Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

Why Tarvaris Jackson's Week 2 Preseason Performance Doesn't Matter

Fans like to clamor for the backup whenever the starter is playing bad football, whatever backup is available. The most bizarre example of this was when 49ers fans started to chant "we want (David) Carr". Really guys?

But it's no surprise Seahawks fans are already starting to poke and prod at a quarterback controversy. The gamethread saw a few calls for Charlie Whitehurst starting week 3 of the preseason. That's not going to happen. I've still got a T-Jax writeup to do based on scouting, but to sum up some thoughts: we're kind of in a lose-lose situation. The front office picked up Tarvaris due to system familiarity, a move that makes sense due to the shortened off-season, and had to anoint him the starter. A lot of psychological motivational thinking has been thrown on that decision, but at the end it's a necessary football decision forced by the lockout.

I think Charlie's shot at the job is legitimate, and I don't think Charlie and Tarvaris are very far apart talent-wise, and they both have some similarity in tools (arm strength and mobility Charlie is more accurate, Tarvaris more powerful and athletic) and weaknesses (pre- and post-snap reading, pocket presence (primarily Tarvaris)). That said, I think Charlie's shot starts in or around week 3 or 4 of the regular season. In a perfect, non-lockout world the preseason would be a tiebreaker for these two, but the lockout busted that.

Games like these don't change it. As discussed last week (and every preseason), teams don't really gameplan or scout for preseason games. Or rather, teams do this to different extents. We don't seem to do this at all, while teams like the Vikings (or, for example, the Patriots or Ravens) take it more seriously to practice game time situations. There are pros and cons to not scheming; it allows you to focus on other things while cobbling the team together in short order, and you won't tip your hand for the regular season. But it skews talent analysis, especially for us amateur commentators.

Star-divide

Two things to keep in mind about Tarvaris' performance (beyond the obvious "the O-line looked terrible") is that he was playing three-step drops and similar plant-and-throw looks a lot, which spells disaster behind our young O-line, where instead we should see some usage of mobility with a lot of bootlegs. This same problem of being asked to plant-and-throw behind a terrible O-line existed (late) in Tarvaris' Vikings career. I just put the responsibility for that on Chilly, and I hope that's true, Bevell isn't exactly inspiring anyone yet. The second thing to remember, which is more about the O-line, is that we really did not scheme at all, and had free rushers coming in left and right throughout the game.

Some quick notes on Tarvaris' first two drives:

1-10: Shotgun, four wide (Williams, Rice, Tate and Miller). James Carpenter fails to stop Brian Robison. Tarvaris guns it to Tate, who alligator arms the play.

2-10: Play-action, clean pocket, quick pass to Zach Miller for 11.

1-10: Marshawn Lynch runs into the pile for 1.

2-14 (penalty Zach Miller): This one's kind of weird. The entire line pulls to the right. Marshawn (single tailback) runs to block right. Jackson does a three-step drop and looks right. Jared Allen says "thank you" and comes in from the offensive left unblocked. Jackson sheds the sack and scrambles to throw it out, which is impressive, but this play was dead from the snap. Whose fault is that? Kinda hard to say. With the entire line pulling right you'd think Tarvaris would bootleg right, but even then no one picking up Allen is probably a blown assignment. Whose? Who knows.

3-14: Kevin Williams is the 3-tech, Letroy Guion (I think) the 1. They both hit the line, then Williams swims inside while Guion shuffles out. Gallery spends the entire play looking for someone to block and, well, being useless. Unger picks up Williams fairly well when he's moving inside, but John Moffitt completely loses Guion, and the pressure forces Tarvaris to dump it off for 3.

2nd drive

1-10: Seahawks line up with two tight ends on the line, Zach Miller on the left and Anthony McCoy on the right. The Vikes are threatening with 6 guys on the line. Jared Allen (lined up across Miller) drops back leaving Miller kinda just standing there, while McCoy releases into his route, which allows his guy (Chad Greenway) to come in free. Additionally, Tyler Polumbus is losing to Fred Evans, which looks kind of bizarre on replay as both Gallery and McCoy are free to help him double-team the guy but neither is doing anything. Jackson escape and scrambles for four.

2-6: Anthony McCoy motions to Carpenter's outside shoulder. He's lined up opposite Jasper Brinkley and lets Brinley run into the backfield untouched. Instead, he chips in on Carpenter's guy (Robiskie) and then releases into a drag rout. This seems to be by design as it leaves him wide open (Robiskie vaguely trailing him) to give an outlet at the LoS and run for 8.

1-10: Run. Zach Miller does a nice job on Vikes DE Brian Robison, while Moffitt and Unger double-team Kevin Williams. The fullback (Michael Robinson) picks up one free tackler in Jasper Brinkley, leaving Carpenter free to pick up the last tackler, E.J. Henderson. He arrives too late, and EJ storms inside to tackle Lynch for -2 while Marshawn is trying to make a cut.

2-12: Play-action. Jackson has plenty of time, the pocket is as clean as you're going to get. Carpenter looks like he's losing Robison for a moment but handily moves him away from the pocket. Jackson still panics, moving to his right and dumping off to Robinson for 3. Wasted play.

3-14 (penalty Mike Williams): Vikings show blitz before the penalty, and they show blitz after, with E.J. Henderson tip-toeing near the line. He and Greenway are on Kevin Williams' shoulders. Greenway  doesn't blitz, instead guarding a dump-off pass. Henderson does, and it was pretty obvious someone would, yet Moffitt and Unger happily double-team Kevin Williams, leaving absolutely no one to block Henderson. Probably expecting a quick dump-off, Gallery shoves off his assignment (Chris Ballard) toward Polumbus, who is already blocking (and doing well) against Jared Allen. An incomplete dumpoff to the right is the result, which is kind of painful because Zach Miller was immediately wide open to the left.

So...

Tarvaris has a ways to go to impress me. I've watched quite a bit of Vikings tape and I'm just not seeing a starting QB. In these preseason games, I'm seeing flashes of that same Tarvaris Jackson. No pocket presence leading to feeling pressure that isn't there or scrambling too quick. Little pre- or post-snap reading ability means he doesn't notice wide-open players gifted by blitz situations. If anything he looked better this week than last, but he's not going to prove himself in these situations.

It's a wash, not just because our Oline looks bad (it does), but because we keep showing little interest in the Vikings sending in extra men. There's a lot of blown assignments here (a ton of confusion, get used to it from our young offensive line, especially with Gallery looking as lost in pass protection as he did), but throughout the game there were a lot of plays where there just wasn't anyone assigned to pick up the blitz. Then add that Tarvaris did a lot of plant-and-throw dropbacks even though that made less and less sense as the game progressed (and certainly makes no sense when your line is pulling right), and you got the mess we ended up with.

I don't really expect them to suddenly tip their hand in week 3, but this type of play is useless for talent evaluation and player confidence. Unless they show a bit more gameplanning and in-game re-activity, these games will remain useless, at least for us, to determine Tarvaris' abilities. And yes, that also means Tarvaris isn't losing his job in games where the entire offense looks uncoordinated and unprepared. The same is true for Whitehurst's push for the job. It's legit but fans need to realize he's not just running with the 2nd team, he's running a vanilla offense with them, not the complete offense he or Tarvaris will have to run in the regular season. I believe he'll push for the job eventually, but not before the regular season kicks off.

To quote the AP writeupAsked if he'd at all consider reopening the quarterback competition Carroll said, "I'm not in that mindset at all."


Follow @dolgorukii on Twitter | Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook


Comment 164 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I just want to see Whitehurst get at least a few snaps against a first-string defense.

It looks like we’ve seen some development from him and I’d like to see if that isn’t just because he’s facing backups.

by Coach Owens on Aug 21, 2011 8:00 AM PDT reply actions  

I think we all want that

But it’s not happening.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

And that's why I'm frustrated.

I don’t want this year to happen like last season where Carroll refuses to play Whitehurst even if Jackson is doing poorly.

by Coach Owens on Aug 21, 2011 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think that'll happen

But I think people are running too fast to forget how Whitehurst had to work with a small playbook in W17, and how these performances on vanilla 2nd-string offenses don’t prove much about his starting ability. The lockout forced us to go with Tarvaris in week 1. I can’t blame Pete for that, it’s just reality, but it’ll change at some point early in the regular season. It could conceivably change before week 1, and Whitehurst is making a serious push, but not to such an extent that we as fans can objectively say he should be starting.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I would really, really like to see CW against first string defenses myself.

In fact, I kind of wish it was just an NFL “thing” to have your 2nd string QB do that in Week 3. I would also like a pony.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 21, 2011 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

Except, Tarvaris isn't objectively a starter...

“Fans like to clamor for the backup whenever a starter is playing bad football, whatever backup is available.”

You’re beginning from the faulty assumption that Tarvaris is objectively ‘a’ starter. Bottom line, Tarvaris’ biggest problem (setting aside his skittishness, accuracy problems, and poorp oise) is that he holds onto the ball too long. In this offense, and with this young line’s poor pass protection, that one problem is going to get us killed. Game over.

Meanwhile, Whitehurst has looked poised, decisive, accurate in his opportunities. He was 14-for-15 at one point, and two of his subsequent incompletions came on clear drops by Patrick Williams and Thomas Clayton.

Pete has made openly contradictory statements: (1) That Charlie will compete for the job when he has a grasp of the offense, and (2) Tarvaris will be our week one starter regardless of what else happens. This assumes Charlie cannot grasp the offense before week one, which is looking more and more false. When this is an open competition, Charlie will win it. The only question is, when are they going to start considering it?

by pacificsands on Aug 21, 2011 8:05 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Did you not read the rest of the post?

I literally say

Tarvaris has a ways to go to impress me. I’ve watched quite a bit of Vikings tape and I’m just not seeing a starting QB

Near the end of the post. C’mon man.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sure

I did see it, and I apologize if my quote made it seem like you don’t make this point. That said, I’m still not sure why you call him a starter in the first line. Yes, he’s likely to start two more games (Week 3 of the preseason and week one of the regular season), but that’s probably it.

by pacificsands on Aug 21, 2011 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Because he's our starter?

You’re misreading it to be a talent valuation, it isn’t, it’s stating a fact. Tarvaris Jackson is our starting QB, and fans are clamoring for the backup QB.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

And we know this because Pete said it explicitly

and Schneider made comments about how they don’t want to jerk TJ around like Minnesota did.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 21, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not to pick knits here

But TJ did run out of the tunnel as the QB. Thats a pretty clear indicator of him being the starter. You may not think he is a starting caliber QB in the NFL; up to you if you want to start off your season w/ such a negative perspective and lack of confidence in your team. Still, he is our starter, right now.

There will be ugly football this year, like Beekers said, its a lose/lose situation given the events of the off season. I like CW too, but it’s just premature to be expecting things regarding changing starters.

The guys haven’t even lost a game yet and we have no real understanding of what the coaches are trying to accomplish in these glorified practices. The3 attempts at running Forsett up the gut for a 1yd TD should have been a clue, they are definately not scheming and are testing things.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 21, 2011 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

This changes everything!

“But TJ did run out of the tunnel as the QB. Thats a pretty clear indicator of him being the starter.”

I didn’t see the pre-game broadcast where he ran out of the tunnel! I only saw what he did on the field this and last week.

Whatever happened to “competition?” Whatever happened to a player having to earn his place as a starter?

Losing is for losers.

by TheLaird on Aug 21, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pete said he'd be the starter for Week 1

They’ve committed to giving TJ the starting role for the first few games at least.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 21, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

QB is a different situation

Hass was never in an actual competition for the starting job last year either. If this is the kind of motivation both TJ and Charlie need—and it might be—then the plan has to be allowed to play itself out. Two preseason games after 7 months of no practice whatsoever is a tiny performance sample to base anything on.

by lemonverbena on Aug 21, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

2011 is a different situation

Tarvaris Jackson is not the established leader of this team, as Hasselbeck was. He’s not an established NFL starter on the level of Hasselbeck, either.

Losing is for losers.

by TheLaird on Aug 21, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's a good point, though I don't mean the particular situations are equal

Just that QB isn’t a position where an actual open competition is necessarily desirable or realistic. Whitehurst was one of Carroll’s moves too, and I’m certain he won’t hesitate to go to him if TJ isn’t cutting it. The quotes about who the starter is are semantics for the media and psychology for his players. He wants both of them to succeed.

by lemonverbena on Aug 21, 2011 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Exactly
2011 is a different situation

The lockout forced them to commit to TJ. I doubt anyone wanted it to turn out like this. I’ll bet with no lockout TJ and Charlie would have been in an open competition since Spring.

by MT Olson on Aug 21, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

What makes you think Charlie has improved so much?

You think he looks vastly different than he did against NYG last year or the one touchdown he threw against the Rams in Week 17? Suddenly he gets to play back-ups, gets wide-open receivers and time to make throws and he’s a new QB.

We’re 2 games into the pre-season, 2 more to go, and we will be 0-0 after all four.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

To be fair

It’s not really about Charlie’s improvement, it’s about Tarvaris’ failures. Bottom line, the fact that he was in against the first team defense should have made his job easier, not harder, because the first team defense was rushing 5-7 guys non-stop. That means receivers were open, receivers Tarvaris couldn’t find. That’s basically all that counts in this league – if teams know they can just blitz him, and he can’t answer, we have no shot with him in at QB.

by pacificsands on Aug 21, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

He's saying the blitzes gave him wide open targets, not a lack of pressure

That’s a truism. It’s hard to tell if it’s so from just TV angles (and I don’t get all-22 for pre-season plays), but there were a few times when someone was clearly open and CW never looked his way. His post-snap reading is a problem for beating the blitz.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

You could say that the blitzes gave wide open targets.

It would make sense but there were a lot of times that it just seemed like we left defenders unblocked running free while double teaming another. I just can’t recall a play where I was like “you idiot, he’s wide open, throw it” I actually think Jackson looked alright, considering the circumstances.

by Andrew E on Aug 21, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Unless the Niners kill him,

I’d bet on him also starting against the Steelers. That way Pete can put him on the injury report instead of benching him for poor play.

by bewrong on Aug 21, 2011 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

A Decent Quarterback

Would have eaten that pass rush alive. Between a few screens, slants, quick screens, etc, the defense would have had to back off. TJ just could not read a defense if the nose tackle were to hold a playbook up and point to the play call. I assume that he has the option to audible. If not, that is even more damning than I could imagine. I have watched good, hell, even decent quarterbacks burn an all-out blitz severely when it was brought again and again. That is why most D-Coordinators will not call a blitz heavy scheme, only the occasional unexpected blitz. If TJ could actually check down with a counter play, the blitz would stop or at least become ineffective. This guy is not a quarterback and I am unsure why Carroll is so hell bent to keep him as the “Starter”. I have liked most of the ideology set forth so far in the rebuild, but other than putting the Seahawks in position #1 in next year’s quarterback lottery, this move makes no sense.

by sdhawk on Aug 21, 2011 8:34 AM PDT reply actions  

Does this idea make any assumptions about the ability of the line and WR's

to understand those audibles? I wonder if, after a month of the new playbook, the team even knows what audibles they have available and how to effectively execute them, with the QB calling them after 2 weeks of practice. I’m not educated enough in the developement and progression of a team in the offseason, so I’m only guessing and maybe making up convenient excuses here. Still, I think we have to consider, we aren’t seeing things we expect because the team just can’t pull them off yet. Not simply put all the blame on the guy thats been here for a couple weeks.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 21, 2011 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

spot on with audibles

the whole bloody offense likely would have said ,,….Huh?

Audibles are that, they are things said out loud, which when in code or foreign language, require a wee bit more than 10 days to learn and execute.

Sign Manning on Monday and have him start doing the audible thing on Tuesday and see how it goes.

by hawkster on Aug 21, 2011 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Audibles aren't that difficult.

Kill the play at the line and go to a hot read. Basically playground stuff they all no.

Like hey lookie, they’ve stacked the box— Slot guy quick slant, WR’s go rout. Hit one quick.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Aug 21, 2011 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

The whole game isn't that difficult

You just pass, catch, run over people, and knock people down.

Getting an offense up to speed on a WCO audible attack is IMO a tad more than winking at the TE.

by hawkster on Aug 21, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Yeah, except that if you actually say "slot quick slant" then the defense is all like "cool story bro" and they move up to jam him on the line.

In this preseason in particular, I can get not having confidence that your slot guy knows exactly what the code word is for “run a slant”. Especially when who is actually in the slot is changing on a play to play basis.

Also, it’s a little bit dumb to run a lot of audibles in the preseason. Teams get to listen to you audibile-ize and then they can add that to the gameplan. It’s not like you’re going to scratch your audible sequence after 2 weeks of preseason play.

Anyway, as stated, this is actual football, not Madden.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 21, 2011 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hey thanks guys for pointing out it's not madden.

I had no idea. I have never ever ever played actual football before.

I have never heard 2 plays called in the huddle before.

I have never heard the first play killed at the line.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Aug 21, 2011 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

You also, I guess, have never watched preseason before either.

Matt Hasselbeck was the king of audibles and I don’t remember him audibling in preseason either.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 21, 2011 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

What's preseason?

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Aug 21, 2011 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Period of time when

the 12th man begins warming up vocal cords and best routes to the bathrooms, before it really counts.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 21, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Its when most teams don't gameplan

Also known as those 4 games where the Os don’t expect the Ds to blitz like crazy and therefore don’t put plays on the sheet to counter them. Teams that you see “audible” all the time are often teams that send in more than one play and finalize the call after seeing how the D lines up. Something nobody but Peyton Manning is likely to do in a preseason game.

by CMoney87 on Aug 21, 2011 12:59 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I'm starting to see

what all the Vikes fans were talking about on the blogs… Tjack still looks like a dear in the head lights… bottom line. And Charlie comes in looking cool as ice… quick reads… great throws… He has to get some time next week vs the 1st string D. If Tjack is the qb all year… we will suck for Luck.

Yes I have a beer in my hand... and I'm ready to watch the Hawks smash the 49ers in week 1.

by HawksFever on Aug 21, 2011 8:41 AM PDT reply actions  

We won't suck for luck

And I wish people would stop saying this because the fact is even with the WORST play at QB we can’t suck worse than Buffalo or Washington both of whom are sucking for Luck. So don’t hold your breath when they say with the 7th or 8th pick in the 2012 draft the Seattle Seahawks pick SOME OTHER GUY.

by Sharoten on Aug 21, 2011 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Charlie was able to make quick reads because that was all they had him do.

He didn’t have hardly any complicated pass patterns that required him to make multiple reads down field.

by KoolAidMan1 on Aug 21, 2011 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Nonsense

Charlie’s TD pass to McCoy was all Whitehurst minus the actual catch and based on the way the the WR’s played for Charlie I’m surprised Charlie didn’t have to catch the ball himself also.

by Sharoten on Aug 21, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Ok well I guess you had a different opinion than what I saw.

It was great that Charlie was able to compose himself after that terrible snap on the TD pass, but McCoy was really open and just standing in the corner of the endzone, McCoy even said that himself in a postgame interview. And I didn’t think the WR’s were terrible for him at all except for one dropped pass on a slant route. Also I wasn’t implying that Charlie wasn’t good, he just didn’t impress me enough to declare him outright better than Jackson.

by KoolAidMan1 on Aug 21, 2011 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

When facing a blitz you do not have time to read complicated downfield patterns

You have to know who your hot read is and get the ball out to that receiver quick. Tjax failed at this part of the game.
I know Charlie was playing against #2s but the drops and quick throws he was making would of worked against the #1s to.

by eohawkfan on Aug 21, 2011 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

The counterargument is that

perhaps the LBs and corners were playing up at the line, and TJax knew the slant or quick out would be at risk for a pick 6. Then again, I didn’t watch the game…

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Aug 22, 2011 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is better for everybody to let TJ play out

TOSing CW in there indicates a haphazard approach that will undermine TJ AND CW. Making TJ the starter is a plan based on facts (lockout, scheme familiarity, NFL starts). Execute that plan. As those facts diminish (scheme familiarity, O-line play), move to step 2 of the plan … competition. The team is rebuidling. Follow a process. Start TJ, allow him to succeed. Familiaize CW, allow him to compete. Develop the line. Panicky rebuilding will fail.

by hawkster on Aug 21, 2011 9:10 AM PDT reply actions  

Best laid plans

Making TJ the starter is a plan based on facts (lockout, scheme familiarity, NFL starts). Execute that plan.

Plans are one thing. Results is another. You can have a logical reason for planning what you do, but eventually your guy must execute and validate the plan. Beyond the theoretical advantages, it’s about results.

I’m reminded of Edgar Martinez. The Mariners had a plan, too, and it never included young Edgar. All he could do was hit the shit out of the ball, but that wasn’t good enough for the plan.

CBJ ain’t Edgar, but grand plans still ain’t worth more than 60 minutes of game film.

by Hawnk on Aug 21, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hey, everyone

We’re 0-0 after the next two games, how about we just hope nobody gets injured and be thankful we aren’t throwing $63mil at a glass QB!

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 9:25 AM PDT reply actions  

Why bring up the record at all? No one is discussing wins-losses

We’re discussing talent evaluation, which is what the pre-season is for.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

We're getting a little chipy here, huh?

Discussing talent evaluation? Wasn’t the point of your post how we can’t evaluate talent based on these last two games. Seemed like flowers was just trying to bring a calming statement to the discussion.

by brugg on Aug 21, 2011 10:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

It's less about the talent evaluation and more about the tone of the reactions

I felt it was better to respond to the general thread instead of after everyone’s high-temper reactions, but next time I’ll address each person footnoted with quotes to satisfy.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

I can't say anyone's tone seems out of line

Individual replies with arguments tend to be more well-received than trying to dismiss “everyone” because we’re 0-0 and no one got injured. That’s just a fairly lazy out.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

A few that stick out that I felt weren't worth individually responding to.

“A decent quarterback would have eaten that pass rush alive…This guy is not a quarterback”

“Letting Matt go and signing Tavaris was the worst move this FO has made”

“You’re beginning from the faulty assumption that Tarvaris is objectively ‘a’ starter.”

“If Tjack is the qb all year… we will suck for Luck.”

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're under no obligation to reply

I ignore a lot of posts too. Thing is, the best way to foster a good debate is by respectfully replying to arguments, even if they seem kind of out there. The more out there the less respect they warrant. But an all-in dismissal will rarely/never foster much healthy debate.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Okay, you win

All I meant by my post was that this was no time for people to get all worked up about our qbs’ initial performances because it’s so early. I’m under no obligation to reply yet I have to defend a relatively harmless statement to the bone? I didn’t feel that mine was worth nitpicking to this point.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 12:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Probably not, sorry that I did

Needless off-shoot thread here

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

All good

No harm no foul. I do see your point about me talking about wins/losses when it wasn’t a part of anybody’s discussion and to direct responses at specific stimuli.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is it just me, or have teams started blitzing in the preseason a lot more the past couple years?

If memory serves, teams never used the blitz all that much in preseason because they didn’t want to give away scouting material (there are only so many ways a defense can practice a blitz and as such if you can see them being run you can gameplan for them in the regular season that much more easily). It does seem to have the effect of messing up a guy like TJ’s timing; of course, the Vikes’ second string was doing that against Whitehurst and it seemed to just give him confidence when he stepped up in the pocket and tore down said blitz packages.

by Johnny Slick on Aug 21, 2011 9:33 AM PDT reply actions  

I have read all the stuff on QB play...

…and haven’t seen any comment on TJax’s interception. At first, it looked like he hit Tate in the hands and then the ball bounced into the CBs.

Another quick view made it appear as if the ball was thrown hard and behind Tate, and he reached back.

I was watching a Vikings telecast, so couldn’t see for sure what happened. Can someone elaborate?

by Hawksince77 on Aug 21, 2011 9:51 AM PDT reply actions  

It was thrown behind Tate, yes, and hard

But not to the extent where the play becomes Tarvaris’ fault. That was maybe 5% Tarvaris and 95% Tate. The ball was catachable. If not catchable, it wasn’t an int.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I used to say that about Matt, the touch

The ball was fine, IMO. It looked like not only did Tate botch the catch, but he also ran short of the 1st down marker. He should have been where the ball was and not come back so much for it. To me, it looked like the ball was on the money for a first down and b/w the coverage and w/ the velocity needed to keep it away from being picked. Tate clearly blew this play.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 21, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

To add on Tate's performance

Carroll came right out and said he benched him for a poor start. 2+2=4 here. Tate was playing poorly and blew 2 big plays that would have had the fans clammoring about the improvement of TJ’s ability to “hit his recievers”.

by GnarlyHawk on Aug 21, 2011 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

Lots of NFL passes come in hot and not in the perfect position

A receiver needs to make that catch, or at least corral it and not pop it up for grabs.

by lemonverbena on Aug 21, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't agree with that last statement.

The ball was tipped up which turned into an INT. I don’t think we can say the catchability of a pass determines whether it can be an interception.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Aug 22, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

What, as a general principle?

Bad throws can cause tips

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 22, 2011 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

As far as TJax goes, he went from horrible last week to uninsipiring yesterday...

…which is another way to say he looked much better. On a scale of 0-10, he went from .1 to 1.1, a full magnitude of betterness.

CW looked sharp. Someone asserted that TJax went through more reads. I don’t know, he (TJax) did not look comfortable or confident. He made poor decisions and poor throws, for the most part, whereas CW made good decisions and very good throws, for the most part.

Nothing new on Portis, other then the fact that he is FAST. Not QB fast – football fast. Smooth, elusive. And what an arm. The situation didn’t allow for any reasonable test or assessment, other then some desperate running and throwing.

by Hawksince77 on Aug 21, 2011 9:55 AM PDT reply actions  

We are so lucky!

Did you see the amazing jump pass ability displayed by jackson!? That and his poor defense reading = a recipe for lots of INT’s… Just sayin’.

by Savage Seahawk fan on Aug 21, 2011 9:55 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

We are so lucky!

Did you see the amazing jump pass ability displayed by jackson!? That and his poor defense reading = a recipe for lots of INT’s… Just sayin’.

by Savage Seahawk fan on Aug 21, 2011 9:56 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

btw, for those keeping score

There wasn’t a single lineman that looked good these first two drives. I know some want to put all the blame on Polumbus and he did look piss-poor at times, but they all made big mistakes, no exception.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 10:17 AM PDT reply actions  

That was bad

The only good thing you could say about it was that it mostly looked like mental mistakes.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 21, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

This seems like a defeatest post

I think that we have to give some props to Whitehurst for what he has done. Worrying about whether he will start or not is a waste of time unless one of you has PC’s number. If so give him a call.

It is clear to me that Seattle could win a lot of 2nd string vrs 2nd string games. What is unclear to me is whether or not it is the line’s fault or the QB’s fault. Because of this, and I think I speak for the majority, I would like to see Whitehurst start.

The only other question I have is about Lynch, Does PC think that he is ready to go and therefore doesn’t need snaps? That goal line attack by forsett was pathetic. Don’t get me wrong, I like forsett, but he is a third down back. Why was the Beast on the sideline when we needed some power?

by attitudeof1 on Aug 21, 2011 10:31 AM PDT reply actions  

What exactly do you mean by defeatist?

Is something unclear about why I do not consider it realistic to expect Whitehurst to start until a few weeks into the regular season?

Lynch was planned to play 5 or so snaps, and that’s what he did. That was the plan and they stuck by it. They weren’t going to bring him back for a goalline situation. That’s preseason for you.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

PC think that he is ready to go and therefore doesn’t need snaps

Tailbacks take a beating and are done by 30 from the mileage. No reason to throw him into the teeth of the goal line D in a pretend game.

by lemonverbena on Aug 21, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Getting away from the QB situation for a moment...

…Why did our O-line looks out disjointed? It seemed like there were a lot of Vikings who were totally unblocked. Were those missed assignments? Or bad protection schemes?

by TMann_2 on Aug 21, 2011 11:00 AM PDT reply actions  

I'm sure it was a mixture of all of those things.

Rookie mistakes. Though I don’t think there were necessarily any “bad protection schemes.”

"Being number two sucks."-Andre Agassi

by dba on Aug 21, 2011 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

There were definitely free runners caused by lack of line adaptation

It’s not so much a bad scheme as no scheme, because it’s preseason

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

This line shows all the signs of a new center, two rookies, and a free agent. And a replacement left tackle.

On the 2nd and 14 play at the start of the game, Polumbus, who got lambasted in the game thread, locked onto a free linebacker just as he should have, leaving the defensive end for Lynch. If Polumbus takes the end, the LB gets a free shot at Jackson. Lynch ran to block NOBODY. With the right push by the Oline, Polumbus did his job.

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 21, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nice observation.

Sounds like a missed assignment by Lynch. Is it that simple?

"Being number two sucks."-Andre Agassi

by dba on Aug 21, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

That one was.

The play was clearly a line crash right, leaving Lynch to pick up the one straggler. If Polumbus takes the DE, the shortest line to the QB is actually the guy he took, Greenway.

Listen, I am not on Tarvaris jock, but if Matt is the qb, that could have been an ugly play. The fact that TJ made him miss and threw the ball away was the best possible result of that play.

I have more DVR to watch, but I will look to see if there are other plays like it.

Also, our youngish line looks clearly mismatched against the remaining half of the Williams Wall. The crashing down of the DE would be a more minor thing if the pocket wasn’t retreating in the middle so damn fast.

Those calling for Charlie need to understand that line protections like we ran against the Giants last year will be the norm, basically an entire season of Max Protect, unless these line assignments improve.

I think this team is hurt by the lockout more than most. Too many new players in an offense with a new QB and a new OC. I don’t care who is behind center, the first half of the season will be rough to watch. Misses assignments and procedure penalties will be a constant.

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 21, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

No

It was a stretch play right, and Lynch ran to block that way. He ended up one-on-one with Williams, not with no one, though I wouldn’t have given him much of a shot to block him had the play developed further. He didn’t read and react and made a play there, he immediately released to block right. That’s designed, but he might have had the wrong assignment in mind.

Everything about the play screamed bootleg right, but T-Jax did a 3-step drop and sat. It is impossible without knowing the offensive call to say who made the mistake. It could have been Lynch, it could have been Tarvaris, it could have been Polumbus. I’m seeing some weird definitive statements thrown around about this play here and elsewhere, but it’s a play where you can not analyze properly without actually knowing the assignments. It’s an iffy play to draw conclusions from.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Probably a combination

1 – new system/coach
2 – new/young/replacement-level players
3 – no game-planning
4 – Good opposing D-Line

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

What Flowers just said

Their D-line seemed to have planned more than our O-line, too. Preseason, it happens.

But I dunno if anyone was expecting this Oline to hit the ground running. It’s been pretty obvious to me we have players with big question marks in pass pro, and a young Oline that needs time to gell. It should be ugly for at least the first half of the season.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

TJ also had some not-nice things to say about the Vikings

Frazier could have dialed up a little extra pressure to return the favor.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 21, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seags!

"Being number two sucks."-Andre Agassi

by dba on Aug 21, 2011 11:02 AM PDT reply actions  

Agreed.

“Dramatic departure from the field” notwithstanding.

If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.

by shams on Aug 21, 2011 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

He showed that last season too, though

But that was more of a bootleg-heavy offense. Still, it’s not coming from nowhere

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

To be fair last year he was filled with first read and takeoff

Now it looks like he’s going through his progressions like a proper QB and improvising when needed.

I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.

by SSreporters on Aug 21, 2011 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

+1 in grittiness for Whitey

he’s Mark Sanchez-esque in the poise department.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

It doesn't matter

Because I’ve already seen Jackson play for the Vikings with AP, Shiancoe, C. Taylor, and Bernard Berrian.

In 20 starts Tarvaris Jackson has never amassed 250 yards passing.

I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.

by SSreporters on Aug 21, 2011 11:19 AM PDT reply actions  

26 passes per game on average as a starter

So yip. He’s not a high output passer, but a lot of that is due to opportunity. He’s used as a game manager because that’s his upside. Same as Whitehurst. It’s what we want for this year, ideally, in my opinion.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

I've said it before

He’s basically a minor upgrade over Seneca, but with twice the happy feet and twice the terrible decision making but more athleticism.

Something about Whitehurst strikes me as “fast learner”. He’s not going to be Phillip Rivers but I think he can be an adequate starting QB.

Jackson is Jackson.

Wow, remember when we were talking about our QB situation since 2008? Here we are.

I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.

by SSreporters on Aug 21, 2011 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

And man is it controversial

"Being number two sucks."-Andre Agassi

by dba on Aug 21, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

And we gave up nothing to get Tarvaris

What should the FO have done differently? Give away the store for Palmer or Kolb? Trade the entire draft for Locker? Take a flyer on 10-cent-head Vince Young? I’m on board with this plan that doesn’t straddle us to a bomb or a huge risky contract after trading away a bunch of value. Tarvaris hasn’t shown much in less than 4 quarters of preseason ball but that doesn’t mean shit to me.

by lemonverbena on Aug 21, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I'm not bashing the current FO

I’m talking about the three years of waiting for Hasselbeck to be good again/ignoring the problem and now we’re here with two journeyman QBs. This is a Ruskell problem.

And in hindsight, Orton would’ve been a good shout. But Denver probably would’ve overvalued him.

I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.

by SSreporters on Aug 21, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

He's better than Seneca

That said, I’m not so sure he’s a clear upgrade on Whitehurst. That debate/competition has been mooted by the lockout, though.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's just a shit sandwich all around.

The current situation is ugly and the alternatives were even uglier. Like I said, we’ll just have to grin and bear it. No pressure, Carpenter and Moffitt.

by Benne on Aug 21, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

"Game manager" is my favorite football euphamism.

“This guy kinda sucks, but he’s the best we can do so we’ll just have to grin and bear it.”

by Benne on Aug 21, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

Game manager is more kind of league average than sucks

It’s just that fans don’t really rank QBs from great-good-mediocre-bad-terrible. T-Jax and CW both probably project best in the mediocre-bad realm. But honestly the only differentiation that seems to matter is “franchise QB” or “not the guy”.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

I see FieldGulls is in mid season form

I love this place.

I don't have a gun, but if I did, I would shoot a baby deer in the mouth and feel nothing. Louis CK

by Lo Pann on Aug 21, 2011 11:25 AM PDT reply actions  

At the rate the OLine is letting TJax get hit,

I’m not sure he will make it to Week3-4 of the regular season. I’m not sure he’ll even make it to Week 4 of the preseason.

by ChavaC on Aug 21, 2011 11:40 AM PDT reply actions  

I will.

It comes off as a dismissive and condescending cliche.

Losing is for losers.

by TheLaird on Aug 21, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can't agree at all.

If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.

by shams on Aug 21, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's a cliche because it's a truism

It’s a truism because…it’s actually true?

It wasn’t meant as a counter-argument to supporting Whitehurst though, or a dismissal of pro-backup arguments, just more as a general observation, not aimed at anyone as much as just indicating a general trend that explains some of the hype. Not meant as dimissive/condescending, sorry if it came across as such.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

No worries -- sorry I overreacted

I don’t think I’m alone here in suspecting that Jackson’s promotion to starter (based on his prior work with the new OC) was maybe not a good enough reason to not subject him to competition. Now, to treat him as if he were Hasselbeck and calls for him to compete for his job as comparable to drunken stadium fan derision of an established starter maybe make the truth in that truism less than relevant.

Losing is for losers.

by TheLaird on Aug 21, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well, as I explained

My view is that he’ll definitely be challenged, just that we’re not in a situation where he can be challenged yet

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see your point

And I agree with your analysis in what is a overall very good article. It is only the first paragraph that put me off.

The Carroll and his staff made a decision, which I didn’t disagree with at the time, but now am starting to treat with skepticism.

But I think one of the joys of Field Gulls is that this is a place where we second-guess the coaching staff and head office.

Losing is for losers.

by TheLaird on Aug 21, 2011 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Chants for Charlie during the Saints home game

Calls for Seneca to start in 2009. Chants for Carr in SF last year. Plenty of fans wanting Grossman/Orton during the time they were both on the Bears.

There’s plenty of evidence for this throughout the league.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 21, 2011 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Haha the Carr chants were the best and probably most indicative of fan reactions

There is no logical reason to think Carr would give the 49ers a better chance to win in those situations, I gained a lot of respect for Alex Smith when he stood up to Singletary and said as much.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good article and I agree theres no need to panic

TJax will get the benefit of the doubt for the 1st half of the season. If he plays poorly than I am sure Charlie will take over for the second half of the season(he should have the offense down by then).

Pretty standard stuff really.

by The Great Googly on Aug 21, 2011 12:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Dunno about standard

But certainly stuff that simply makes sense with no off-season to hold the competition in.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you forget about T-Jack vs. Charlie, there are good things each of them did

Assuming that the level of pass pro for TJ was a worst case scenario, he did a great job of avoiding huge negative plays, unlike the first game.

That’s not to say that he couldn’t have played better – but it’s hard to know how much freedom the coaches were giving him. We don’t know if they told him “don’t audible, even if you see a blitz, we want to see how the young guys shift to deal with the pressure”. The rumor is that the Hawks did not game plan for the Vikings D, and that the Vikings did some game-planning – which would be easy for them, since they are quite familiar with Bevell.

What this means to me, is that both TJ and Whitehurst are going to have to play a decent number of snaps in the 4th game. I think they need work on how they handle adjustments and work with the OL.

by PerryCollective on Aug 21, 2011 12:47 PM PDT reply actions  

I firmly believe Charlie should start the next pre-season game.

Time with the starting offense vs. the opposing starting defense would be an important step to see. Deny the play-calling, lack of scheming, competition, etc. all you want but Charlie threw the ball very well and showed great timing and accuracy.

I’ve been beating the ‘give Charlie a chance and he’ll become our starter’ drum since before we acquired Tarvaris Jackson. While we must keep the pre-season in context, I’ve seen enough from the two to hedge my bets even further.

2011: Building the Trenches.

by Misfit74 on Aug 21, 2011 1:24 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Maybe for his own play it would be good

but I can’t imagine for a young offense trying to gel it would be helpful to bring in a different QB with different cadences, leadership style, and familiarity with WRs.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 21, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno...

completed passes are a good thing

2011: Building the Trenches.

by Misfit74 on Aug 21, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

There were actually "CHARLIE!CHARLIE!CHARLIE!" chants

At the game yesterday….true story

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Aug 21, 2011 1:59 PM PDT reply actions  

Dilfer vs. The Hass

Anybody remember the hilarious back and forth there? Both of them were horrible, and the crowed cheered for whoever was on the bench.
Btw, it’s interesting how Matt managed just fine after being “jerked around” that first season, but prevailed after dealing with a real QB competition/controversy. Jackson and Jesus should be able to handle a competition like men. Whoever looks the best after the brief camp/practice/preseason should start.

by brugg on Aug 21, 2011 2:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Disappointed, but

before the preseason started wasn’t it the standard opinion that the Hawks would struggle until the o-line jelled and that it would take awhile? Now it seems we’re all surprised and upset by the fact that we are where everyone thought we would be at this point.

Bottom line I hoped for more; but, I don’t think it really means anything at this point. First half the the season will be rough; but, things will be looking up for the second half….

by moxr on Aug 21, 2011 2:26 PM PDT reply actions  

Just curious...

  What is it that made Carroll look away from Whitehurst as a starter? I like TJack as a quarterback and he’ll do great for you. I’m just wondering why Whitehurst fell from grace with a coach that went out of his way to trade for him?

by Douglas M on Aug 21, 2011 2:36 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't think he did

But his problems with Bates’ playbook leading to the simplified version in W17 showed Pete that he can’t rely on Charlie to learn a new playbook fast, and the lockout made system familiarity an important matter.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

We don't really know, so I'm not going to speculate him being dumb

But a shortened off-season is going to be a pain for any QB, let alone one with Whitehurst’s limited skillset and recent history of struggling with a playbook. T-Jax is hardly better, but more knowledgeable.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 21, 2011 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tarvaris isn't exactly a Rhodes Scholar...

It’s great that he knows the system, but I’m starting to wonder if the ol’ adage: “You can’t polish a turd” might not be coming into play with Jackson.

2011: Building the Trenches.

by Misfit74 on Aug 21, 2011 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Anyone pointed out that TJ's week two was a whole lot better than Vick's?

Secondly, if Force makes 2 yards in 4 attempts into the endzone and Tate catches, instead of tips, the pass the Seahawks go into half time up 10-3 despite poor o-line play.

Just say’n

by moxr on Aug 21, 2011 10:35 PM PDT reply actions  

The interception that T-Jack threw was not his fault,

and no objective person could say it was. However if he is basically ineffective next week as he has been thus far, I believe that CW should start the final PS game, and lets see just how much of this game plan he understands….because the guy is looking good against backups, but I want to see him against the first string. If he shows better than Jackson, how in the world does PC just “give” the starting job to a man that has not earned it?

by Michael Harp on Aug 22, 2011 9:45 AM PDT reply actions  

CW might start the final preseason game

It is W4 after all, pretty meaningless.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Aug 22, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

Starters seldom play much in Week 4 of the preseason

but this shortened offseason may change things. Who knows what’ll happen.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 22, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'd think it would benefit TJax and the firsts to play against second stringers in game 4

to at least know what success tastes like, and to be able to do some things right in a still competitive environment. Barring huge leaps in week 3, I gotta think our first string players will work together for a large portion of the game, with any even slightly injured players getting the pass.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Aug 22, 2011 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ 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