Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Owners Vote to Change Trade Deadline

Field Gulls Open Seahawks Discussion Thread

It's too late for me to research and write a quality post and I hate jamming one out for the sake of content, so as I breathe deep the kitty-dandered air of home, I thought I would open a Seahawks discussion thread. This is like an All Questions Answered thread, but without the airs. Questions can be posed to anyone, or, no question can be asked. Speak your mind.

Comment 488 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I'll break the ice

at some point Field Gulls stopped being fun for me. That’s over.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:17 PM PST reply actions  

You just need more talent providing content.

Some sites on SB Nation put out 6 plus content posts per day because each writer focuses on certain aspects always getting information out there. More quality points of view make a better site, and a happier editor.

by Sonic Boom on Feb 3, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Sorry you feel that way john,

I love this web site. I ve never blogged before this web site and i find it truly awesome seeing my fellow hawk fans perspectives on the hawks, keep up the good work.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Don't be.

It’s beyond fun, it’s a job. That doesn’t mean it’s not fulfilling for him. It’s hard to make your hobby your vocation, at least at first.

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 4, 2010 4:22 PM PST up reply actions  

That's sad!

I mean if you don’t have fun with this I’d rather you didn’t at all. Your writing is always very enjoyable but you should employ those skills towards something you have passion for as well. If it makes any difference, your writing makes FG fun for us.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 9:50 PM PST up reply actions  

He's just so limited, and contributes so little to the pass rush

For his profile, he almost has to be Pat Williams-unmovable and he’s just not. Nowhere close, really.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:26 PM PST up reply actions  

So it's possible to succeed in spite of Cole

but Cole himself isn’t going to be helping the cause anytime soon?

by BrianL on Feb 3, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions  

He hurts the cause

By being a below average player. But most teams have a few below average players—even great ones.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Here's another little something to that's circled my brain

There’s still a very good chance that Alex Smith will be awful next season.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:30 PM PST reply actions  

Which would probably blow the division wide open

I also think Jimmy Clausen is the kind of prospect that if matched with the right existing talent, he could be decent right away.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Existing talent as in draft?

Free agency? Or players we currently have not being used in the right manner?

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 3:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, that's the thing

Seattle doesn’t have great existing talent. Maybe if it finagled Brandon Marshall or whoever, then, with +receivers in Carlson, Housh, Jones and Forsett, it would have the kind of talent where Clausen could contribute right away.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Wouldn't it need at least an O-line upgrade as well?

Agree with the “Smith might be awful again”. He’s hardly accomplished. Still, it’s pretty easy to say which team has the best-looking QB situation going into next season, and barring some FA-miracle that’s the Niners.

by Thomas Beekers on Feb 3, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions  

In your mind...

does “right existing talent” necessarily mean pro-bowl caliber, or could it mean the right talent for what Clausen brings to the table?

Example: Bobby Engram was never a pro-bowl “level” talent, but could certainly be a major weapon for a QB who knew how to use him.

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on Feb 3, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Another question

Can Seattle construct a decent passing offense with the talent they have. I think they can, even minus Branch and Burleson.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:33 PM PST reply actions  

It'll just be Housh at WR then.

Carlson and Forsett will have to step it up. Depends on decent, 20th ranked is decent?

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Outside realm of decent

anything floating around league average.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Depends on how healthy Matt is and should he not be healthy, who's under center.

I’ll probably get flamed for this, but a Seneca Wallace offense could be decent-ish. I kind of wish I could have seen what Greg Knapp could have done with him.

by BrianL on Feb 3, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

I just hope all Hasselbeck talk is smoke

I can’t believe, refuse to believe, this team thinks Matt Hasselbeck is the path back towards contention.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Most head coaches seem to want 'their guy' at QB.

If we don’t get a QB this year, then perhaps we build everything but QB then go all in on Locker. That would be a silver lining to “And with the 6th pick in 2010 NFL draft, the Seattle Seahawks select Derrick Morgan, Defensive End out of Georgia Tech”.

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 3:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I can't insist enough, Seattle needs to let go of Locker

Simple rebound takes Seattle way out of position, and with the rookie salary cap fixed, it will be the old days where a team would have to give their entire draft + portions of next year’s draft to move into a spot to take him.

It’s extremely, extremely unlikely Seattle will ever draft Jake Locker.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:43 PM PST up reply actions  

I bet many front offices would love a shot at Locker

But we would basically have to play the way we did the second half of the year to have a shot at him.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Or trade a first rounder this year for a 1st rounder next year.

Or who knows, maybe he did receive a 2nd round grade by the NFL committee this year and does nothing to improve upon his stock.

I wouldn’t bet for it to happen, but I think if Seattle really wanted to, they could probably get it done (unless he was the consensus #1 and STL had their hearts set on him or something).

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions  

And I wouldn't want for them to sell the farm for him anyways.

It’s never a good idea to do a Ricky Williams trade the entire farm for one player type trade unless that player is a guaranteed Peyton Manning, which isn’t a possible guarantee.

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 3:58 PM PST up reply actions  

I have to think it's just media stroking more than anything.

What else can Pete say?

“We really need to replace the former Pro Bowl QB that the fans and the media love with all their hearts.”

by BrianL on Feb 3, 2010 3:39 PM PST up reply actions  

That was exactly my reaction

What Carroll going to do? Criticize the face of the Seattle franchise in his first press conference?

They’ll look good and hard at him, and they likely won’t like what they see. I mean Jesus … how could they? Injuries nonwithstanding.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Tim Ruskell gave Alexander public support

signed Jones and Duckett and dropped Alexander like he never supported him.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Ah. I did not know that.

I didn’t pay enough attention back then. I’m still a newer Hawk fan, hehe.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Ditto. But now we've been cured of our ignorance, huh!

This is mean to Matt, but it seems likely that he will get injured or his back will flair up and his non-Seneca replacement will really show him up. Be that Teel or Clauford.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

hahaah Clauford.

Brilliant. Deserving of a rec.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 5, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree.

The key is constructing an offense that requires the least amount of QB decision making as possible. If it’s possible.

If the coaching staff can beat out of him his tendency to run out of bounds instead of throwing the ball away, I feel he’d make half as many silly mistakes.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Who was it who said:

If you have two quarterbacks, you really don’t have a quarterback. See: the 49ers.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 9:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Counterpoint-- see: UW 1990, 1991...

it’s an unusual counterpoint I agree, and I can’t think of any other “legit” teams that split time at QB.

Oh, side note— I didn’t realize Brunell was a 5th round pick…. but Hobert was an early 3rd. That surprised me!

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't think so

If they retain Spencer and Sims and the draft goes something like Clausen, Spiller, Brown then it could. Thats a bit of a pipe dream though.

Right now the core of the offense is Housh, Carlson and Forsett with questions at tackle, a potential shake up of the interior line, replacement level quarterbacks and the only skill position depth is JJ. It feels like they’re a really long ways away.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

With the whole 'uncapped year' and CBA stuff

is this year basically a loss for free agency? Is free agency even worth looking forward to?

by chrees on Feb 3, 2010 3:34 PM PST reply actions  

Pretty close

I was examining and there’s going to be a huge Leigh Bodden sweepstakes, to put it into perspective.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Hey guys, how did Bodden do?

HUGH!!!!

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Uncapped year won't be as big a deal as it sounds

Teams still have to consider their payroll after a new CBA is reached. But I would put it at 70%+ chance of a lockout in 2011, which is awful.

by lemonverbena on Feb 4, 2010 7:27 AM PST up reply actions  

What's a lockout?

Pardon the ignorance.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Just the opposite...

Strike = players/workers refuse to play/work
Lockout = owners/management won’t allow them to.

by Kryten on Feb 5, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Yep.

Players are getting a certain share of revenues and owners want to reduce that share. Not surprisingly, the players aren’t having it.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 5, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Whatever the case is

We’re still dicked without football

by DJ C-Raig on Feb 5, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm still stuck on D-line. I have been for months now.

Any chance Cole doesn’t start next season? I just have a hard time seeing our defense improve with him starting. With so many offensive needs, I just doubt we have the capability to improve around Cole.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:34 PM PST reply actions  

The Cole situation is tough to project

Cole is one of those guys that some coach might love, because for all his athletic limitations, he does stay assignment correct, and his addition was part of how Seattle started with such a good run defense.

At the same time, a player can be assignment correct and still too limited to be good.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions  

I hope the coaching staff

doesn’t think they should do everything they can to find a truly elite pass-rusher just so they can keep that stout Run-D in the middle.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:02 PM PST up reply actions  

How possible is it Seattle's receiving corp faces a significant retooling?

This includes simply getting rid of Burly and Branch.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:41 PM PST reply actions  

I would say highly

It’s pretty common to bring in a new quarterback and then run through guys and find out who he creates chemistry with.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:45 PM PST up reply actions  

That's possible

I’m not sure you can import that chemistry though. Tate would be a good complement to Housh, should he stick around.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Well to be honest

Any scenario that involves Clausen going any later than one is extremely far-fetched, to say the least. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, new GMs and HCs mean new “franchise” QBs, and Clausen is a stud QB. And look who happens to be at the top of the draft with a new GM and HC? The Rams. And now that Marc Bulger’s contract won’t be an issue, you can expect Clausen to have a deal done before draft day.

by Cannonater on Feb 4, 2010 12:17 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree.

Bradford has the tools to just wow the hell out of the combine. If both are healthy, I think it’s pretty unlikely Clausen outperforms Bradford.

Granted, scouts and teams don’t put all their eggs into the combine basket, but If Bradford outperforms Clausen, I find it hard to believe he isn’t picked first.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 8:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Neither may perform at the Combine.

Clausen had surgery and will miss it that I last heard. Bradford may wait for his Pro Day anyway – even if the shoulder is ready.

by Misfit74 on Feb 4, 2010 8:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me

And Clausen is just better in my opinion, for a lot of reasons. He played most of the year hurt, and was still a stud. He had some amazing stats last year (3722 yards, 28 TDs, 4 INTs, 68 comp. pct., YPA 8.75), despite playing for a sub-par team with sub-par offensive line, and even though his team didn’t always win, he was big in big games. He threw five TDs against Stanford, and had 260 yards, 2 TDs and no picks against USC.

All this talk about Clausen just makes me a little sad that the Seahawks won’t be able to get him

by Cannonater on Feb 8, 2010 9:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Tate can be really exciting to watch.

Wouldn’t mind him being a Seahawk at all.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:02 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd be okay w/ us drafting Tate.

He’s not the big modern prototype, but Tate could be to us what Branch should have been .

by Misfit74 on Feb 5, 2010 3:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Why should we believe Bradley and Quinn's defense will look different?

Your last two posts about the D-line and secondary issues were fairly spot-on. Do we legitimately believe that it was Mora calling those shots or is there still a good chance that we will consistently see a Redding/Mebane/Cole/Kerney front four?

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 3:43 PM PST reply actions  

I sure as hell hope so.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

I would also assume that Pete is gonna have a lot of input on defense

defense was his main hallmark at USC, he’s gonna want to do things his way.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Feb 4, 2010 12:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I assume retaining Bradley means that the Tampa 2 stays in place next year.

Is there any way that’s a good idea (the Tampa 2 part, not the Bradley part)?

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 3:44 PM PST reply actions  

The basic 4-3 under is still sturdy and sound

Seattle was running out some kind of hybrid and it was a mess. I disfavor zone coverage, but the original Tampa 2 model used zones to mask so-so coverage behind a dominant line. As long as Tampa 2 means investing heavily into the pass rush, it could still make a good defense.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Totally, TOTALLY agree.

Our CBs are average to good, so I can’t imagine they’d be worse in man coverage.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Typically, zones are used to hide defenders that struggle in man

So, naturally, you would want Jennings and Trufant in zones. Blech.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions  

I sure hope Tru can still cover

After his injury, he wasn’t the same player on the field he once was. Hopefully some rest and rehabilitation, coupled with a full training camp will see him approach his Pro-Bowl form again. Not to be a pessimist, but I think the odds are south of 50-50. :( It sucks, as he is one of my favorite Hawks, given his great attitude, community work, and his competitiveness.

by IslandHawk on Feb 4, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions  

He came off and injury and was placed into an unfamiliar scheme that didn't play to his strenghts

If we switch back to man coverage, he’ll be just fine, don’t you worry.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 9:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Supply and demand

I think it’s too difficult and too resource-intensive to find quality D-linesman a la 2002 Tampa Bay, the current Colts D-line that fit the Tampa-2 mould. It’d require several years of smart drafting for sketchy results at best. Yes, the Colts do have a good defense at times, but it helps when you have a Hall of Fame QB with the weapons he has

Didn’t mean to go off topic, the shorthand is I feel the talent-pool is too small and the competition too great to run an effective Tampa 2 scheme in the modern NFL

My two cents.

by rex92 on Feb 3, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Also, does this seem like a likely scenario for QBs heading into the regular season?

3rd QB – Mike Teel
2nd QB – 2010 Draft Pick
Starter – Matt Hasselbeck

Seattle trades, if not outright cut Seneca Wallace realizing he’s maximized his potential and is only going to get horrifyingly worse.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:45 PM PST reply actions  

He has absolutely no future at either position.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

He'll be 30 by the time he makes the transition to receiver

And his QB skills, which were already noted to be pretty erratic in college, have gotten dramatically worse. I wouldn’t even trust him in a gadget QB situation.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Your wrong about Wallace

He’s the best QB on the roster, that’s not saying much but he’s a much better value than the $ 7 million Matt will get next season.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Check these stats for the past two seasons

 QB A 69.9 Passer rating vs

QB B 85.3

QB A 22 TD Passes 27 INT’s

QB B 14 TD passes 5 INT’s.

They are both on the Seahawks roster.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Games started ?

Sencea and Matt have both been winning at about a .300 clip neither is good not sure if that’s what you are getting at though.

Seneca got a lot of starts in 08 because Matt was broken.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Seneca got a lot of his numbers cleaning up lost causes.

He isn’t a good pocket quarterback, scrambles his way into sacks, doesn’t scramble for yardage, and doesn’t do a good job making reads. Also, he’s not terribly accurate. If you want to argue the Pro Seneca route, I think you’ll find a stern opposition form anyone who has watched him do what he does.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Not saying Seneca

Is our answer just saying he’s better to keep around than Matt.

He’s better, younger, more athletic, and cheaper.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:19 PM PST up reply actions  

That's all I am saying

Matt would be the one to get rid of before Seneca.

Neither is a long term answer but Seneca is a better stop gap for next season if things don’t fall into place the way we hope for.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:22 PM PST up reply actions  

If Seneca Wallace is starting for the Seahawks next year, the new regime will lose all credibility to me.

Getting rid of Matt means it’s time to move on. The last two seasons have been wasted time that could have been spent developing a young quarterback of the future. Doing that for a third season would be inexcusable.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 8:24 PM PST up reply actions  

Committing to Seneca is committing to losing without any long-term gains.

If you’re going to lose, you may as well lose with Brohm or that type of player.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 8:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Say we draft

Bradford or Clausen and they show they are not ready Seneca is not total garbage to step in and run the team.

We’d have to be run heavy and play great D but we could compete the NFC west isn’t that great.

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 3, 2010 8:46 PM PST up reply actions  

You're right in that the weak NFC West will lead to a great temptation to try to compete now.

That’s not really in the best interest of the team, though. I’d rather run out the rookie and get them the experience they’ll need. If we lucked into a Jets / Sanchez situation, great. If not, it’s not like you were going to beat anyone in the playoffs with Seneca at QB anyway.

by abender20 on Feb 3, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

What exactly did the Jets luck into?

Sanchez looked awful, and he played on a team stacked with talent on offense and defense. He should have excelled.

Stafford posted near identical numbers to Sanchez, and he plays on one of the most talent-poor teams in the league.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 8:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Read it again.
If we lucked into a Jets / Sanchez situation

by abender20 on Feb 4, 2010 9:18 AM PST up reply actions  

I wouldn't want to luck into a Jets situation

In regards to a QB like sanchez. I would consider that bad luck. Because I think he sucks :P

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

We, as in the Seahawks.

Luck for the Seahawks meaning making the playoffs (somehow) with a rookie quarterback when there really isn’t a chance of getting to the Superbowl on his back. That would then put us in the aforementioned Jets/Sanchez situation of bringing in a rookie QB and making the playoffs.

by abender20 on Feb 4, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions  

*sigh*

How was I too thick to get that point?

Gotcha, thanks.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions  

A perfect example would be the Indianapolis game.

He was 33 for 45 for 257 yards 1 TD and a 94.4 QB Rating. At no point were we in contention, and the TD drive was in the fourth quarter when the game was over.

I mentioned this before as a joke, but running -5 yards out of bounds helps his QB Rating because it doesn’t decrease his completion percentage.

by LantermanC on Feb 4, 2010 8:26 AM PST up reply actions  

And more importantly, he absolutely murdered the team while the game was still close.

He completely stymied the offense and it was only after the Colts started eating clock on defense that he found yardage.

by abender20 on Feb 4, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Do you think Matt

Would have beat the Colts in Indy ? COME ON NOW !

by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Feb 4, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Ultimately:

Even if Seneca is better than Hasselbeck, the latter would have to improve a lot this season in order for EITHER of the two QBs to be any kind of solution, temporary or otherwise, at the position.
Again, Matt might be worse than Seneca, but if that’s so, then neither of them are worth keeping. Seneca played alright in 2008 but his team was better all around.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions  

I think it's possible only Teel is retained

I think it’s possible even Teel is released, given that he doesn’t fit what I think Carroll will want to do.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Only Teel retained?

You mean potentially him, a draft pick, and maybe a free agent signing?

An example would be Teel/Clausen/FA signing.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions  

No thanks. Give me Brohm any day.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions  

I d say Grossman out of all of them.

I know, he’s as smart as a doorknob but he did go to the big game.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I would say "Gross, man..."

To any of those.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Or Booty.

Schneider should have connections with Min, Vikings don’t need him and Carroll knows him. I wouldn’t be surprised if Booty beats out Clausen for week one starter.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Houston signed Booty to the reserves squad.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Is Housh legit trade bait?

And if so, do you think the Hawks would try to move him to fix other positions/needs?

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:46 PM PST reply actions  

I think he's legit trade bait

As to what his value is right now that’s up in the air. I still believe trading him to the Cowboys for Tashard Choice and maybe a late round draft pick seems reasonable. Cowboys fans would be wise to realize their receivers kinda suck after Miles Austin.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

For sure

Of course, for a team that needs some stability at wide receiver, Housh might be worth keeping.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

How about to Baltimore?

Acknowledging that wide receiver is a priority this offseason, Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome indicated that he’s “open” to trading players or draft picks to acquire an upgrade.

by Misfit74 on Feb 4, 2010 8:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Yep

Baltimore is one of the few teams that I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m sure would love to have Housh. Others could be Miami, Chicago (especially since Cutler was accustomed to larger receivers) and even Indy or Dallas.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 8:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Why would you want to trade Housh?

I mean I can think of some reasons but I want to hear yours.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions  

I was posing the question, myself

It’s unlikely Housh will be productive and cheap come Seattle’s likely timeframe for growth and contention (2-3 seasons from now).

The new management is going to put everything under a magnifying glass. And anyone with significant market value now that likely won’t have significant market value in 2-3 years will be closely examine to determine if the value they bring to the team now and in a few years outweighs the value of a some other option (trade for players, picks, etc).

I’d guess Housh would be one of the likeliest candidates to command a fair amount of value via trade and thus help the team in some other way. What other way is this? I have no idea. Maybe trade for a young, low production / high upside reciever (that could come into his prime come 2-3 years) + picks to help strengthen us in other areas.

Just a thought.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 5, 2010 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Good stuff. In a rebuilding phase, there is a case to be made for obtaining young talent

…at the expense of a proven “win-now” player who is 32, and likely won’t be the same by the time we have the other players in position to compete.

On the other hand, having a Housh or other large, aggressive possession receiver is a nice security blanket for a new young quarterback. David Carr probably wishes he had a stronger supporting cast, for example. Confidence can be a tricky thing for a QB to regain, once shattered.

by IslandHawk on Feb 5, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Should the Seahawks re-sign Bobby Engram?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST reply actions  

Not meant to be a serious question

I just miss watching Bobby convert those 3rd downs for us.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Up to Gibbs

I think we’re looking at a Sims-Unger-Spencer interior. FWIW, in a strict Gibbs style ZBS, Unger does make some sense at center. Spencer makes some sense at guard, but I’m not sure what Gibbs will think of Sims—who I love and all, but is the least athletic-agile of the three.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions  

More of a general question than Seahawks-centric

Just how far away are the owners and players from a CBA? What are the sticking points?

by Hmph on Feb 3, 2010 3:53 PM PST reply actions  

Very

Kevin Mawae described it as the players and owners standing on the opposite 10-yard line of a football field.

As far I know it’s mainly the revenue-sharing that’s the biggest issue. Currently players receive 60% of the revenue but the owners want to decrease that. Players don’t want to. Cue bitchfighting.

by rex92 on Feb 3, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions  

They want to cut it to something like 45%

Thats a huge drop but from what I understand they’re just starting negiotiations.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Wow

That would be a massive reduction.
They’ve been negotiating for a few months I believe but haven’t made any real progress

by rex92 on Feb 3, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

I've worked on both sides of a union

This always plays out one way: The company makes concessions to the veterans while screwing over the rookies and future employees.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions  

You compromise with the people at the table

by taxing those not yet able. I figure it will work out something like this: increased cap, dramatically reduced rookie contracts and longer period be for UFA.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Which seems reasonable to me, in this case

Rookie salaries have gotten way out of control so that is a good concession for NFLPA. Hasn’t the NBA rookie pay scale worked pretty well?

by lemonverbena on Feb 4, 2010 7:35 AM PST up reply actions  

The rookie salary outrage is way overblown

Colin Cole will make more next season than Glenn Dorsey.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 4, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions  

You're looking at it at a yearly basis. Yearly average would be more relevant.

Also, you’re using the worst possible example with Colin Cole. That would be like using Carlos Silva as an example.

by LantermanC on Feb 4, 2010 12:07 PM PST up reply actions  

It's impossible to know

It’s all about brinkmanship now. Hopefully, ever will be wise enough to not kill the goose…

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Are the Redskins going to draft a QB?

And if so, which of the two (I’m assuming Clausen and Bradford are the top choices, here) are they most likely to pick? (what with Shanahan aboard and all).

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 3:57 PM PST reply actions  

I firmly believe Shanny will stick with Campbell.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions  

I think they stick with Campbell

That team is desperate for offensive line help, and I associate Shanahan with O-line play. This is the guy that ran with Jake the Snake. Draft a quarterback in your very first year and you tie your entire future to the kid.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

You think they'll draft any of the available OTs at #4?

I’ve heard grumblings that the OT class this year is top-talent weak.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, yet somehow last year was supposed to be "historic"

It looks like a quality crop of OTs to me. Certainly much better than last year’s.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Russell Okung seems to be a man of controversy.

Some think of him as a guy with no weaknesses. Some see holes in every direction making him a risky pick.

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Funny enough

We’ll know more after the Combine. OT is a position that requires very rare athleticism. Look at Clady. There’s a guy that wasn’t a great OT coming out of college, but his athleticism for his size is just silly.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions  

So bearing any crazy wild, unlikely 'trade ups'

The Hawks will likely have first pick at QB.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions  

I think they will

I think this is their year, and the Clausen-Carroll connection only makes me believe that more.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions  

No one will like Clausen at first

but if he develops, no one will remember that they didn’t like him. I mean, ten years ago, who the hell was Matt Hasselbeck. I was on the Kitna bandwagon.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

To be fair

9 years ago I was chanting Dilfer at Husky Stadium too.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 4:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Super Bowl champion, Trent Dilfer.

It was so fun watching our defense in the 23-3 game (Rocky smashing Smith out for the season) wallop Dilfer.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Sure

and even then, there was not indication that Hasselbeck would turn the corner. A team has to roll the dice.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions  

You and me both

That Philly game in the 90-degree heat, right after 9/11…ugh. Not a good memory.

by lemonverbena on Feb 4, 2010 7:37 AM PST up reply actions  

I have to admit, I'm starting to come around on the idea of drafting Clausen.

Watching Golden Tate highlights allowed me to see how mobile he is. He looked under siege in some games but could get himself out of trouble and complete passes on the run. Is his mobility really that good?

by Misfit74 on Feb 3, 2010 5:34 PM PST up reply actions  

OK. I'm on board with Clausen in blue.

I was, however, hoping for a dynamic, rocket-armed stud. Oh, well. It’ll be tough not to be an improvement over Hasselbeck, rookie and all.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 3, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

I disagree

St. Louis is definitely going to take Clausen at one. New GM, new head coach. They already have a good, young LT in Smith. They need their franchise QB, and that’s Clausen, who is a stud.

by Cannonater on Feb 4, 2010 12:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Clausen has some question marks.

Suh might be the best defensive prospect in the last 20+ years, or at least that’s what I keep hearing. Perhaps if Suh were a safety or a linebacker, I’d say take Clausen (or McCoy actually), but Suh is a defensive lineman, and people generally agree that they pretty important.

by LantermanC on Feb 4, 2010 8:28 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes.

When the best one available in FA commands $100-million, they’re fairly important.

by Misfit74 on Feb 4, 2010 8:40 AM PST up reply actions  

That and Clausen may not come out of the combine as the #1 prospect

If Bradford’s healthy, he’s got the tools to easily out-perform Clausen. Probably by a mile.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 8:44 AM PST up reply actions  

That is all very true

But a DT (or any other DL for that matter) isn’t going to lead your team to the Super Bowl.

Let’s say that Suh turns into the next Cortez Kennedy, who I think we can all agree was great. How many championships did Seattle win with him? None. And if you look at the top QBs in the NFL right now, and you look at the teams that make the playoffs, I think it’s pretty easy to see the correlation. Of the top ten QBs in 2009, 8 made the playoffs. It would be hard to make a list of the best DTs, but six out of the top ten defenses made it into the playoffs.

Haynesworth’s $100 million is another good example. Washington goes and gets the best DT in the game and finishes 4-12. Although I’m sure Haynesworth was dominant the whole time, it did them no good.

So while I think it would be silly to say that Suh would NOT be a good pick because of the outrageous amount of talent that he has, I think you still have to take Clausen because of positional value.

by Cannonater on Feb 8, 2010 10:17 PM PST up reply actions  

St. Louis needs a lot

and Ndamakung (sp?) is the best player in the draft.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:17 PM PST up reply actions  

"Definitely" is way too strong a word

when there’s a talent as highly regarded as Suh.

by thebyron on Feb 5, 2010 9:40 AM PST up reply actions  

What are the chances Jones or Forsett get their walking papers if Seattle drafts Spiller or Matthews?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:00 PM PST reply actions  

That's what I thought.

Jones seems likely to go, which is unfortunate because he wasn’t bad.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:05 PM PST up reply actions  

As a rusher, he's not great

But that’s only part of what a running back does. Get him behind a line that can blow open holes and he could still be a quality rusher that contributes big-time as a blocker and receiver.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Also

He never was fit for the ZBS. He fit Holmgren’s style, but not Knapp’s.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions  

It could be disastrous.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

It almost doesn't matter

No cap, no Jones burden. It only becomes a problem if he somehow recovers and is, as he almost certainly would be, a shadow of what he was. I don’t think that’s likely.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions  

That's up to Paul Allen

I don’t want to speculate on all that. It’s delicate.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions  

It's sort of like Griffey and the Mariners.

 He hasn’t spent his whole career with the Mariners like Walt has with the Seahawks but he’s, like, the hero of at least 80% of the team’s casual fans despite being a shadow of what he once was and is, at this point, wasting one of the team’s roster spots. So do you cut him in order to sign a better player and lose a lot of fan support or do you keep him for the fan support and revenue even if he’s hurting the team?

A Mariners fan in Seattle

by Coach Owens on Feb 4, 2010 5:18 AM PST up reply actions  

That's pretty much it.

That, and he’s (Walt) scheduled to make quite a sum of money.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 8:45 AM PST up reply actions  

Is it necessary for us to draft a RB that is different than Forsett?

I feel like one that is similar to Forsett is fin as well, just as long as Forsett doesn’t get too many carries.
If Spiller wasn’t such a dynamo on special teams, how highly would he be rated? I feel like that is an underrated aspect to his game and the main reason I’m on board with him at #14.

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 4:05 PM PST reply actions  

Spiller-Forsett, without someone that can pound clock and so forth

is somewhat incomplete, but that extra guy should be easy to find. I mean, Chauncey Washington is still around.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

I want Weaver back. Any chance Field Gulls can hatch a plan to kidnap him?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:09 PM PST reply actions  

Man, wasn't that a burn

especially in light of how Knapp ran the offense.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

All of those 5 yard heaves to Griffith for a loss of 1

Could’ve been 40 yards of YAC fun with Weaver.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Knapp can run a complicated to death offense at times

Too many blockers and too few receivers. I think he needs his guys, through and through, his guys, and that’s one reason I wonder why he hasn’t tried college.

At the end though, there was no game planning around Hasselbeck. It became unwatchable, personally.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Weaver could provide some of what Stanley Havili provided for USC

Sure would be nice to have that kind of versatility.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Feb 4, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions  

If Hasselbeck stays, will the Hasseltoss be a major part of the playbook?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:13 PM PST reply actions  

His body should tell him.

10 INTs in the final month was the final sign. He was the major factor in Seattle playing arguably the worst football in the NFL starting from the Texans game.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

This is just pure speculation about Hasselbeck as a person

but I don’t think he’ll go the back up or bounce around the league route. I think when he either realizes he’s not starting quality or is told he’s not starting quality he’ll retire.

I could be wrong though, Hasselbeck turned out great because he was too stubborn to know how much he sucked early in his career. Maybe he’ll be too stubborn to realize it now.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 4:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Crazy right?

He has plans for life after football, I think he wants to get into politics.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Matt/Elizabeth for the 2016 presidency!!!

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

My new dream ticket:

Largent/Colbert.
Of course, that would be like in olden days when the VP and Pres were of different parties.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:24 PM PST up reply actions  

If we go that route--

I think Stewart/Limbaugh would be high on the humor scale. Can you imagine those two trying to get along?!?

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

But i don't love Stewart or Limbaugh

nearly as much as I love Colbert.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 7, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

Doesn't he lose money if he retires?

And by lose I mean ‘not make the money on his contract’?

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm not so sure he would.

I wish I could remember exactly what he said, but I remember when he was asked about Brett Farve’s on again off again retirement (I think when he came back for the Jets), he talked about how different the perspective is from a 1st round guy to a guy like himself that had to work his butt off just to stay in the league from year one. He said something about having so much appreciation for how hard it was for him to make it in this league, that he’d never willingly walk away.

My memory is a little fuzzy about what was actually said, but my impression of it was that he’ll probably go the Mark Brunell route to retirement.

by Mind of no mind on Feb 4, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Were I a betting man

I’d put my money on no.

It’s very hard for most athletes to know when they’re done, both due to love of the sport (and/or money) and the need to have a skewed self-view. We all hate diva receivers, but fact is, it usually helps to think you’re great even if nobody else sees it, if that’s what it takes to push yourself day in day out.

So I’d guess; probably not.

by Thomas Beekers on Feb 3, 2010 4:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't think Bill would do this, but he squeezes the best out of veterans

Maybe trade him to the Pats for a draft pick. They have little pass-rush presence from the front four.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know. People seem to be down on Kerney a lot,

but a lot of times it seemed like no one was getting to the QB. I think Kerney takes more blame than he deserves. Could just be my biased eyes though.

by LantermanC on Feb 3, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions  

He looked like he was trying, but man he looked like he got manhandled on a regular basis

Makes me think he might just be out of gas and all those upper body surgeries took their toll on his strength and explosiveness

by illwillbli on Feb 3, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions  

His upper body strength is shot

He’s a KGB type for a team that wants a real situational player. I wouldn’t assume all this retirement talk is completely bogus, either. Athletes rush to discredit PFT, but his rumors usually have legs.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah thinking he pulls a Winstrom

unless someone is really desperate and he decides to test the limited FA market to sit on someone else’s bench

by illwillbli on Feb 3, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah

He can still edge rush. I just wouldn’t want him in for more than a few snaps a game.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions  

My view:

get rid of Cole first and see how Kerney does in pre-season.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Can we discuss trade possibilities?

Or would that constitute as “Fantasy GM’ing”?

by aerozeppelin on Feb 3, 2010 4:32 PM PST reply actions  

Tough ruling

Trades will happen, but it’s pretty hard to know what trades will happen.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Branch to Denver for a 2011 1st round draft pick.

And because it’s Denver, nothing can be considered fantasy.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

It certainly should

Players are already demanding trades.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Riddick Bowe the boxer?

Or Dwayne Bowe the receiver?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions  

This Marshall talk has been persistent

and Carroll is the polar opposite of McDaniels.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions  

In draft picks?

I don’t know. Remember, McDaniels buys into the value of second round picks and Seattle’s second round pick is supposedly one of the most valuable in the entire draft.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:41 PM PST up reply actions  

In theory, Marshall would influence the decision

would want to play for Carroll and put Denver over a barrel. Cutler got a haul because so many teams were in play. Marshall could screw that up mighty.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions  

It seems like the type of decision which won't come until right around draft day

Denver tries to wait out to see what the offers are and interested teams wait to see the market.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions  

It wouldn't be too hard to drum up a market

Theres Chicago and Baltimore and a few other wide receiver starved teams that could get involved.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 3, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

But Marshall is in his last year

and if he makes it clear that he won’t sign with any other team, the market vanishes.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:50 PM PST up reply actions  

If McDaniels could have played ball for even a second

the market would be robust, but given the toxicity, and given Marshall’s contract, I think this will backfire pretty badly for McDaniels.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Will the legend of Nick Reed grow now that he was a new special teams coach?

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:34 PM PST reply actions  

I love to rip on Reed, because he's like one of us out there

but guy didn’t have a terrible rookie year. I guess that’s why the jokes are funny.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Preseason warrior.

And he also scored a touchdown. That’s worth something.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:35 PM PST up reply actions  

It felt like we only saw him in 3 man rushes.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd actually be curious how many snaps he took (non-ST)

It was always a little tough to tell whether he was out there.

by illwillbli on Feb 3, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Because for a DE he's Verne Troyer.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Sack too

And there was that time he beat Michael Crabtree with Alex Smith’s rigor-mortis stiff corpse.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:37 PM PST up reply actions  

I'm sure he recovered a fumble in that Niners game too.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 4:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Or the time he prevented the seas from flodding seattle by

single handedly holding up our crumbling seawall….oh wait never mind (though I would love to see a gif of that

by illwillbli on Feb 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST up reply actions  

My ex-coworker's friend is his cousin.

So cool.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:30 PM PST up reply actions  

How much better offensively would this team have been with a league average QB DVOA?

I wonder if instead of flat-out awful, we would have been able to hit 2006-2007 levels of production.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 4:45 PM PST reply actions  

Depends a lot on Branch

who is kind of an unknown right now. If Branch is something like what he was prior to the injury, Seattle could have fielded an above average offense I think. It does have weapons, if no true #1. I think, even if we could just have had a younger version of Hasselbeck in command, this was potentially a good offense.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Not to say we don't have holes

But there is such a current gaping hole at QB that it appears more difficult to fully evaluate the rest of the offense at this stage.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 3, 2010 4:51 PM PST up reply actions  

and if you adjusted the scheme and made out receivers play better...

and didn’t have the early year line injuries

Anything is possible, but I don’t think likely

by illwillbli on Feb 3, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Bradford, risk and all

I’m one of those pesky people that won’t count out Tebow, and McCoy is Tebow-like except better skilled for the NFL. Too bad he’s built like a scarecrow. Robinson has some potential. Skelton. Pike could have a few good seasons if he can avoid splintering.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Anyone else

will need a Brady like transformation.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I liked him more before I started watching him

almost nothing he did in college will translate. If he had a better arm, I could understand him as a project pick, but he seems like Tyler Thigpen-lite to me.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:05 PM PST up reply actions  

If McCoy isn't permanently disabled by his injury

he’s still a very solid pick. Before the BCS, he didn’t have injury problems.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:07 PM PST up reply actions  

The draft process is pretty sound

Brees had suboptimal height and arm strength, but still went 32nd.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Mike Kafka!

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Feb 3, 2010 9:08 PM PST up reply actions  

+ ∞

1.Trent Williams 1.Brandon Graham 2. Syd Thompson 3.Torell Troup 4.Andrew Quarless 5.John Jerry 6.Mike Kafka 7.Quinton Andrews 7.Preston Parker

by supraman on Feb 4, 2010 9:11 AM PST up reply actions  

I've thought about this a ton

and I think I’m pulling for the Colts. Does that make me a bad guy?

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:05 PM PST reply actions  

HATE Colts...

given they freely walked away from immortality of an undefeated season. It’s sad really… karma needs to pay them a LOSS!

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Meh.

I’d rather have Peyton healthy for the playoff run.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions  

He sat against the sad-sack Bills...

and in a game THEY WERE LEADING when he went out.

That’s 6 additional quarters to the greatest season in the history of the NFL.

In the words of Ty Cobb in Cobb, “The quest for greatness is not a sin!” The denial of the opportunity though, it is.

5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years from now this very good Colts team— if they win the Super Bowl, will be forgotten. And it’s their own damn fault.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions  

An undefeated season is a nice thing to brag about having accomplished but if you lose in the playoffs (ask the Pats fans about that)

it doesn’t really matter. If your goal is to win the Superbowl, do whatever you think maximizes those chances.

by abender20 on Feb 4, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions  

I disagree completely.

It’s beyond “bragging.” It’s FUCKING IMMORTALITY!!!!!! I can’t see an athlete that wouldn’t kill for it. People knocked Michael Irvin for saying he’d trade his multiple SB wins and personal awards for one perfect season. I on the other hand think it’s one of the most honest things he’s ever said. It’s a bigger thing than SB wins. I don’t even know how many SB’s those Cowboys teams won, nor what years they won them… I do know if they went undefeated one year, we’d all know it by heart though. That isn’t about bragging, that’s about being SPECIAL.

A team wins the Super Bowl every year. Going undefeated makes you 44’s more likely to be remembered forever. In a game where success is fleeting and careers are short, the Colts owed their players the opportunity to be remembered forever in the halls of history.

Greatness cannot be duplicated. Perfection would be remembered forever. And when things change along the way, the goals should change. Come week 14 or 15 when you are undefeated, you should add UNDEFEATED ALL TIME GREATEST SEASON EVER to your list of goals.

They were 6 quarters short of being in the exact same spot they are now, but with the real chance of immortality. Peyton will be remembered forever, but Bob Saturday will not. Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney will not, despite being maybe the best bookend pass-rushers in the league. Hell, even Reggie Wayne’s name will fade over time… yet I know Garo Yepremian’s name. Why? Because that son of a bitch was the kicker for the last undefeated team in the NFL, the only undefeated team of the SB era.

What’s more the extended layoff has not been proven to help. The 2005 Colts 2007 Colts and 2008 Colts all rested their starters the final week or two of the regular season and didn’t win. Guess that means THIS year they should have rested everyone, but in those years they should have played them…

Even casual sports fans can reference the 72 dolphins. The best team of my lifetime was probably the 85 Bears, who lost a single game. Those two teams stand out for their dominance and the record.

This Colt team DESERVES to lose!

They are the best team of the first decade of the 2000’s, and they could have capped that off with a perfect undefeated season. Instead, even if they win the SB, it will be just another year.

I commend the Pats for playing Welker. I commend them for being the one team that looked at greatness and tried to take it head-on, and coming a crazy-ass catch from attaining it.

It’s too bad this scenario here has become the model of acceptability instead. It’s damn conservative, and it’s a shame, because their players, their fans, and us, the fans of the NFL in general, deserved better. It’s like punting from your opponents 48 yard line or on 4th and inches pretty much anywhere. Coaches would rather NOT LOSE than take a chance at true greatness…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

As a fan, I want a Superbowl

and as such, I want my team to maximize every possible chance to win a Superbowl. If my team has secured the first seed before the regular season ends, I sure as hell want the coach limiting the snaps starters take leading into the playoffs. More snaps they take, the greater the chance that someone really, really important gets injured.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree 100%, wc...

Whoever wins this will be ONE of FORTY-FOUR teams to win a SuperBowl. W00T!
Next year our goal will be to be one of 45, but it should always be to go undefeated. NO TEAM has been perfect since the expanded 16-game schedule, so doing it would be monumentally historical.

Remember, going undefeated includes winning the SB, so you actually get both.
There’s no good evidence that resting all key players for 2 or 3 weeks prior to the playoffs actually helps win the SB. And if you’re already at 14-0 or 15-0, you get that playoff bye anyway.

So as a fan, I want history. If we win the SB next year, we still only have one, and will still take shit from all those fans who have multiple SB wins. Going undefeated shuts them all up. We’d have bragging rights over the Niners, Stealers, Cowboys and Pats…

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Really Kryton google greatest Nfl team of all time...

Because the 85 Bears come up first. Then the 72 dolphins. Were the Bears undefeated. Nope.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 3:21 PM PST up reply actions  

You'll notice though that I mentioned the 85 bears here as they were the best team of my lifetime...

I just wrote an extended fanpost to talk about this specific unique topic related to this particular SB.

For the record, the the 72 Dolphins were actually only a very average middle upper tier team that got incredibly lucky several times and ways. From a talent standpoint they fall far behind. Regardless, they’re remembered not for being lucky, but for being undefeated, hence “greatest” even if that is a misnomer.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions  

I remember them for being annoying.

I hate them and their victory ceremonies every year. Screw them.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Feb 4, 2010 4:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know they were any better that Montana's Niners...

In fact, I have never thought of them as one of the best ever. Don’t know what you would base that on— which proves my point that you can argue back and forth about the best ever, but if you went 19-0 it would pretty much settle the argument.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 3:37 PM PST up reply actions  

It's a violent sport.

The more snaps you take, the greater your chance of injury. If you lose a Manning heading into the playoffs, you’ve done your fans a far greater disservice than if you give up the chance for a perfect regular season.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed Brian

If Peyton( hes the Qb coach Recievers coach and the Offensive coordinator, that happens to play Qb) went down, the colts head coach would never live it down for chasing the “perfect season.”

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions  

You're passing up a chance for immortality...

because you’re playing scared. If you’re good enough to win your first 15 games, you should set your sights a little higher than just a normal SB run. Maybe after it’s been done it might lose it’s value— to be the second 19-0 team, but right now nobody has done it.
What is so magical about game 16 that the QB could get injured moreso than game 13 or the first playoff game??

Winning the SB is great, but 19-0 is the next level higher.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

No, I'm passing up a chance for immortality because I want a Superbowl victory.

Having healthy starters increases the odds that my team wins a Superbowl.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Not me.

No amount of rings (“one for the sphincter”) could match a perfect season.
Oh, you got a ring too? We got some of those.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 4:17 PM PST up reply actions  

They hand out a SB ring every year...

no matter how good or bad the teams are. Every year somebody will win or be gifted one. They just aren’t as special as something that has never been done.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 4:18 PM PST up reply actions  

Okay, I'm saying that FOR US...

just getting to the SB was uncharted territory, so I suppose a lot of ‘Hawk fans were just happy to get there. Getting there was a very good goal but not the best we could achieve.
Similarly, if you’ve already been there you would tend to not just be satisfied unless you win.
My goal every year is to go undefeated. Once that fails the next highest is to win the SB, and third best outcome would be to get there but not win.
So my reason for posting that is that to me, not trying in the final game or two (if you were undefeated), would be giving up the #1 goal and settling for second best— which is winning the SB. I would try for goal #1 until it was no longer possible.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 9:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Cmon kryten

" My goal every year is go undefeated. Once that fails the next highest is to win the SB,and third best outcome would be to get there not to win ." Kryten
Whats your age because youve been disappointed for what 38 years since 72, cmon man.
 And hell ya we were happy when we went to the superbowl.

by Bubbagill on Feb 5, 2010 1:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Been a disappointed Seahawk fan since year one...

which was 1976. In ’72 I was a Raider and Charger fan…

Yes getting to the SB was great because that is the goal— to win the SB. But if you can win it and go undefeated that’s an even better goal.

I’m not arguing that I don’t care about SB wins. Obviously to go undefeated you must win the SB. I’m just saying if you can go one better, then do it. The legacy of 19-0 is better than just a super bowl win.

by Kryten on Feb 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Of course I want one. We all do.

But if you have the opportunity to grab greatness, you should go for it.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Well argued -- I too would rather see teams go for the perfect season

…even if it risks injury. Teams sitting starters prior to the playoffs is a blemish on the league. I do, however, understand the reasons why coaches and owners choose what they do, even if I don’t agree.

by IslandHawk on Feb 4, 2010 10:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Doesn't make you a bad guy, but isn't it boring?

Rooting for the Colts is like pulling for 8 1/2″ × 11″ white paper. If the Saints win, that fucked-over town has a collective orgasm for six months.

by lemonverbena on Feb 4, 2010 7:48 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm pulling for the Colts

but I also want Reggie Bush to have a huge game.

[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]

by bluemax on Feb 4, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I hope the colts just spank the Aints

Still mad about the officiating of the Vikings/ Saints game:p…..reminds of a seahawk game a couple years back.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 2:51 PM PST up reply actions  

I keep thinking about the Vikes fans complaining about QB hits...

and how that Minnie player ended Matt’s season on a late cheap hit. Screw Minnesota. I’m for NO.

by Kryten on Feb 4, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't know

yet more reason for me to ignore that crap. Given the resources and credibility newspapers have/had, there shouldn’t be a place for Field Gulls, but there is simply because we talk about the game.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

I really think Knapp wasn't a problem.

He just wasn’t the one to overcome any of our other problems. I feel so suckered for hoping in Mora though… and one might say “Well haven’t you learned your lesson regarding fired up players coaches with limited NFL experience?” but the two men seem very different and Carroll’s character is less in question.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Feb 4, 2010 10:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, Price of course

though his size is a concern. I think Alualu and Odrick seem more like 3-4 ends to me. After that, there’s a mix of guys that aren’t that differentiated: Houston, Atkins are next on my list.

by John Morgan on Feb 3, 2010 5:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Paea?

Curious where you see Paea relative to the other DTs?

by blitz1856 on Feb 3, 2010 5:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Ok, my bad, thanks

I wasn’t sure and even pulled up a roster before asking the question and somehow missed him there — probably because I couldn’t think of his name. Sure enough he is listed under ‘P’, go figure.

by blitz1856 on Feb 3, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions  

A 2nd round question, I agree that we need to fix the offense.

I think we have a good chance at an excellent receiver prospect at pick #40 and for this question let’s assume QB and RB are taken by Seattle in round 1. (Bradford/Spiller in my world)

We might need another WR through the draft (Branch, Burleson questionable to return). This class is deep. Players like Golden Tate or Damien Williams or along the lines of big, physical guys – Demaryius Thomas, Brandon LaFell, and Arelious Benn could be available. I like San Diego’s super-sized WR crew.

My question is, do we fortify the WR corps as early as round 2, considering the depth of quality WRs possibly there this year? Or, do you think a different direction w/ that pick?

by Misfit74 on Feb 3, 2010 5:23 PM PST reply actions  

Rec'd for the image

bah, humbug!

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 3, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions  

Blount

The year before he punched a guy in the face on national TV, Oh my sweet lord could he run. He ran through people, around people, over people and I mean he jumped over them. More than once and then kept running. And he had moves…oh the moves. Big guy power with speed and instincts and dart like moves. I was pretty sure he was going to be in the Heisman hunt his senior season but you know, things happen.

I was hoping we could snag him in the 3rd but we currently have no 3rd round pick. And he’s doing well in the all star games so it’s really about the combine. One prognosticator thought 5th round at best. I think he’s going to go late first, early 2nd now. I was hoping we could get more mega needed help at O and D lines with our high 2nd but if he’s around 2nd round, and he does well at the interviews at the combine, we gotta take him there.

No, I take that back. We wait, hope he’s there in the forth. If not we trade for him.

by Emperor_Doom on Feb 3, 2010 10:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I know this isn't a groundbreaking subject to talk about but

what do you guys think about hiring Jeff Ulbrich as a special teams assistant? Hopefully he can help our special teams out.

by Seahawksfan23 on Feb 3, 2010 6:14 PM PST reply actions  

I think when it's all said and done the Rams are going QB with the 1st pick.

They’ve drafted an Offensive or defensive lineman 3 years in a row and with Bulger being all but done I think they take the risk and QB. I also think that if his shoulder checks out the Rams will prefer Bradford to Clausen.

This is just something that’s been running through my head the last few days.

by MFAN on Feb 3, 2010 6:56 PM PST reply actions  

I hope so.

My worst fear is that Clausen, Bradford, Mccoy, Suh and Berry all go top 5.

by MFAN on Feb 3, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions  

...and that we can't trade down?

Agreed, that’s WCS. Although, I would hope one of the two LTs would distinguish himself at the combine. I fear reaching for Berry should he drop to six.

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 3, 2010 7:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Hopefully a trade down a few slots, but...

in that scenario all the trade-worthy targets would be gone.
Except perhaps Okung. I don’t think we’ll take a LT at #6, mainly because of Gibbs and his philosophy, but I could be wrong. Carroll and Schnieder are in charge and maybe they WOULD want to take him.

But Okung is probably the next best guy after those others are off the board. But Haden is right in there…

by Kryten on Feb 5, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

I'd agree, and I wouldn't be upset

If the talent is no longer there, I’m not going to cry about a top-tier LT.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 5, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Haden

Am I the only one that thinks Haden would be a good pick at #6? I mean, it isn’t necessarily my preference but I think it is an area of need and good value from what I have seen/read about him.

Personally, I’d love to find a way to trade back with this pick for a QB (like we did to get Hass). I realize he’s probably not going anywhere, but something like #6 for Kolb and PHI 3rd rounder.

by bilbo on Feb 4, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions  

We have bigger needs on offense.

If for some reason we didn’t draft a QB at 6, I’d rather reach for Spiller or a LT.

6/14/40. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Feb 4, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Let it go...

not gonna happen, and if it does the cost would be so exorbitant as to make it not worth it…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah but Philly isn't giving him up

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks haha

But yeah I don’t think Kolb is going anywhere. Mcnabb is old and Vick isn’t the answer. They would be foolish to trade away a young promising QB.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions  

on a second thought what about ..

Kolb, Phi 3rd rounder, and Phi 2011 2nd rounder for # 6 and Hawthorne because last time i heard Philly need s Lb bad.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 5:22 PM PST up reply actions  

I think you're giving Hawthorne too much value here

Linebacker is one of the easiest positions to just plug in a guy and get decent results. Sure the Eagles don’t have any top tier linebackers but they do just fine with what they have.

75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.

by Pessimistic Optimist on Feb 4, 2010 5:42 PM PST up reply actions  

Waaaaay too much value.

Try Hawthorne, the 6th, the 14th and the 40th for Kolb and their 3rd.

No thanks.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 8:37 PM PST up reply actions  

So the eagles have vick mcnabb and kolb

And you dont think their over aged Lb corp wouidnt want hawthorne our first rounder for their second string QB and a couple of low picks.. Wow what insight you should become a GM. Check their Trades in the last few years. They dont mind trading their low round players.

by Bubbagill on Feb 5, 2010 1:11 AM PST up reply actions  

He is their QB of the future, first off.

Second, your comment about insight it a tad insulting. I don’t know that I would be a great GM, but I do have an idea about market value, and LB is a replaceable position, “future starting QB” is not.

Kolb was not a “Low Round Player” he was a high round groomed QB. And it as you said earlier he is “pretty damn good” don’t you think the price would be higher than a replacement LB and a pick?

Check their SB nation site, I actually did some investigating a while back. Here I asked them their thoughts on Kolb leaving. They thought it highly unlikely. HIGHLY unlikely.

Vick is gone.

McNabb, if you want him, is the guy that is available.

Kolb, for better or worse, is their QB of the future, and he isn’t going anywhere.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 5, 2010 1:14 PM PST up reply actions  

There is little proof that he is "pretty damn good," only that he has upside.

He played two full games, one in which his numbers got expanded by losing the game early then picking up late meaningless yards and the other against a bottom 5 secondary.

In those games he got a ton of yards but only 4 TD’s to 3 INT’s.

He was 1-1 by the way, with a 22-48 3 INT loss to New Orleans.

So is that the real Kolb, or is it the 2 TD 327 yard guy that beat a (at that point) hapless KC team. I’m not saying he’s a failure, but he isn’t yet the sure thing people want to anoint him. That’s all.

Oh, that and the fact that Philly doesn’t want to give him up and it would take MORE than just the 6th, and that’s an awful damn much to give up for a mostly unproven guy.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 4, 2010 8:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I still think Kolb is better than side slinging Clausen or brittle Bradford.

And at least Kolb went for 391 yards against NO. He was still trying to keep them in it. I would still want Kolb over the other untested rookies.

by Bubbagill on Feb 6, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions  

u can be 10-6

no bull

okay i have cereal palsy arhrtis and chronic fatiue as well i have a grea life loveing folks some days are better that other days i got a make a wish in 2001 saw my favorive team the broncos was the trip of the lifetime i wish everyone couild gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that ok but i bleed organ and bule reseident broncos fan for ap lol denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos fan for stanpleid bule

by j-man on Feb 3, 2010 7:35 PM PST reply actions  

You can never truly judge a schedule 7 months early

But I’m happy we have Denver, KC, and Oakland as our opponents.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 3, 2010 8:07 PM PST reply actions  

I'm really happy that we get KC at home.

That means we get 2 non divisional road games that will start at 1pm instead of 10am. That will ensure at least 12 games that start at 1pm PST (St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans and Tampa Bay being our 4 10am games). And maybe if we’re really lucky, because of Pete Carroll, we’ll get one of our other games on primetime, like maybe a Thursday night game on NFL network against Chicago (NFL Network seems to get some bad games, so this might qualify).

That’s what really sucks about this too though. If we had a better team, this would be a year we’d have a real chance to make a run at homefield in the playoffs. But now the best we can hope for is an unlikely 9-7 playoff run that will set the bar too high in 2011 when our schedule brings us back down to earth.

by Mind of no mind on Feb 4, 2010 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Seems like you would get what you payed for.

Meaning, he might be cheaper, but he is also not as talented.

by DJ C-Raig on Feb 3, 2010 8:52 PM PST up reply actions  

My off-the-cuff perception of Marshall is that he is faster, more agile than Jackson, but more talented?

Jackson is a strong-type of receiver, who has speed but can just out-muscle a defender to the ball. This would be nice to have if you’re a gun-slingin’ rookie or a noodle-armed vet. He also comes clean of any off-the-field issues we have seen from Marshall (warranted or not).

It’s got me thinking.

by Anticitizen_One on Feb 3, 2010 9:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Jackson is more of a deep threat than Marshall.

Jackson can really run, esp. for his size. Marshall can’t run w/ Jackson, but his other abilities, like YAC make him a more attractive option.

by Misfit74 on Feb 4, 2010 8:21 AM PST up reply actions  

I have a question about Spiller.

I’ve seen him as our #14 pick in a ton of mocks already. But is it likely that a team with so many other holes that isn’t looking like a win-now team will draft a RB in the first? Especially considering the short shelf life of the position and all.

by Tyopiod on Feb 4, 2010 8:20 AM PST reply actions  

Shouldn't we always be trying to win-now?

and if getting a dynamic playmaker on offense and special teams is a means to that end, wouldn’t that be a good investment?

by chrees on Feb 4, 2010 9:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Winning now is what Ruskell tried to do.

That led him to drafting players that were already near completion but had limited upside, like Max Unger and ignoring finding a replacement for Hasselbeck. To win long term, the team needs to secure a young and talented quarterback. That likely implies losing some in the short term.

by abender20 on Feb 4, 2010 9:48 AM PST up reply actions  

When i saw spiller highlights i drooled but...

with the draft so defensively talented i say we grab best available de/dt/or berry and only berry if a available( no way on mays in first.) With pick 14 we should grab mike iupati i really think he could become a LT in the Nfl…6’6 , 330. with great footwork and upper body strength but if he cant handle Lt tackle then we get our next hutch(win /Win) . and with the # 40 i say Jonathon Dwyer 5’11, 235 i truly believe out of all the rbs this year hes the only one that could be an every down back, check him out on youtube.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions  

I would like that.

Though I think Matthews is another every down back worth looking at. I love Spiller, though.

by Misfit74 on Feb 4, 2010 7:17 PM PST up reply actions  

i checked out matthews, MisFit

i think he’ll be a good back in the nfl, i just dont think he as much “Field” speed as dwyer, nor as much power. i wasnt sold on dwyer till i actually watched and watched his highlights. He played alot of good defenses, he even riped a nice long td against florida. Dwyer will be a great addition for the hawks.

by Bubbagill on Feb 4, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions  

For future reference

proper grammar is encouraged here. Please proofread over your posts to ensure proper capitalization, spelling, and punctuation.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 9:11 PM PST up reply actions  

LeGarrette Blount is another every down back.

He has the same upside as Dwyer on the field. He just has to prove his character is not a liabilaty.

The future is looking better

by eohawkfan on Feb 5, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Did Kubiak send Mora a thank you card?

Beats me but I am sure that Jimmy boy could use a job. Any janitorial jobs open at camp Texans?

What? No SOUL?

by mrcoffee1969 on Feb 4, 2010 10:31 AM PST reply actions  

Mora will be a lifetime assistant.

I don’t see him becoming a head coach ever again.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 4, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions  

They're going to see his overall immaturity (SPENCER! MARE! Pete Carroll cheated!)

And realize he is a terrible leader unfit for leading college or pro teams.

The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.

by SSreporters on Feb 4, 2010 2:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Actually, they'll probably see the fact that he was a head coach for two nfl teams

and that his dad was a famous coach and hire him. He can always coach an Idaho or a Fresno State (good but not great teams).

by LantermanC on Feb 4, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions  

OT: image upload

sorry but I did spend a few minutes on this:

1.) what’s the easiest site to upload images to, with an eye to linking them here?
2.) is there a post that explains this?

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 4, 2010 12:53 PM PST reply actions  

In order

1. I use a free Photobucket account.
2. No, but if I can find the time I’ll try to work on another SBN interface post that explains this.

by BrianL on Feb 4, 2010 1:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks Brian

I think I can figure it out.

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 4, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Success!

inside of a dog it's too dark to read.

by shams on Feb 4, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
A Fan's Reflection: Things I've Learned from a Casual 12th
Small
Seahawks Sacks: Statistical Analysis

Recent FanPosts

Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred
Horsey_small
What Doug Baldwin Had to Say About Seahawk QBs (or How DB Throws MF Under the Bus)
Retro_seattle_seahawks_by_mtspknwildcat_small
Dynasty League Fantasy Football
Small
Seahawks 2012 Active Roster Predictions
Marty_small
You should want Flynn to be our starter this year

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies