Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Greg Cosell On The Seahawks' Offense

Photo

If you don't yet know about NFL Films' Senior Producer and ESPN analyst Greg Cosell, then I would suggest you do a little digging. Andy Benoit did a piece on him over at the New York Times' Blog The Fifth Down, and shed a little light on the guy whose football analysis and opinion is sought after by NFL GMs, Coaches, scouts, beat writers, and yes, bloggers. In that piece, Benoit painted a picture:

Any first-time combine attendee will inevitably notice (Greg) Cosell at some point and wonder, Who is this guy? This year, he could be seen in the Lucas Oil Stadium lobby chatting for hours with George Whitfield Jr., (Cam) Newton's personal quarterback coach. Every time Cosell entered the media work room, he was approached by multiple writers and broadcasters, including the combine godfather Gil Brandt. A television crew stopped and interviewed him. During the skill position player drills, he was spotted visiting with Falcons General Manager Thomas Dimitroff, Saints Coach Sean Payton, Ravens Coach John Harbaugh and renowned coordinators like the Bengals' Mike Zimmer and the Lions' Scott Linehan, to name a few. These heavy-hitters were absorbing his every word.

"Greg is just a brilliant man when it comes to" the strategic and personnel facets of the league, Raiders offensive coordinator Al Saunders said. "Tremendous insight, a tremendous knowledge of personnel, a great command of the intricacies of the game from a strategic standpoint."

"For a guy who isn't a coach, isn't a general manager, and was never a player," the NFL.com senior writer Vic Carucci said, "the depth of his knowledge and his ability to explain it is as strong as anything I've come across. And I like to think I've been around some of the brightest football people in the modern era."

Beekers has been a big Cosell fans for a long while now and offered a succinct summary on why Cosell is so great at what he does: "He's been with NFL films for three decades and is still there. He still sounds like the same guy: not making bold statements, not talking about stuff he doesn't know about, only offering very insightful analysis of guys he's watched enough film on."

Cosell regularly does podcasts and I brought you some statements he made early in the preseason on the Seahawks' offense in an article recently. Cosell said:

Look, I gotta tell you, and I'm not defending Tarvaris Jackson, this is a really bad o-line. It is an incredibly slow offense, it's a bad match of quarterback and wide receivers. Mike Williams and Sidney Rice are big bodies that don't separate well, and Jackson is the type of quarterback that's not willing to make tight, contested throws.

So you've got a very bad mix of quarterback and wide receiver, you also have a very bad match of a rookie right side of the o-line, and a quarterback with little pocket command or timing who tends to hold the ball. So this is an offense that has a LOT of issues.

Cosell was a guest on Doug Farrar's Shutdown Corner podcast (a really, really great listen by the way - this is only a short snippet but Cosell and Farrar take a trip around the entire NFL so I'd recommend checking it out) the other day and offered a few more thoughts on the Seahawks struggling offense, citing the Seahawks loss in San Francisco:

The Seahawk offense, and now, -- you live in Seattle --, it's a difficult offense to watch. They don't run the ball particularly well, they started two rookies at guard. They moved James Carpenter, who played right tackle in the preseason, to left guard, and John Moffitt started at right guard. Their right tackle, and you'll have to forgive me, I don't know how to pronounce his name, but he had a particularly rough outing this week (Breno Giacomini).

So they don't run it really well, and at the end of the day, they don't throw it really well because Tarvaris Jackson has minimal pocket feel and command, he's the kind of quarterback that doesn't make receivers better.

I guess watching the tape of this team, the question that came to mind for me was "What is their offensive identity?" Why is Marshawn Lynch, -- and I don't think Lynch is a dominant back, but why is he not the foundation of the offense? He's, quite frankly, their best offensive player. He's the best offensive player on a bad offense.

(Regarding an earlier comment that the Seahawks have one of the slowest offenses in the NFL)

Well, now again, they played some receivers this week that can run a little bit. Golden Tate ended up playing a lot of snaps, because Sidney Rice was out. Doug Baldwin ended up playing a number of snaps and he's actually shown a little juice. But certainly Mike Williams can't run, -- I just talked about Lynch and at times I think Lynch is a nice back, but he certainly doesn't have a lot of juice to him in terms of speed, so there's not really a speed element to what they do. And I don't think their offensive line is particularly athletic. So it's just an offense, I think, that has a lot of flaws.

It's difficult for this team to move the ball consistently.

Sobering, but as Thomas points out - he's not making bold statements and he's basing everything on his film study. He's just telling it how he sees it, and Cosell watches A LOT of tape and has a very good eye for the intricacies of the game. Furthermore, Cosell is very careful to defer on questions in which he doesn't have enough information. If he hasn't watched a lot of tape on a certain player, he'll just say so and move on. It's really refreshing to listen to.

I am not bringing this analysis to your attention to be a total Debbie Downer but it think it is important to have a realistic view of what this offense can accomplish and what type of expectations to have. Now, has Cosell been wrong before? Sure, probably a lot of times. As an example, he was very, very low on Cam Newton coming into this season and Doug Farrar and Cosell talk about how surprised both of them were with his success in week one.

So I'm not saying that "because Cosell says so, the Seahawks are going to suck." What I'm saying is that Cosell is a very, very intelligent football mind and his analysis should be taken into consideration when watching this team play this season.

It's interesting to get an unbiased and unprejudiced opinion on the Seahawks in a noninflammatory fashion. Can the Seahawks surprise Cosell? Sure. But he's done a good job of pointing out some deficiencies the team has that we should be aware of.


 Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook


Comment 171 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

He's got a higher opinion of Marshawn Lynch than I do.

I think the best players are all the receivers.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 11:57 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

None of the receivers can go Beast Mode though.

I honestly think that Marshawn Lynch is the only RB in the NFL right now who could actually break a 99 yard run.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not Leon? Or Peterson or CJ?

beast mode doesn’t happen without down field blocking, he’s too slow.

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

by hazbro24 on Sep 16, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Since teams usually run when they're on their own one,

defenses will stack the box. Scat backs have a lot more trouble breaking through that. Why do you think that most teams that use a scat back as their featured RB employ a power back for third-and-short and goalline situations? If Lynch can break a 67 yard run then he can break a 99 yard run with decent enough blocking and the like.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Disagree

AP is just as strong and twice as fast. CJ2K can put a defense behind him in under 15 yards. Mendenhall is faster and slipperier. I love Lynch but he’s better at turning -5 into 5 or 10 into 30, but not 15 into 99.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hate to say it, but the BeastQuake run was an abberation.

You’re right, he’s more of a 5-10 yarder kind of back, and doesn’t have that explosive gear that Cop Speed and Jamaal Charles has….but in reality any decent back has the potential to break off a 99-yard run, if the blocking and defense are in the right places (remember the Chester Taylor run?).

by J.L. White on Sep 16, 2011 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

An aberration?

No, not quite. Lynch is a RB that demands tacklers to bring him down forcefully, pretty much every time he totes the ball. It’s that simple. There’s nothing aberrant about it, other than the fact that there aren’t many other RB’s in the league that put the same kind of pressure on a defense. So in that sense I guess we could say that Lynch himself is a bit of an aberration.

There’s a reason that fans, NFL media, and even other players and coaches make references to “Beast Mode”. Seriously, go and watch some youtube highlights of the guy. He’s a threat to do what he did to the Saints last year on just about every touch he gets.

by Catoblepas on Sep 16, 2011 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fine, touche, in the right conditions (and 2007) he can do that.

But can he do it over and over and over again? My point was that Marshawn is nowhere near the ‘only’, nor ‘one of’ the RBs that is a threat to break it for 99. I can guarantee the Steelers are not gameplanning around Marshawn’s gamebreaking ability based on the runs against the Bengals and Saints.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, I guarantee you the Steelers are gameplanning for Lynch

Just about every defensive coordinator in the league that we play against this year is going to run Marshawn’s highlight run in the playoffs at one point or another during film session.

You honestly think Dick LeBeau would be that arrogant? Particularly after the tail kicking they just recently received, where they just gave up 171 yards of rushing? No, unfortunately we won’t be that lucky.

by Catoblepas on Sep 16, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

Interesting highlight

It shows more speed than I think he’s ever shown with us. Interesting.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I've never even seen that TYPE of stride from him in a Seahawks uniform

But come to think of it, I’ve never seen him have the opportunity to run in a straight line for more than 5 yards. His straight ahead speed might still be there, but when do we ever spring him to the point of being able to utilize it?

by jhmg16 on Sep 17, 2011 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was about to echo that.

Lynch isn’t even our best running back. Maybe not even our THIRD best running back.

by djafrot on Sep 16, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

What? He is better than Forsett for sure.

Great game Hawks... lets shock the world and beat the Steelers this weekend!!

by HawksFever on Sep 16, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why don't you put the burden of proof on yourself when you make the statement that he's the third best running back?

He’s the best for us because he won’t get stopped behind the line with his power (key for zone running), and along with that he can make up for the mistakes of a bad line.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're right. The "for sure" got to me.

Forsett and Leon, in my opinion, are better all around backs than Lynch. Lynch is too slow to hit the line, and not as versatile coming out of the backfield.

I do believe there are some actual stats that say Leon and Forsett are more efficient than Lynch, but I can’t remember where they are. They’ve been posted on FG before.

by djafrot on Sep 16, 2011 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

There's more to running between the tackles than brute force.

Lynch is slow to the hole and looks for contact once he’s in it. Force is quicker and more agile and despite his size still a very physical player. We’ve never seen him really handle a full load for an extended period of time, so maybe he’d wear down and become less effective as a “feature” back, but I haven’t seen anything that makes Lynch a significantly better inside runner than Forsett.

by Nate Dogg on Sep 16, 2011 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions   3 recs

I dont know, Forsett did get that opportunity to beat the goal line d in preseason and failed.

Otherwise, I think a lot of the forsett love is for the backup in a mediocre rushing attack. Yes, lynch has his weaknesses but those are exposed in huge part due to his status as the #1 back. And of course the lack of a passing attack to open up the run.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 4:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Forsett's a great general-purpose RB

but I wouldn’t want to give him the ball 300 times a year or have him be the main back in short-yardage situations. Lynch is the guy that will punish a defense (like a Marion Barber) while Forsett and Washington take advantage of them later in the game.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 16, 2011 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, this is approximately what I believe.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Forsett is the odd man out, to be honest

Lynch and Washington complement each other really well, Force doesn’t have as much of a role with those two on the field.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Forsett has fairly mediocre vision as a runner

Seriously. I see him running right into the backs of his offensive linemen, regularly; not because they’re getting pushed back into him, but because he simply chooses the wrong lane to hit after making his cut. And that I find amazing considering this is the sort of system that he thrived in as a collegian.

by Catoblepas on Sep 16, 2011 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

the bus?

Marshawn is probably too light to be considered to be like Bettis, if anyone in the NFl is like bettis i would say its Hillis. But Marshawn is intinately better than JJones, He has the “juice” to turn a 5-10 into 30, but not brake it to the house, but he does excell at turning neg 5 into a gain, and that really is our best offensive play until 2 things happen. The line gels, and the handcuffs come off tavaris/CBJ/Portis/Midseason trade/ waiver wire QB

by Oliudyen on Sep 16, 2011 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think Leon Washington is the perfect fit for a ZBS line....just not one as shitty as ours is right now.

I’d still want Lynch to start, but as the season goes along and the line starts to gell, I’d like to see Leon get a lot more carries. Let Beast Mode wear the defense down, and then let Leon run right past them!

by J.L. White on Sep 16, 2011 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Marshawn Lynch is a more foundational player, though

You can, ideally, run the offense through him, where you can’t run the offense through BMW or Rice.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the links and info on Cosell.

It doesseems seem toreally me thata we havehave speed, we’re just not using it. He points out Baldwin and Tate but we also have Washington. Get him the damn ball.
TJax has speed, the kind of speed that could really make the whole offense “speedier” on rollouts and bootlegs. He’s miscast as a pocket passer which is a little strange given that Bevells offense seems to need a QB that can mix it up a bit.
Disheartening hearing his comments about the lines lack of athleticism. Hopefully they can find another gear or two.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 12:07 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Wow, my auto text on this phone sucks

Failure!
It seems to me that we have speed….

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 12:12 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

speed

Baldwin 4.4, Leon Washington 4.5 Miller 4.53(decently fast for a TE), Rice 4.51, Durham 4.42 Butler (IR) 4.3 Forsett 4.59 these guys are fast and play fast, maybe faster

 Marshawn 4.46 Top Pot 4.42, BMW 4.57, Obo 4.45 these guys should be fast but play much slower.

by Oliudyen on Sep 16, 2011 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think Tate is decently fast.

He just doesn’t play a lot and doesn’t get a routes where he runs straight upfield so it’s hard to tell.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

BMW's 40 is so long ago it's irrelevant

Tate is plenty fast, just not useful. Miller and Rice aren’t particularly fast, nor is Forsett. Washington really is the only outstandingly fast offensive player we have, and maybe Baldwin.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Which is why Butler adds something. Fastest guy on the offense...if he returns to form.

About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron

by Hawksince77 on Sep 17, 2011 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

What form?

Butler has never shown he is much more than a fast guy.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 17, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

My Question is

How fast do you have to be to have Juice?

4.3? 4.4? in the forty?

Lynch ran a 4.4 in his combine, ran a 4.36 on his pro day, but he’s really not that fast?

Funny I was reading that article yesterday when you mentioned Cosell.

Good write up, but still a little “downerish”. Sometimes the truth is like that.

Live work and breathe like an optimist.

by JRock419 on Sep 16, 2011 12:10 PM PDT reply actions  

Combine numbers don't translate for some guys.

By my eye Lynch is not a 4.4 on gameday, ya know, when it matters?

by Steen on Sep 16, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah

that’s slow. I mean, my CAR is faster than that!

by Tokyo Slim on Sep 16, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed on that

Point. He’s got a herky-jerky drunken boxer style that isn’t shown during a straight run to the tape.

Watching that tape though convinces me he’s still faster than Shaun Alexander ever was.

Live work and breathe like an optimist.

by JRock419 on Sep 16, 2011 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Early on Shaun Alexander had mad jets

you would see him extending from a defense, cant say i have seen lynch do that.

by Oliudyen on Sep 16, 2011 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Its all about the Oline

They better gel pretty quickly or we will be drafting early next year.

Great game Hawks... lets shock the world and beat the Steelers this weekend!!

by HawksFever on Sep 16, 2011 12:15 PM PDT reply actions  

Agree.

As sobering as his view on the line is I’m going to have some faith that Cable and Bevell know something that Cosell does not.
When Cables line comes around Bevell’s offense will start to work.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 12:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

That would be a major set back....

unless we are drafting one of the top 3 Qb’s next year.

Great game Hawks... lets shock the world and beat the Steelers this weekend!!

by HawksFever on Sep 16, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

No one even knows who the top 3 QBs will be

There’s this whole college season thing and the fact that Juniors don’t have to declare. It’s totally obscuring any kind of consensus.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

As opposed to...?

Continuing to play with Tarvars Jackson and Bevell? You can’t get much lower than that.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

The jury is out for me.

I don’t think Bevell’s offense is going to be special. I’m just looking for NFL caliber at this point.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 12:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

If Pete

was not hell bent on having the 1980’s running game. Josh McDaniels would have brought some big plays to Seattle

Great game Hawks... lets shock the world and beat the Steelers this weekend!!

by HawksFever on Sep 16, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

There's no evidence that's why McDaniels chose STL over us

He likely just used our interest for bargaining, but he’s in a lot better situation there (accurate young QB, solid run game and protection) than he would have here.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Sep 16, 2011 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

McDanials called the Seahawks... Not the other way around

Seattle never had any interest in hiring McD. McD called the hawks in order to drive the price up for Rams.

by Redzone59 on Sep 16, 2011 4:41 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

He just seems to be one of these generic WCO OCs who don't really influence their team.

Sort of like a game manager QB. That’s why I liked Bates. He had some flaws, sure, coughthirdownfadecough, but he showed flashes of being a Josh McDaniels or Charlie Weis. Bevell isn’t.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Coughfourthdownfadecough

I’d rather go with a half assed Holmgren than a half assed Weis.
Bates was terrible. Now I know, FGs like this guy and all but I’m still in the process of figuring out why.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

He certainly made some bad decisions

like a couple of the half back passes and such, but he also found us some big plays. Like in the first 49er game, he was like “Fine, you don’t wanna cover 20 yards cause you don’t think our QB can throw it there? DOUBLE MOVES”. Sando said something along the lines of “A coach like Mike Holmgren may take a few years to get the players for his offense, whereas Jeremy Bates is going to field the best offense that fits his talent for that week”.

I also thought that Bates is the biggest reason we won the Saints playoff games. He just found big plays, I loved that about him. I know he had some maturing to do with play-calling, not being so cute with like, half back passes on 3rd and 1 or the fades, but I just thought he had potential to be a great OC.

Although, he was too dependent on two tight end sets. For as big an impact his playcalling had versus the Saints, it was that much a problem versus the Bears. We only had two tight ends versus the Bears, and we lost what did Hass say, 75% of our gameplan? Although the drops certainly didn’t help. That’s how I see it anyways.

by Trepidation on Sep 16, 2011 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I just don't agree that Bates was anything special.

Granted, there were issues on the line all season and his QB was wrong for his scheme.
I’d actually say that the offense was at it’s best when it was running on a reduced play book. When they got back to basics, they were better.
I’ll also disagree that Bates was the biggest reason we won the Saints game.
-Hass played great, and improvised.
-The Saints had no Safties.
-BeastQuake was not part of the plan.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Where did Hass improvise?

All the TD’s that I can remember him throwing seemed to be from the book, including two 3rd and short deep fades.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was Bates and his assistants who made sure to attack

Harper in their offense. Hasselbeck may have played great but they wouldn’t have won the game if Bates hadn’t built a gameplan around the Saints’ weaknesses.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am not a Bates hater, but...

the fact that he saw fit to implement a game plan around the weaknesses of the Saint’s (primarily horrific safety play) in which everyone already knew was a weakness, does not prove that he was a good OC

by savedbG on Sep 16, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't argue that...

but even Bates could not have counted on how atrocious the Saints D was that day. I loved the game, but that win was more about the Saints failures and one improbable run than anything Bates did.

by savedbG on Sep 16, 2011 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

What, the saints suddenly stunk that day?

They got into the playoffs by playing well, and managing to disguise their safety play. Bates just figured them out.

I was also a good matchup.

by djafrot on Sep 16, 2011 4:58 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

The game earlier in the year

where Matt actually threw for more yards against the Saints, on the road, kind of shows that Matt/Bates just matched up pretty well against the Saints D for some reason. His two best performances of the season against the same team?

Don’t forget that Payton’s odd decision to pooch kick to avoid Washington put us in great field position all game long as well. It wasn’t just Matt.

by Harvey Manfrengenson on Sep 16, 2011 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

If your weakness is defending the pass

And you game plan to exploit that it doesn’t really make you a genius or some kind of offensive guru. Where was his brilliant gameplan vs. Atlanta? Giants? How about the Raiders and Broncos? Where was this scrutinizing eye for weakness all season? Bates’ offense wasn’t NFL par. He had no sense for game and clock management. It was strange. It was novel. It was unpredictable but it was bad.
Maybe he has upside. Fine. But there are 32 OC jobs in the world. That’s why there’s a vetting process. PC hired his bud, paid for it and has now moved on.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 10:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

I don't know about biggest reason

But the Saints game just screamed “this team is outchoaching the other team”. Their shitty D-coordinator had no answer for our offensive gameplan. You really didn’t see that?

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I saw very poor play from the Saints secondary

I saw a Matt make some nice reads and subsequently nice throws to capitalize. I saw some key STs play and one unforgettable run that definitely wasn’t part of the gameplan. No I didn’t see something as subjective as one team being “outcoached”. I’d harken a guess that PC didn’t either.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 10:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Interesting

It is what it is I guess. News to me that anyone could watch that game without seeing one team having the clearly better gameplan.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Come on now...

that play was talked to death. The fade was like the 4th option on that play and Hass just threw it up ’cause everything was covered.

But, Bevell seemed to be highly regarded around the league and he has head coaching aspirations. Hopefully, for our sake, he proves himself here over the next couple of years before getting a head coaching job somewhere.

by Hawkguy on Sep 16, 2011 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Okay, but didn't everyone know this was coming?

The line was going to suck ass for a month, month and a half, things were going to look really, really ugly for a while, and then as the line slowly began to click, things were going to start looking up. You’d like things to gel sooner, but then you’d like a young team to have a full training camp before they have to play games that count in the standings.

I hate to say this, but I’m also going to go so far as to say that when the Seahawks are, say, 2-10 or 3-9 and then rip off a 3-1 record in the last month, there will be all kinds of complaining here and in other Hawk related forums. 5-11 or 6-10 certainly means missing out on the Luck sweepstakes, and I fear that that will be all too many people care about.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I agree.

On top of that, if the Seahawks had 9 or 10 win potential by season’s end, reflected in their play over the last month, and then had a top 10 draft pick on top of that, that shouldn’t be cause for pessimism, that should be cause to anoint PCJS saviors of Seattle football.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Whole heartedly agree.

Perfect storm scenario for the franchise.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 10:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Totally agree with that

No matter what the talking heads say, I refuse to believe any head coach wanting a top draft pick on his team will ever ask the other 52 players on his team to lay down in a game. Those are 52 players with stats to pump, egos to boost, titles to win, and mouths to feed. The average career in the NFL isn’t so long that a player would coach through a season on the off chance of finding one single player to add to his team. A team that he may be cut or traded from and whom the player may never see any benefit from because of their new wunderkind.

"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan

"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"

by Clendy on Sep 17, 2011 4:09 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Sounds like Cosell is infinitely smarter than me when it comes to football, nobody would disagree with that.

But its not me that he’s questioning. It’s Pete and Darrell and John for constructing and running this offense. Seems like Cosell is smart as hell and I don’t question that he knows 1000 times more than me, but I do question how much more he knows that the people who run the Seahawks and I wouldn’t even try to guess the answer to that.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Sep 16, 2011 12:23 PM PDT reply actions  

That's irrelevant

Because we can’t get honest opinions from Pete or Darrell or John. What makes Cosell so valuable is that he is considered on par with top-level football executives in football knowledge and has access to all the tape, but can then give us an honest opinion on team outlooks that we’ll never get from insiders.

That’s what makes all press useful, in fact. We writing on Field Gulls don’t know more than the FO, yet we can still be critical and questioning, because we can provide honest analysis that they can not. Cosell is just a step above everyone else in the NFL writing world.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

It sounds to me that everyone pretty much enjoyed the read.

So there isn’t really a need to defend the messenger. I think his contribution is valued.
Cosell is admittedly going off of game tape. He’s seeing game speed. Lots of things go into game speed. Some of it can be coached some cannot. I think HumbleFan is expressing his/her faith that PCJS brought in guys with the uncoachable talent and perhaps the faith that the rest of thethe equation can be coached. Like knowing where to be and having the confidence to do it. Or at least that this is the plan. As opposed to running out a slow offense on purpose.
It’s not unreasonable to think that some would question such a sobering outlook on their beloved team. It’s also not an irrelevant point.

by vertigoman on Sep 16, 2011 10:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Wasn't defending, just replying to the spirit of "well, what do they know?"

It’s always brought up and it’s true, NFL FOs know more than any of us can aspire to, but it’s not relevant knowledge to us as fans because it can’t be honestly shared.

I have no reason to have any faith in Pete Carroll or John Schneider. Why would I?

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Here's the most depressing part:

Since PC and JS came in, all we’ve been hearing about is scheme fit, scheme fit, scheme fit. Players have been let go, players have been passed on, not because they lack talent but because they aren’t a good fit for the scheme. So, what do we have to show for it? 10 of 11 offensive starters brought in by the new regime (everyone but Unger), and apparently they don’t fit well together.

Also, holy crap, I just realized Max Unger is the longest-tenured offensive starter on this team.

by Suburban Shocker on Sep 16, 2011 1:07 PM PDT reply actions  

On the other hand...

Cosell didn’t go into much detail about depth (other than a nod to Tate and Baldwin), and the one area in which I think we can all agree the Seahawks are pretty good is with depth and versatility. The starters might lack “juice” but, as others pointed out in this thread, that’s where backups like Forsett, Washington, Tate and Baldwin come in. The team does have the versatility to go with multiple looks.

by Suburban Shocker on Sep 16, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think it's just the QB.

A bad line is never a part of any scheme. We have a QB who doesn’t transcend poor protection. The fit with the wideouts is being comfortable throwing into small windows. But the wideouts themselves aren’t a scheme misfit or anything. It’s just the QB.

But it does — again! — raise the question about judgment in passing on draft prospects & other free agents and picking Tarvaris.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

They haven't passed on other prospects, though.

They brought in Josh Portis, who is obviously a project, and they still have Charlie Whitehurst. Sure, I’d have liked to see them get a Kyle Orton or taken a flier on David Gerrard, but this year was kind of a weird one in many ways – once the lockout ended and the team had to finally demonstrate they’d made a decision on Hasselbeck, the only real choice they had was to go after one guy and name him their opening day starter. There just wasn’t the time for a QB competition, and there certainly wasn’t the time for PC to audition guys the way he seems to have liked to do in the past.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

They did pass on prospects.

Anyway the point being, there is some reasonable logic in how & why they ended up in bed with Tarvaris. But they’re accountable for the results that that decision yields. It’s not unfair to question it.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's pretty much

exactly what I asked yesterday. Nobody ever answered me.

People it seems, would rather have a (comparitively) expensive first round QB with a third round draft grade getting his ass kicked right now than a cheap backup. I’m not sure why.

by Tokyo Slim on Sep 16, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think

I said we re-sign Locklear instead of starting a PS player tho.

by Tokyo Slim on Sep 16, 2011 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Door #C seems like the best option (which we did)

- Release the expensive one, start the rookie RT to grow into it.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Do you really believe the best or only real course of action for this team

was to wind up with Tarvaris Jackson?

I would rather have Kaepernick. I would rather have Mallett. I’d even rather have Kolb. I’d never have touched Dalton but it looks like he has some limited translation to the pros. I don’t think he’ll be a successful QB but I don’t think he’ll bust because he lacks the ability to play.

Before they traded away the 2nd rounder to get an extra later rounder, I would rather they took a lineman there and in the 3rd. But that’s beside the point; I don’t think it’s feasible to wait on QB until the line is 100% set & gelled.

But that’s all beside the point. The point is just that the logic that led to Tarvaris is questionable. If his fit with the offense was overlooked, why are fit issues with others not? I suppose because he’s truly only a bridge QB to 2012, and Mallett would be more of a commitment to the future not just for a year.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

The best? Yes, by far

You can’t really rebuild if you obsess with one position even when no answers are available. Considering the shortened off-season and the nature and price of the players available, Tarvaris was in fact the best option.

Also the 2nd wasn’t traded away for a late rounder. We lacked a 3rd, remember?

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

We traded down, our 2nd for Detroit's 3rd & 4th.

And swapping 5ths & 7ths. As I said. I’d agree that spending capital on a bridge QB impedes rebuilding if no other answers are available, but other answers were available. That don’t hold any less risk or upside than a 2012 1st round pick as can best be predicted during the 2011 Lockout.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 19, 2011 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

Would have loved to get a QBotF

But that wasn’t in the cards this year and there were plenty of reasons why.

Shortened offseason doesn’t do any rookies any favors at all. New offensive coordinator to try and fit in with an ever-shifting roster. And going into free agency, still plenty of holes to fill (and still holes to fill even afterward). Asking a newly drafted QB to come in on 2-3 weeks of practice, learn a whole new playbook, show some talent in the preseason, and then lead us to glory is optimistic to the point of being a pipe dream.

If PC/JS saw a QB they thought would be good, I think they’d have taken him in a heartbeat. But the circumstances behind s shortened preseason meant that a new QB wouldn’t have the luxury of a lengthly training period. I believe that every QB left on the board (in the late 1st round, mind you) was one they saw as an overreach. By then, it would have been…what? The fifth or six QB taken? In a not especially strong year for QBs? Definite overreach. I would have done exactly what they did (if I were an influential football executive with decades of experience) and spent our first rounder on a foundation player than taking an early choice flier on the fifth or sixth choice QB.

Other free agent QBs might be (and probably are) better than TJack, but they all had price tags attached. Orton would have needed draft picks to pry loose from Denver. Kolb would cost more than diamond encrusted gold for a fairly small sample size of performances. Vince Young had enough stature too probably want a long-term and/or expensive deal to be our prospective starter. Leinart was a possibility (and would have been my choice, personally), but on paper he had a lot of the same question marks as TJack: Prospective QBotF for their teams that were benched for better-performing veterans and otherwise for whatever reasons just couldn’t cut it as a starter. In my opinion, most of Leinart’s problems were attitude-based and he has a higher performance ceiling than TJack, but I can see why our FO went the way they did.

Altogether, our QBotF wasn’t anywhere in free agency. Nor on our roster. Nor in the 2011 draft class. And the FO didn’t try to pretend that he was. Next year is likely a different story.

"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan

"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"

by Clendy on Sep 17, 2011 4:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

If it's a "QBOTF" then the shortened offseason matters little. It's for the future and not now.

The last two responses to me take cost of Tarvaris vs. other options to significant consideration. I suppose if cost is that significant, while at the same time “not impeding the rebuild” so to speak, then this year truly was forsaken, deliberately, to get the best chance at a 2012 early pick. I really don’t think that was the reasoning.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 19, 2011 8:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

Okay, they didn't use every single opportunity they had to find a QB. In a sense, they're accountable for that.

But I’m just not seeing this otherwise. The best QB available at the time that Seattle picked was Andy Dalton. Regardless of whether or not he’ll become a good QB, it’s pretty obvious, I think, that the position was overpicked early (I hate to harp on this, but Jake Locker is not a top 15 pick in a normal, sane draft). Otherwise, the biggest FA QB available was Matt Hasselbeck. Donovan McNabb could have been had via trade, perhaps, although if memory serves the Vikings gave up a lot for him. I wasn’t high on Kolb at all and Week One performance or no, giving up the equivalent of a 1st round pick and Earl Thomas for him would have been way, way too much (and apparently Seattle offered a 1st and a 3rd, which is already more than I’d give for the guy). Kyle Orton was flat out not available during the time when the Seahawks could have acquired him. Carson Palmer flat-out wasn’t there either. Who else should Seattle have gone after?

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I answered that above

but the point is not that another decision was clearly better and this one was clearly wrong. The point is that Tarvaris Jackson’s fit with the offense directly conflicts with the reasoning that ruled out other QBs, the reasoning that somehow he was our only choice. I’m not convinced he was our only reasonable or best choice.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hate to say it but Hasselbeck was a better alternative

short of deliberately attempting to get a high 2012 pick. I know, he wanted 2 years and more money. The money was not significant nor would it have impeded anything. We’d just still be stuck with his minute throwing windows. And it would feel again like we’ll never move on.

I think I can make the point without endorsing an alternative, because the TJ decision isn’t demonstrably better, which though you feel it is, is the point. If TJ isn’t demonstrably better — even before the season — than alternatives with more upside like Whitehurst are better. The way this team cycles through personnel, and the degree to which this team needs a QB, there’s little collateral damage — nearly non-existant — to drafting a mid-round QB, or a free agent like Vince Young, Billy Volek, or even McNabb, though he’s showing to possibly be worse than Tarvaris. I wouldn’t have expected that. This team could have expected what they’re getting from Tarvaris, though.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 19, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

People keep talking about players being "overpicked".

There’s a reason for that. Quarterback is important.

by djafrot on Sep 16, 2011 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's why it's important to avoid picking the wrong one.

At the end of the day you have to bring in the guys you want on your team; I doubt that Carroll was so smitten with James Carpenter that he completely forgot about doing something about the QB position. I doubt our FO is totally flippant about how important the position is.

by J.L. White on Sep 16, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

And yet, it appears to me that they are.

They’re not alone – this team has pretty much ignored the need for a future at the quarterback position since 2008 or so – but if any team is willing to go “game manager” it’s this one.

The point I was making is that teams are willing to take shots on quarterback because it’s by far the most important position on a football squad. If it doesn’t work out, well shucks, but when you’re talking about a second or third round pick (or even a late first) it’s not so big of a deal. But if it does work out, you’re golden.

I’m not absolutely raging against this currant FO for not finding a quarterback at all… but the fact that we spent picks and money and ended up with TJack and Charlie makes me wonder about their ability to evaluate QB’s entirely.

by djafrot on Sep 16, 2011 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

True, we might have overpaid for Charlie

But we got TJack for pretty much nothing. Both are on short-term contracts for relatively little money. Money that suggests they are what the front office sees them as: Promising, with a chance to prove themselves, but probably not the future. We didn’t “reach” for either one and didn’t jump at the chance to lock either one down for the next decade. I’d call TJack and this entire offseason a push just because of circumstances and take Carroll’s statement at face value that he made a good faith effort to bring Hasselbeck on board on a bridge contract, but that the lockout shut out those negotiations. TJ was probably the best QB on the free agent market that we wouldn’t have to give up anything to take. Vince Young was there, but he’d probably want a long term deal. And any other veteran QBs like McNabb are journeymen that we could bring on board for the short term, but without even the slight chance that they could break out.

"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan

"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"

by Clendy on Sep 16, 2011 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

It appears they are?

What’s with the impatience?

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

We've seen Charlie and TJax play in a combined 3 1/2 regular season games with the Seahawks.

Might be a little rash to be making conclusions on how we evaluate QBs.

Also, I don’t think that the FO feels that 3rd, 2nd and late 1st round picks can just be thrown away if they don’t work out. A team is not going to draft a QB just because their fans really want them to.

For all intents and purposes, the only QBs that the Seahawks have passed up are Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, Ryan Mallett, Jimmy Clausen and Tim Tebow. I’m not exactly losing any sleep over not having those guys on our roster.

by J.L. White on Sep 16, 2011 11:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rec'd for scheme defense

and for the use of Johnson as an example of a competant college coach who came in and owned the complacent NFL.

by GnarlyHawk on Sep 16, 2011 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

So all we need is someone willing to give us a half dozen draft picks, including two or three first-rounders, for a single player?

Well, we’ll miss you, Baldwin. But we hope you have a good career with the Patriots. With the half dozen picks they send us, they’ll still have another ten or so left for next year.

"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan

"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"

by Clendy on Sep 17, 2011 4:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Being objective, I can't find much that he said that I don't agree with

Have to consider that the rookies didn’t have as much time to practice (which really seems to be hurting Carpenter making a switch from LT to RT). Some of the our key FA pickups didn’t play week 1 either. BUT, it was only week 1 and I expect this team to improve from week to week. Sure they looked terrible the 1st half of the 1st game, but the 2nd half was much better and they gave themselves a chance to win. Special teams pretty much blew the game though. And the defense is seemingly good enough to keep the Seahawks in the game (hopefully, I mean they were playing the 49ers). Another factor here is that the Seahawks are lucky that they are playing in the NFC West, the other teams in the division look just as bad and there is alot of football left to play. The young players will get better.

by Bellevue on Sep 16, 2011 1:11 PM PDT reply actions  

QBOTF is huge obviously

But I have serious man crushes on both Blackmon from Okla St and Alshon Jeffery from So Carolina. The add another dimension to offenses that average WR’s cannot.

by jusorenson on Sep 16, 2011 1:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Stop that.

We need a QB, and only a QB.

by DetectiveM on Sep 16, 2011 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

And a couple of beastly DT

a few get to the QB DE and maybe a great FB. But i really feel the nucleous of the team is there now.

by Oliudyen on Sep 16, 2011 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

A WR? Seriously?

That’s irksome as the calls for RBs leading up to the draft. That position is overstocked, it’s insane to draft a top-end WR with other needs considered.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

C'mon Man!

Live work and breathe like an optimist.

by JRock419 on Sep 17, 2011 1:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Tarvaris!

Why can’t you get the ball to Sidney, Mike, Tate, AND Alshon?!?!?! YOU SUCK!

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

I hadn't thought much about speed on offense.

Williams and Obomanu are slow. They’re good guys for a quarterback who can put the ball on their back shoulder on an out rout and who can put the ball the perfect distance in front on a crossing route. What is Rice’s speed like? He seems like the same type of big receiver as the other two but he’s got to get separation to have the numbers he does. I haven’t really watched him in Minnesota. Jackson is a mismatch for the line and for the receivers. Lynch can catch the ball from what I’ve seen but they didn’t connect on Sunday. We really are building an offense to work with a new quarterback and I think we’ve brought in the perfect quarterback to get us in position. I wonder which one of the big-3 in the next draft would work with our personnel.

by EthelGemerman on Sep 16, 2011 1:28 PM PDT reply actions  

Another issue, I think, is that we need to recalibrate what constitutes a "good" WR in the post-Hasselbeck era.

It used to be that big guys with good hands were the ideal kind of receiver, and guys who could get open downfield were pretty much useless. Maybe it’s just time to accept that without a guy like Hasselbeck delivering him the ball, Ben Obomanu isn’t going to be all that great of an NFL player. For that matter, both BMW and Rice strike me as flanker/slotty guys rather than the quick, route-running split end who can break a game open all by himself (don’t get me wrong, Steve Largent was also a flanker/slotty guy).

Maybe the way out of this is to see the relative talents of Golden Tate or Doug Baldwin or, yes, Deion Butler if he can come back. If you’re looking for a guy who is going to, as you point out, deliver the football to the back shoulder of a WR on an out route on a consistent basis, that guy has already left.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

They've played one game, not four (and not five).

I’m sorry, but preseason is of limited import to me. It’s nice that Obo got open more often in SF, mostly against #2 CBs and nickel backs, but still more often. How much of that, though, is Obo and how much of that is the role he’s playing in the offense?

I like the guy but really, he does kind of strike me as a better complement to Matt Hasselbeck than to TJax or CJ or (insert future strong-armed but not MASSIVELY canny QBOTF here).

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Preseason results are insignificant.

How one wideout cuts, runs routes & gets open is not necessarily insignificant. Maybe he is a better compliment to Hasselbeck and a different style of offense, I don’t know.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

You basically just refuted your own point right there.

The WCO uses a lot of timing routes which obviously means that trust between a receiver and a QB are all that more important. Jackson and Obo (and really all the receivers) haven’t exactly had a lot of time to work together. Obo missed parts of the preseason, remember, so that only made it worse.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Huh? In what way did I refute my point?

I’m not comparing Obo to Randy Moss or something, I’m comparing him to all the other WRs on the team, all of whom have had to learn the new offense just the same as Obo’s had to. He’s also not the only WR to miss time; really, that just sounds like excuse-making to me. I like the guy, I think he’s an interesting story, but I think we should start to prepare ourselves for the chance that he only has the potential to be a good receiver in an offense which requires a player with a very specific set of skills, and this offense may well not be it.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

You said "They've played one game, not four (and not five)."

It takes more than one game to build trust between a receiver and a QB. One game is also too early to start saying that Obo isn’t a good receiver without a Matt Hasselbeck at QB.

by Coach Owens on Sep 16, 2011 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

Obomanu are not slow. Obomanu are also known for being the same in the singular and the plural.

Williams and Rice are slow on the get-off. Rice has the speed to be a vertical threat but it takes time to develop in both their cases.

Two big-bodied receivers remains a good idea for a play-action passing game that takes chances down-field. They just need quick release guys, and dunno whether we can consider Tate or even Baldwin reliable yet, but we have three, we’re fine.

Head of catering.

by jacobstevens on Sep 16, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Obomanu was used primarily as a gunner on ST before breaking out as a WR

He’s far from slow. I know that forty’s and game speed are different, but he ran in the low 4.4’s.

by Matt Erickson on Sep 17, 2011 1:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

I would vote, Ethel, on the most accurate QB available

Especially if Pete’s playing scheme and fit with our tall n slow receivers

This was, indeed, a sobering read.

by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 16, 2011 1:41 PM PDT reply actions  

I'd rather have

in-his-prime Joe Montana with Steve Young as his backup.
or Tom Brady.

by Tokyo Slim on Sep 16, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Now that's just rediculous

There’s no way she could throw a tight spiral let alone hang in the pocket when pressure comes. And furthermore, I don’t think she’s ever even played football!

by B.B.Finnegan on Sep 16, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Betty Boop, on the other hand, could huck it with the best of 'em.

Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"

by Bobby Cink on Sep 16, 2011 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh, she has a tight spiral

and her pocket presence is amazing when the pressure comes…hard…from behind.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seeing the way the line is developing,

wouldn’t Jake Locker be a decent fit? He’s pretty accurate when he has to scramble and he seems to enjoy playing with broken ribs.

by EthelGemerman on Sep 16, 2011 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

YEAH COOL

He was drafted 16 spots before us.

by Stay Off the Flowers on Sep 16, 2011 11:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

We got anybody

scouting the IFLUS ??

http://www.lflus.com/

I think someone special could be had….

by Mount&Groan on Sep 16, 2011 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sunday

Seattle 3 – Stealers……how many zeroes in a “kajillion?”

by Michael Harp on Sep 16, 2011 5:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Cosell is right on the money.

When all is said and done, we will look back on this offense and realize it is on par with the 1992 offense led by Stan Gelbaugh.

by Flahawker on Sep 16, 2011 6:06 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't think it ends up that bad, honestly.

The receivers are faaaaar better, for one thing. Brian Blades got hurt early in ‘92 and if memory serves the team’s top WR was Alvin Harper. They did have Chris Warren but in the end seemed to be going to him more because he was the only way the team could get first downs than him actually being a great football player. On top of that, not only was the offense hopeless, it was…. hopeless then, too, as in without any hope of ever getting better. The line was a mess, that receiving corps like I said was pretty much garbage, Warren did a good job but at that was returning kicks the year before and was exactly the kind of lucky pick you sometimes find when rooting through the bottom of the barrel… I guess the punting and kicking was good, so there’s that at least.

This team at least has age as an excuse and so the line play could very well improve (in fact, I think the odds are good that it will improve) by season’s end. Quarterback is still an issue, of course, although I think that even TJax would have to suck pretty hard to reach Kelly Stouffer level.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Alvin Harper was NEVER a Seahawk.

In 1992 he was too busy winning a Super Bowl with the Cowboys.

by J.L. White on Sep 16, 2011 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, not sure where I made that error.

I took a quick look at the roster (Tommy Kane led all WRs and TEs with 27 catches – 27! Can you imagine? Good thing John L. was still there because otherwise… no, it really was as bad as things could get) and there wasn’t anyone I could even conceivably mistake Harper for.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 17, 2011 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

24-0

Crossed midfield once. Zero points and avergaing 59 yds of offense in the first half so far this season. I take back what I said. This offense might end up WORSE than 1992.

by Flahawker on Sep 19, 2011 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

Cosell can go clean his dentures

I dont care what the critics say that we suck, we are hopeless. we don’t stand a chance. we all know that but dang why not start the season with some glimmer in the eyes huh. jeez these critics can really ruin the game. sucking on purpose for luck is not a choice. if that occurs im no longer a fan.

i dont care i want to see a hard working team who is preparing for tomorrow by getting better, tougher, and sexier after each and every down. as much as we want our team to go to the superbowl or to simply remain sucky for some. as long as i see a team gelling together, working hard, and beating the snot out of pittsburg (big hope) i for one will be happy.

what say to y’all?

by genax on Sep 16, 2011 7:13 PM PDT reply actions  

I say you should use capitalization

And that your post wasn’t very useful or informative.

Formerly Known As Vasilii

by Thomas Beekers on Sep 16, 2011 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

I like your spirit!

I’d like to see the same hard work, and the team get better every play. It’s why I own a fully signed copy of the the 1980 Olympic hockey team, with the lake placid tckets; framed. I believe in underdogs, and I am not intimidated by better the dominant team and athletes. It’s just part of me to be like that.

Yes, it’s a buzz kill to hear all these negative POV’s, no matter how smart, stupid, in the know, or out of their mind talking heads. Still, it does provide context for the hill our young team has to climb.

Don’t worry about Beekers, he really gets into this stuff and bluescreens when he reads comments like this. He’s still smart and writes good stuff though

by GnarlyHawk on Sep 16, 2011 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cosell actually strikes me as fairly typical

Seriously, the stuff he’s saying here is about what any other national pundit would say. Most of it is near-sighted, outside looking in sort of perspective; particularly where he almost damns the OL. It’s like, “Your OL sucks”. He made mention of the young guys we have, but conceded nothing in terms of how he might see them developing.

The mention of lack of speed is where he really lost me. That almost sounds like something I would hear from an uneducated fan; like your friend’s buddy that was invited over to your gameday party, sitting around at someone’s house, watching the game. So let me get this straight. Speed is the difference between a WR getting separation and being locked down by a DB? That’s funny. So why isn’t Ted Ginn dominating the league as a receiver exactly? Or Devin Hester?

Everything he said about Tarvaris was spot on though. Why isn’t Pete talking to this guy for advice?

by Catoblepas on Sep 16, 2011 11:38 PM PDT reply actions  

Devin Hester's issue has always been his hands.

Well, that and he really, really doesn’t run routes well. You can only run fly and post patterns so often, after all. I don’t quite think that Cosell was saying that speed was the only thing that gets WRs separation, anyway, just that neither BMW nor Rice are particularly good at getting separation in large part because they aren’t very fast. You need a lot of things to get that consistent separation, one of which may not exactly be speed, but it’s something like it – the ability to turn corners very quickly, good acceleration, that kind of thing. Which, again, nothing against BMW, he doesn’t really have in abundance. I think he more than makes up for it with his height and his hands but as Cosell said he needs a quarterback willing to throw into those windows and trust his receiver.

"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)

by Johnny Slick on Sep 16, 2011 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

So this guy lost you but you want Pete to take his advice?

Whoa.

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

by hazbro24 on Sep 17, 2011 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is a fascinating report

and Cosell seems to know his stuff. We’ll see how the Seahawks fare throughout the season. Hopefully, things get better for you guys and for my Broncos as well!

Brad James

Follow me on Twitter

With Coach Zorro on our side, we will slice opponents to ribbons. Tim Tebow gives me hope and I already have faith and charity in my heart! I see a propitious future rife with Lombardis for our Broncos!

by the new Bradfather on Sep 16, 2011 11:50 PM PDT 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