
We're already in a super bowel..
it’s called being a Seahawk fan.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 26, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
You're making my day.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
CAR, DEN, BUF, CIN, SF/AZ (play eachother) DET/MIN (Play eachother... assuming Min loses to PHI on Tues.)
The top 6 spots are ‘clinched’ by some combo of the above teams. (If we’re trying to optimize we want SF to beat AZ because AZ has aIt’n easier schedule than us, while we have an easier schedule than SF so we want to tie with SF not AZ. Is so close though that a loss by us and a win against one of SF’s opponents may negate that, but anyway for the sake of optimizing we want AZ to beat SF. We ‘win’ SoS over both DET/MIN so it doesn’t matter who wins.)
The best we could possibly get however would be 7th I think. ((Okay, super optimistic is MIN beats PHI but loses to DET and that would tie us with both teams if we lost vs STL and could open up the 6th pick to us.))
However, the teams ‘ahead’ of us are: (Week 17 opponent in parenthesis)
CLE (PIT) , DAL (PHI), HOU (JAX) We’re not likely to make up any ground in those three games so this would slot us at 10th at 6-10…. right?
I could see Dallas winning.
The Eagles will probably rest most of their starters if Atlanta beats the Saints (since Atlanta will clinch home-field and Philadelphia has already clinched their division). Houston also is unpredictable enough where a win wouldn’t be out of the question.
by Coach Owens on Dec 26, 2010 10:40 PM PST up reply actions
DAL's got a possible win, as does Houston at home if they play the same Jags team I watched during week 16.
I was just trying to figure out the best/worst case scenario of the Seahawks going 6-10. If I’m not wrong (Wouldn’t be shocked) I’d say 10’s about the floor.
by SgtSasquatch on Dec 26, 2010 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
FLOOR?!? DID YOU SAY FLOOR?!?!
THERE IS NO FLOOR!!
by Coach Owens on Dec 26, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
Philly needs a win and a CHI loss to clinch a bye
Which they might need.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Free agents, anyone?? Defensive Edition!
DL
Jonny Jolly
Cullen Jenkins
Alan Branch
Paul Soliai
Barry Cofield
LB
David Harris
Justin Durant
Ernie Sims
Barrett Ruud
Quincy Black
Brandon Siler
DB
Richard Marshall
Usama Young
Ellis Hobbs
Corey Graham
Michael Johnson
Not a conclusive list, by any means. I’m not super familiar with some of these guys either, but was intrigued by some of what I read up on them. This is meant to a springboard for conversation.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
You should probably think older and worse.
Mike Vrabel is a free agent!
Our new TE, bitches.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Watch us get none of them
And sign some 33 year old we’ve never heard of.
This team might lead football in “plug and play” players.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Yesterday taught us some things
about our erstwhile seahawks. They suck. They are not even competitive with a team that got beat the previous Sunday by the Lions, lead by their third string qb. I watched the postgame and find myself leaning toward the 82% that really do not care if we make the playoffs and at this point would be interested in seeing what J.P. has to offer at QB because CLEARLY (and I had been in Charlies’ corner) Whitehurst is not the answer. I am not even sure that he understands the question. Anyone that has a problem with my words here, ask yourself if you really want to see the seahawks blown out at home in the first round of the playoffs or if you would prefer that happen to the Rams.
John Hancock
I WANT TO GO TO THE PLAYOFFS
If you don’t that is your choice, but I pity you that you are so afraid to not succeed that you would rather fail before hand. Are you really so weak of heart that you can’t get excited about the playoffs. I don’t care how we get there or how the rest of the division is, I just want to go. If you don’t care about going than why are you on this site? You obviously care, so get excited, it doesn’t happen that often. I’ve been a fan since the early 80s and I relish every oppourtunity that we get. Yeah we played like shit last week. Yeah we have to play well this week to have a chance against a decent St Louis team, but don’t sit there and root against the Seahawks, which is exactly what you are doing. Don’t be so afraid of failure that you aren’t willing to get behind the team. Have the balls to stand up and cheer for them.
Please don't judge the fandom of others.
There are legitimate reasons to want to go to the playoffs and to miss them. Desiring one outcome over the other does not make a person any less a fan of this team.
I'm not calling out his fanhood
I call it telling somone to man up and grow a pair. I think he is a fan, but I think he has a defeatist attitude.
I watched the postgame and find myself leaning toward the 82% that really do not care if we make the playoffs
or
Anyone that has a problem with my words here, ask yourself if you really want to see the seahawks blown out at home in the first round of the playoffs or if you would prefer that happen to the Rams.
These are statements of a person who is defeated and already capitulating.
Wanting a higher draft position is a logical point of view, but thats not what this is, its just giving up.
Two bulls are sitting on top of a hill, looking down at all the heifers.
The younger one says, “Hey pop, let’s run down this hill, fuck us a couple heifers.”
The older one says, “No, son. Let’s walk down. Fuck ’em all.”
…
Two fans are sitting in the 300 seats, looking down at their team.
The optimist looks at the other and says, “I want my team to go to the playoffs, maybe win a playoff game. That’d be sweet, I didn’t think we were good enough to get there this year. All we have to do is win this game and we’re there!”
The pragmatist looks at the younger and says, “No, fuck that. I want them to win the SB. I could care less what happens this next 48 minutes.”
…
So what is the real goal? To go to the playoffs, or to win a Super Bowl?
Would you be happy with a focus for of going to the playoffs but likely losing in the first round, or would you rather be great— the best— for a single year even if it takes a couple years to load up (as it generally does), and get the city of Seattle it’s first major sport championship since cable tvhas been in existence?
Which puts us in the better position to win a SB sooner?
Winning, going to the playoffs this year, and (likely) getting trounced in the first round, and even if we could pull an upset to end all upsets at home, then going likely to either Chicago (in a revenge game) in the winter, or to Atlanta (who we proved we can’t hang with at home?) How does that benefit us?
Or perhaps is the greater goal best suited by going out a single game earlier, and potentially getting better pieces to win a Super Bowl as soon as possible?
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
I understand your argument but reject your conclusion
You are saying that by going to the playoffs we will be sacrificing the future. I don’t think that there is a significant difference between what we want to draft and where we will be drafting, no matter how we finish at this point. We will not be able to get either of the top two QBs. We may have a shot at number 3, but most likely number 4 at either draft spot. There could be big changes and changes of opinion between now and the draft, which further waters down your argument. Bottom Line, you would have to know the outcome of the offseason, to even begin to decide weather or not we should win next week or not.
Higher draft position gives you a bigger pool of players to draft
You’re right, we can’t know the outcome of the offseason, but more flexibility is a good thing. This is about weighing future probabilities of success. If you want certainty about the future, well… there is none.
Aside from WC's arguments (which I agree with)
I think a 7-9 team should be ashamed to show their faces in a playoff game, regardless of who they are. However, there are a few things that could mitigate my feelings on that score.
1) Team is on the upswing (like, started 2-7 but finished 5-2). No
2) Team is young, up and coming (like the Rams). No
3) Team was competitive in nearly all losses (like the Bills). BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Out of 32 NFL teams I don’t think it’s unreasonable to posit the Seahawks are 28th-30th in quality. I have this kookie desire for people/teams to earn things. Any team this shitty should never be in or near the playoffs; the 7-9 record doesn’t even begin to tell the story.
The Rams – even if they lose next week – are and have been a better team. They really shouldn’t be going to playoffs either, but they deserve it far more than we do. I love my Seahawks and I want to see them succeed. This is not success. This is failing upwards, getting promoted because you go to lunch with the boss rather than do the job better.
And yes, I will be rooting for the ’Hawks, which should give you some insight into the paradoxical nature of my mind.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Dec 27, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The significant difference is, as MT Olson said, available players.
Maybe the QB Carrol wants is available at 21, and maybe he isn’t.
Would he more likely be available at 11? Certainly. In 1999, perhaps the deepest QB class ever (going into the draft, not end result) the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 11th and 12th picks were QB’s. That right there is the difference between 11 and 21.
But there’s more. The pool of players is such a signficant factor, don’t discount it simply because you are looking at the QB slot. We have other holes to fill, and improved selection makes for improving the pool and not reaching for a player at a position of need because there has been a “run” at that position.
For example, let’s try the 2006 draft, a little more recently. I like this one because we picked 2nd to last in the round and got Kelly Jennings. This would be a time when I would say we paid for moving down in the draft by going to the SB, and it was WELL worth it. Far cry from now, when we’ll move 10 slots back just for the right to get destroyed.
The difference between 31st and 21st?
How about Davin Joseph, who started 67 of 68 games for the Bucs before breaking his foot this year.
Or perhaps Santonio Holmes? He wouldn’t help us.
Tasty to dream of… imagine instead of Kelly Jennings we had Deangelo Williams at CB?
Or Nick Mangold in place of Spencer, who then could potentially be moved to guard as a position of strength, improving two slots on our line with one move.
Or Joseph Addai. All available prior to 31, so we could have had any of them if we had the 21st pick.
And of course, between 21 and 11, we missed out on those players plus:
Jay Cutler (11th)
Haloti Ngata (12th. Wow. Just wow. HUGE difference maker.)
Kamerion Wimbley (frustratingly Curry-esque to the Browns and now Raiders, only better on the pass rush. Perhaps if we had him, we would have used the Curry pick on some greater need).
Tamba Hali. (DE/LB combo, just the kind of guy people seem to be clamoring for to strengthen the line.)
So yeah. To say that we don’t know is true. But my argument is absolutely not watered down. If anything, it’s strengthened.
And another thing I’m curious about—-if we have a lockout for the full year, what do you think the draft order will be in 2012? Why would it change? It could very well end up exactly the same, and then we’d have two straight drafts of picking 21st instead of 11, just for the right to be eviscerated by someone like New Orleans or Green Bay in round 1.. at home.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I will completely agree that we will be in a better position come april if we lose next week
And I have no problem with your argument and your stance.
I have a problem with people who don’t want to be ridiculed or are afraid of losing. you have logic the others are just scared.
I'm not afraid of anything
I just think the playoffs should be an award for teams that earn it. The Seahawks haven’t. Not even with a win next week. They are terrible.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
There is an established system in place to earn a playoff spot
If the Seahawks go to the playoffs then they have by definition earned a playoff spot.
The top 12 teams never go to the playoffs, but the 12 teams who earned it given the established system do.
Earn
transitive verb
1a : to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered b : to bring in by way of return
2a : to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to b : to make worthy of or obtain for
I’m talking about 2a.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
So am I
Records aren’t what entitle you to a playoff spot. You are worthy if you have the best record in your division. There is no rule in the NFL that says it has to be pretty or better than anyone else, just the best in your division.
Worth
2: the value of something measured by its qualities or by the esteem in which it is held
You’re hiding behind semantics and technicalities.
“Because everyone else sucks just as much or worse” does not give the ‘Hawks more worth anymore than rancid meat has more worth to a starving man. The meat’s perceived worth may be higher to him, but of course if he eats it he’ll still get sick and die because it’s still rotten.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
No, I am denying your logic
You can’t say that the Seahawks haven’t earned a playoff spot if they get it. There is no logic behind it.
You can say that I don’t like the team or the make up of it or some qualitative opinion statement though.
I can and I do say the 'Hawks haven't earned it.
You seem to posit that if the ’Hawks were 0-16 but the Niners, Rams, and Cards all died in simultaneous plane crashes, Seattle would have earned a playoff spot.
You use words and want them to mean what you think they mean. The ‘Hawks do not have the qualities of a playoff team nor are they held in esteem a playoff team – not even by many of their own fanbase – thus they’re not worthy of the award, hence did not earn it. This is what these words actually mean.
If someone walked up and handed me a sack full of a million dollars, I’m a millionaire, but I didn’t earn it. According to what you’re saying, however, I did earn it because I have a million dollars. That’s lunacy.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Dec 27, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, plane crashes are special cases.
But with all teams playing by the established rules, whoever wins their division has earned a playoff game at home. They may not be as deserving in some respects as some other teams, but they had to beat out 3 other teams in a very fair manner to achieve it.
Still won’t stop the haters from bashing us if we get in with a losing record. Won’t help us get very far either.
Here’s another way to look at it…
The regular season is a round-robin type system to see who should qualify for the playoffs. The playoffs are designed to determine who the best teams are— who then play in the Super Bowl.
It is ignorant to complain about how good a division winner is. That’s the system and those are the rules.
If the team is no good they will not get far in the playoffs, and fairness is satisfied.
Besides, divisions are a group of teams, not one team. We don’t practice together or help each other against other divisions. If we made Divisional All-Star teams, that might be different. But as is we have no control or influence over how the other teams fare in non-division games. It’s not our fault SF sucks.
You crack me up.
Not in a bad way… just entertaining to read.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Full-year lock-out
Probably not going to happen, but that’s another point to consider.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Defeated and already capitulating?
you mean like the Seahawks on Sunday?
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Dec 27, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
The on-field effect of what a given fan at home is "rooting" for is neglible
Which is to say, entirely meaningless. If a bunch of fans at Qwest turn on the Boys in Blue and start cheering for the Rams next week it might have an effect but that ain’t happening.
Would I prefer a good draft slot over a first-round defeat of our 7-9 Hawks? Yes I would. Will I reflexively get excited and root like crazy for them to win on Sunday night, in the foolish hope that this truly bad team makes an unlikely playoff run? Of course. Do I give a shit either way what someone thinks of my fandom? Not in the least.
by lemonverbena on Dec 27, 2010 9:39 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Good on you
I understand your logic and appreciate that you are sticking with the team even though you have thought through the logical outcomes.
The on-field effect of what a given fan at home is "rooting" for is neglible
Which is to say, entirely meaningless. If a bunch of fans at Qwest turn on the Boys in Blue and start cheering for the Rams next week it might have an effect but that ain’t happening.
Would I prefer a good draft slot over a first-round defeat of our 7-9 Hawks? Yes I would. Will I reflexively get excited and root like crazy for them to win on Sunday night, in the foolish hope that this truly bad team makes an unlikely playoff run? Of course. Do I give a shit either way what someone thinks of my fandom? Not in the least.
by lemonverbena on Dec 27, 2010 9:41 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Let's not sacrifice long term benefit for a cheap thrill.
We’ve seen what Charlie can do, and we’re pretty sure he’s better than all the other QBs on the roster except Matt. And we’ve seen Matt struggle when given a poor defense and lots of time. I can imagine the carnage against a good team that’s playing hard in front of the nation.
I think not only will we face national ridicule for making the playoffs at 7-9, but we’ll cause a change in the playoff seeding or qualification rules which will be named after us. The “Seahawk Rule” will be created to keep teams that suck from getting into the playoffs— or at least from playing at home.
Also, we risk getting blown out in a manner that will stick in the record books forever. I cannot see any way this team can get close to the Super Bowl, so I do not want the negative attention and legacy a playoff win would probably induce.
No need to pity me for wanting what’s best for my team.
I can't remember a time when it would be a valid concern...
but this year is an exception. More importantly I think having the ~10th pick as opposed to the 21st is very significant. Better chance to get a good QB, easier to trade up (or down), and better position in the other rounds as well.
I really think the draft is the best tool for rebuilding, and losing to the Rams will help us way more than winning and then exiting early.
The potential ridicule is just something I’d like to avoid— not the main reason. If we didn’t own our own first, then I’d be a lot more comfortable hoping for a win.
John did a write up showing it probably wouldn't effect who we would have available
Bottom line, you don’t know.
Plus, lets face it, we are already a joke to the rest of the NFL, we might as well take a chance at the playoffs.
It would, however, affect how much we pay them right?
Aren’t contracts either explicitly, or at least implicitly, tied to draft position? So maybe we actually want the lower spot if we’re going to be choosing between more or less the same options.
It will be interesting to see how it works with the rookie wage scale that doesn't exist
But that is probably true
He based it on us picking around 13th if we fail to make the playoffs.
At 10 or better, the dynamic changes a bit. I think we can get the guy we want at ten, even if Cam gets picked in the top 7.
I know much of the population east of the Rockies don’t like us. But the majority just don’t care. This would make them care in a negative way.
Generally, screw them. But even so, I’d rather end this abomination of a season as quickly and quietly as possible.
He really was focusing on one position though, QB only.
Perhaps that is narrow thinking? We have more needs than the single position…
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
In the playoffs?
I cannot envision this team beating a playoff team away from Qwest— and even at home it looks very bleak.
Win what? The last 3 minutes of the 4th quarter?
What can you possibly say to think Seattle has a chance to beat New Orleans or Atlanta or Green Bay other than “Anything can happen”?
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
I am the eternal optimist
And nothing can change that.
In the words of Loyd Christmas “So you’re saying there’s a chance?”
Today I'm taking probability
And probability will favor the Saints so heavily that starting JP Losman might actually increase our chances.
I'm highly optimistic we will find our franchise QB at 10-15.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Just a reminder-- and I know I sound like a broken record. . .
but we cannot pick later than 11 if we lose next week. It’s between 6 and 11, with the odds right now at about 80% it will be 10. The only way it’s 11 is if AZ beats SF and none of the other games go our way.
Even if we win
It would always go down as a fluky upset and nothing more. And it should. Record aside, this Seahawks team, should it go to the playoffs, would be the worst team to ever make the playoffs in the NFL. I don’t even think it’s close. Every other 8-8 or 9-7 playoff team I can think of was at least mediocre.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
I can't take losing 10 times by double digits
You have a better stomach.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I always thought the 2004 West title was a joke
Seeing as that the Rams beat us three times (twice in Seattle) and finished 9-9 to our 9-8 when all was said and done, not unlike the Jags 15-3 season in which they lost all three games, including the AFC Championship to the Titans but ‘won’ their division.
But this year… A banner immortalizing a 7-9 Division Title hanging with those others would diminish what it means to win a division. It is only through the failure epic failure of others that this turd of a playoff run playoff accident has bubbled to the surface. Other teams more worthy, who have earned the right to be there through deeds – better record, and in the case of the Giants, Saints, and now the Buccaneers, by clobbering our hapless ass – will be left out while the ‘Hawks attend in their stead. There’s nothing to be done for it – I’m not calling for re-seeding – but I’m not happy about it. It’s fundamentally an injustice, a violation of what a meritocracy should be.
Might as well use those Division Title banners for asswipe.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
What if we win?
You can sell the screenplay to Hollywood, because that’s the only place this Seahawk team wins even a first round game.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
If Michael Robinson starts at QB
We will win 157-41.
Accustomed to mediocrity.
by SSreporters on Dec 27, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
On the lighter side-- Here's who we should root for. . .
to enhance our draft experience. Assuming the Rams take care of business and bring our season to a close— this is our best-case-scenario.
Tuesday…
Min > Philly. (gives Minny 6 wins and behind us in the draft)
Sunday early…
Det > Min (makes both Det & MN 6-10 if the Vikes lost to the Eagles.)
CLE > Pit (makes CLE 6-10)
Sunday late…
DAL > Phil (makes DAL 6-10)
HOU > Jax (makes Hou 6-10)
SF > AZ (makes SF 6-10)
If all that happens we would pick 6th in the first round (and about 13th in the 2nd).
BONUS Late game!
SD > Den (Pushes our 4th rounder from Denver up to 2nd pick in the round, which is the start of the day 3 session. Very nice pick, regardless of what happens to our record.)
Man, you had to remind me...
that they ruined the draft as a viewable entertainment.
Span it over more days, great for advertising revenue somehow, despite being terrible for fans and the destruction of the “draft day party”— the one day a year when no matter what happens you can still have hope as a fan and be relatively optimistic.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 27, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I really hate the new draft day format.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Regarding Strength of Schedule (SoS)...
it would be in our best interests if GB beats Chi. It will help our SoS and hurt SFs— which if they win on Sunday (and we lose) will be very close to our SoS. Just the fact that they win and we lose will help them close the gap (.505 to .489) significantly, so we may need that game to put/keep us ahead of them. It would also help us if the Redskins beat the NYFG.
More detail than you probably care about…
I figure each win is worth roughly .004, and although we all played a similar schedule, SF did not play the 49ers twice like we did, and AZ hasn’t played the Cards, etc.
The only other difference is we played CHI and the NYG; SF played Philly and GB, while the Cards played Min and DAL. So if we get lucky and Philly loses the next two, it will hurt in our SoS tiebreaker with SF.
I’ll probably go into more detail when I have time to do some calculations. Or just sit back and see what happens. Either way— I’ll be hoping GB beats Da Bears.
Picking 6th overall is way more exciting than making the playoffs to get cremated by an actual good team.
And the fact that it is actually almost guaranteed to be good for the team long-term…? Fuck the playoffs. I want to see all of the above.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Dec 27, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions

by 




































