The Fourth Quarter Part II

Seattle would get the ball back twice more, but the first, at 2:34 remaining, is your last chance drive. That they got another chance shouldn't be recognized in evaluating this drive.

Here's the first play, one second after the snap.

Jackson has already identified his best option. The DE fakes outside and comes inside, the LB stunts around the edge. Jackson shouldn't have let this pressure affect his timing. Indeed, he throws over the two of them. I don't know that the throw should have been hurried to avoid that, but the throw is off.

Ben Obomanu's response makes me wonder whether he & Jackson were on the same page. He's open, he turns in, and turns back to look at Jackson. Jackson is throwing to him, but which way? Hall is coming up to defend, and Obomanu waits rather than cuts infield, to see that Jackson's back-shoulder throw is off and he needs to backpedal toward the sideline to make an attempt. I don't know what went wrong or what Jackson expected Obomanu to do. I am guessing it was not sit there & wait, but this may have been a curl and both knew where the throw would have to be to keep it safe. Either way the throw was bad. If it was affected by the pass rush, it shouldn't have been, though the timing was fine.

2-10-SEA 18 (2:31) (No Huddle, Shotgun) T.Jackson pass short right to B.Obomanu ran ob at SEA 26 for 8 yards.

Next play, back to Obomanu on a come back route. Good execution all around, though nothing praiseworthy. Would be nice to have been able to time & space the throw & route to get the first down, but that involves factors that neither player can control. Nothing to criticize.

3-2-SEA 26 (2:26) (No Huddle, Shotgun) T.Jackson pass incomplete short right to B.Obomanu.
PENALTY on SEA, Ineligible Downfield Pass, 5 yards, enforced at SEA 26 - No Play. No player identified on penalty.

The mysterious, unidentified passer lobbed one behind himself, which was toward and beyond the line of scrimmage. The result of a surprise corner blitz, who took a lot of effort to bring the phantom passer down. Call it a sack.

3-7-SEA 21 (2:18) (Shotgun) T.Jackson pass short right to Z.Miller pushed ob at SEA 23 for 2 yards (P.Riley)

6 on the line, 7 in the box, receivers successfully jammed. Miller is the only real option, the right option. Jackson see him but double-clutches -- it was not a pump fake -- before making the toss. This pass needed that moment to give Miller space in front of him to try to make the 1st down. Giving it to him in stride might have helped, too. He's contained & wrapped up along the sideline forcing the 4th down. Criticizable. Good playcalling & execution by Washington. Did you expect them to lie down?

4-5-SEA 23 (2:13) (Shotgun) T.Jackson sacked at SEA 14 for -9 yards (sack split by B.Orakpo and S.Bowen)

8 on the line, an instant sack. This play never had a chance. Seattle had one timeout left. Should they have used it? That'd make Washington line up in a more favorable formation, something we could work with. Right? It could have been used. I don't know what difference it might have made.

Now Washington gets to play conservative and protect a lead. A 3 & out of hopeless runs caring more to drain the clock than get better field goal position. Now down by 6, Seattle gets another chance.

Prevent defense. Wrap-up game directing. I can't analyze these throws. 7 in coverage on 4, a checkdown to Forsett. An incomplete to Baldwin that probably led a little too far in front of him, thus making it more defensible by Washington. Batted down. An interception on a pass to Tate -- this time, interestingly, with only 5 in coverage -- again led too far in front but the defender broke off from trailing behind Tate to get the ball under & in front of Tate. Icing interceptions aren't exactly uncommon. Desperation drives aren't high percentage. Not a good decision. I can't tell who else might have been open, but the game icing sack was just a moment before the ball got off to the game icing pick.

So it goes. Billy Pilgrim told me next year was awesome, but I'm not sure I believe him. I don't see the clarity, the certainty of blame assignment that others see. Shouldn't have been in this position in the first place, I suppose the argument goes. A better QB would have put the game out of reach by then. More scoring earlier.

Well I'm certain of two things I suppose. I'm certain that the Shanahan lineage outcoached Seattle and "inexcusable" is as close to accurate there as grumbling sports fans ever approach. What they ran was not new, was to be expected, and yet there was no discernible, attempted answer made in the first quarter.

I'm also certain not to believe folks who tell me it's clear Seattle cannot win with Tarvaris Jackson. I can appreciate if the reticence to take a stand on the position exasperates you. But that's about the most certain I can be about him and the Pete Carroll Seahawks. That's not saying you can win with him. That's not saying trade up, or don't, or pick one or anything else, only what the statement says. That it is certain that you cannot with with Jackson...well, it's not certain to me. Not because he demonstrated poor poise in the 4th quarter of this game. Success was not to be had, the stats look bad, but upon further review that problem did not surface.