Actually that's misleading I'm going to attempt to make this pretty short. First let's remove the Bengals game. Let's remove the whole season and start with what we knew about Alexander entering the 2007 season.

• He's 30. If the local media hasn't pounded this in yet, very few running backs stay productive after 30.
• In 2005 he had 370 rushing attempts in the regular season and another 60 in the post season. If you've never heard about the "Curse of 370" or research into how very high numbers of rushing attempts affect running backs you can look here. I'll give you the gist though. Throughout the history of the NFL running backs who have exceeded 370 regular season carries face injury or decline the following year. Most, nearly all are out of the league in a few years following the high workload. Victims include: Earl Campbell, Terrell Davis, Jamal Lewis, Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin--Larry Johnson had 416 last season.
• In 2006 Alexander had a very down year. This coincided with two events, first Seattle lost the services of otherworldly left guard Steve Hutchinson and second he suffered a cracked bone in his left foot. By the end of the year the 2007 line was set, with Rob Sims finally unseating Porkchop Womack and former first rounder Chris Spencer replacing then 36 y/o Robbie Tobeck. Alexander's performance rebounded. Against the Bears excellent run defense Alexander put up his best game of the year converting a full ten first downs and scoring two TDs. Fans, bloggers and Seahawks rejoiced.

That brings us to 2007. Given Alexander's age, high work load and recent injury it was understood that Alexander would have to defy odds to once again be a top tier rusher. It also must be understood that steep decline was possible.

• Alexander rushes for 105 total yards on 27 attempts. That's a solid fantasy showing. In reality not counting first down or touchdown conversions he had 12 rushes of two or fewer yards and a fumble. He recorded only four first downs.
• Alexander rushes for 70 total yards on 18 attempts. Fantasy owners wonder where his dominance of the Cardinals has gone. Alexander records 7 rushes of 2 or fewer yards, three first downs and a touchdown.

At this point some legitimate concern has arisen from serious Seahawks fans. His superficial numbers look good, but despite facing two mediocre rush defenses, Alexander has posted a -7.1% VOA. This same week the Hawks next opponent, Cincinnati, is allowing 216 yards to Jamal Lewis. Lewis posted a -9.9 DVOA on the Baltimore Ravens the previous season, journeyman Mike Anderson behind the same line posted an 18.0 DVOA. Against the Steelers fourth ranked rush defense from 2006 Lewis rushed for 35 yards on 11 carries, this last week against Oakland's 16th ranked rush defense he rushed for 56 yards on 15 carries.

By almost every account the Bengals rush defense is pitiful. They are then stripped of their starting middle linebacker and their starting left outside linebacker. The linebacker unit is so stricken that former free agent and bowtie salesman Dhani Jones, he of one of the worst run defending reputations in the NFL, is forced into action and records 7 tackles.

• Alexander rushes for 100 yards on 21 carries. He records 4 first downs and 9 carries of 2 or fewer yards. That's pretty bad by itself...

But when one considers the quality of the Bengals rush defense, Alexander's age, his injury history and his performance over the first three games of the season (12 first downs, two touchdowns, a fumble and 28 of 66 rushes for two or fewer yards) and the clear visual evidence that he's slow out of his cuts, being chased down from behind, hesitant to hit the hole, unable to break arm tackles and falling over regularly without any provocation (this is happening at an alarming rate) it's flying in the face of reason and evidence to say he's played well or projects to play better for the rest of the season.

I understand that many Seattle fans think it's Alexander or bust, but consider that all four teams in the NFC/AFC championship games from last season had two rushers with 150 or more carries. Maurice Morris may have zero star potential, but in four of his five years he has recorded a DVOA of 10% or above. Morris, 27, is in his athletic prime. I have yet to see a single rational argument that Alexander should continue to see the vast majority of carries going forward.

It is not my intention to bash Shaun Alexander, nor by any means do I wish for him to fail. The Hawks are a potentially great team, but face a steadily closing window. One that snaps shut the second Walter Jones or Matt Hasselbeck are significantly injured. One player is disproportionately hurting his team through his poor receiving, his poor blocking and to a lesser extent his poor rushing. That player is Shaun Alexander. It's only five attempts, so discount this wholly if you will, but Leonard Weaver and Morris have combined to average 4.8 yards per attempt. Alexander sits a little under 4.2 yards per attempt. That doesn't say Weaver and Morris are better than Alexander, but only that they have played better when given the opportunity. If Seattle wants to compete for a Super Bowl birth, Weaver and Morris must be given more rushing attempts. I can't divine whether they will succeed or not, but I can tell you that if nothing else is tried, if Alexander is given 90% of the carries for the rest of season out of bullheaded loyalty, the Hawks, barring a miracle, have no chance of competing. It's just that simple.

In the process of producing my posts I always have to scrap some ideas because of insufficient information or just because they don't really fit anywhere. I think some of them have a right to be aired though as a sort of disconnected stray thoughts post. Here are some of my thoughts for Sundays' contest.

• The Cincinnati Bengals have allowed 6.1 yards per rush on the season. Their linebackers are easily some of the worst in the league. MLB Ahmad Brooks is doubtful after suffering a pulled groin. It's basically put up or shutup time for Shaun Alexander. For a cutback rusher, this is some kind of dream setup. Alexander must not only produce against the Bengals, he must be a force.
• It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Hawks' corners face some mismatches this week. The level of mismatch is scary though. Chad Johnson is adept at the double move, something I have yet to see Marcus Trufant master. T.J. Houshmandzadeh is a physical receiver that knows how to break tackles and screen the defender when covered tightly. Kelly Jennings is a slight cover corner who falls off tackles and couldn't outmuscle Todd Pinkston. It's beyond imperative that Seattle generates rush against the Bengals, but they also must be able to stop the rushing attack. Favorable down and distance will embolden the Bengals downfield passing attack. And a struggling rush D will force the safeties close. That's a frightening scenario.
• The key to winning a track meet is to simply run faster, longer than your opponent. All indications are that Sunday's matchup will be a shoot`em up, first to forty, offensive slugfest. For Seattle to stay ahead Walter Jones and Sean Locklear must be able to contain the Bengals defensive ends, Justin Smith and Robert Geathers. Smith is a complete end, and easily the best Jones has yet faced. It's arguable whether him looking improved last Sunday was just facing inferior competition. Smith should let us know early. Geathers is a speed edge rusher. Sean Locklear certainly has the athleticism to stop him, but simply can't take plays off. Seattle needs to protect Hasselbeck if they want to keep up with the high-flying Bengals.

"What it is controlled cool, in a way. Always have the situation under control, even if losing. Never betray an inward sense of defeat." -Arthur Ashe

"One botched play and our season's over." -Coach Owens

At a time like this, with the circumstances of the Hawks' first loss almost ponderous in their enormity, fans can be excused if they lose perspective. Losing perspective and questioning a team's heart is natch for the mercurial sports fan, convinced of a win after a dominant quarter or a loss after a blunderous two. More than a few of whom thought it was over after the Cardinals had staked a 17 point lead in the second. Things sure looked grim at the time, the Cards were dominating field position, had just ended an almost breezy TD drive of 3:31, and with 5:50 left in the second quarter, the Hawks had been outgained almost three to one: 174-60. Seattle's offense was fresh off the second of two three-and-outs in their last three drives. Shaun Alexander had rushed for five yards on six carries. Clancy Pendergast looked Belicheckian in his ability to know the Hawks' calls, stuffing the box on runs and blanketing receivers on passes. But the Hawks battled back. Had it not been for guts, heart, nerve, determination, grit...Seattle wouldn't have been able to break our hearts in the waning minutes of the fourth quarter. A broken season does not a broken heart make, though.

Every Super Bowl winning team in the last three years has lost a close game late: A sucker punch, a befuddler, a game "good teams don't lose". Peyton Manning and the Colts watched Rob Bironas nail a 60 yard field goal to ice a week 13 loss to the Titans in 2006. Steelers' fans could be forgiven if they questioned their teams' heart in 2005. After suffering a week three come from behind victory by the Patriots on an Adam Viniateri field goal within the two minute warning, Pittsburgh would watch its 2005 squad lose two more in overtime. A year earlier it was that Pats squad that was recovering from a perplexing loss. Wunderkind quarterback Tom Brady threw an interception to the then 2-11 Miami Dolphins to set up a late Derrius Thompson TD reception. Brady's response, "It was just a bad play."

As it was when Alexander ran into Matt Hasselbeck and Mack Strong whiffed on his block, a bad play. It does not mean that the Hawks are chokers or losers or can't get it done when they need to. Just as allowing 431 yards doesn't erase the Hawks defensive dominance over Tampa Bay. A Buccaneers offense that spent Sunday carving up one the NFC's title entrants from last season, the New Orleans Saints. Had Seattle been blown out, or a key player injured, perhaps some of the rampant pessimism among the Hawks faithful would be warranted, even justified, but though tough losses sting extra, they count no more in the standings. So man up Seahawks fan, time to show a little heart, the season isn't lost and it's way too early to give up on true contender in the soft NFC and the ever softer NFC West.

The mass of NFL analysis reminds me of this line from The Simpsons: "Excuse me, but 'proactive' and 'paradigm'?  Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?" In other words, it's hackneyed gobbledygook. When you hear an analyst use phrases like "physical", cite player versus team stats, talk about a team's need to score early or mention a team's need to establish the run game or conversely stop the run game/force the other team to pass, you can safely stop listening, stop reading and do something else.

Any defense that is playing well is always playing "physical", have you ever heard someone say "boy the Hawks' defense is really dominating out there, must because everyone is playing so soft, arm tackling and giving big cushions in coverage." No, because playing good defense is playing physical defense. Period.

Player versus team stats are less than meaningless. Does anyone think that despite the high turnaround in talent and coaching in Arizona that Shaun Alexander gains some sort of boost just from playing a team with a red bird on its helmet. Player versus team stats are the product of small sample size and meaningless coincidence. Any time someone sites such a stat you can ignore it.

Do I even need to explain the score early thing? Does anyone not understand that staking a lead improves the chance a team will win a contest? Regarding rushing, teams that are winning rush the ball more. Teams that are losing pass the ball more. Rushing the ball more often does not make a team win more often, it's just something coaches do when they have a lead because rushing more effectively kills the clock and is less likely to lead to a disastrous turnover. Saying that a team needs to prevent the run, force the other team to pass, establish the run or not rely on the pass is tantamount to saying that a team needs to end the game with a pare of kneel downs. You're using effect to describe cause--it's backwards.

Football has more than it's fair share of this garbage floating around. Do yourself a favor, tune it out. If you're curious as to some other findings regarding football's most bandied truisms, take a look at this page. It's a little dated and I hope to update it soon, but it still might help those who have been raised on the wisdom of player-analyst (and really has any word been more bastardized the past few years than analyst?) cut through the crap.

I was stopping by Football Outsiders as I often do and came upon this link to Robert Weintraub's story about the most valuable positions in the NFL. The problem here is that it's too absolutist. The most valuable position on one team can be considerably less valuable on another. With so many different strategies at play, how can one assume that a single standard can be given for the value of all positions in all schemes?

It's a fun idea to work with, though. I thought I would try my hand at defining the most valuable positions for Seattle in both Mike Holmgren's offense and John Marshall's defense.

Mike Holmgren's Offense

John Marhsall's Defense

I'm interested in everyone's opinions.

There are some days I just feel like packing this blog in, handing it over, and joining a knitting circle with a bunch of other spinsters. Today was almost one of those days.

WTF?

I mean, seriously. WTF?

Continue reading this post »

I run across a lot of dross sifting through the local media looking for Seahawks info, but would like to think that I've shown a decent amount of restraint in not calling out every piece of claptrap, work of pseudo-analysis or self-serving screed I've encountered, but this has to be read to be believed.

This is a letter I've written and sent to the story's writer, Ryan Davis. If his piece made you embarrassed to be a Northwest sports' fan like it did me, I encourage you to write your own.

Dear Ryan Davis,

After aloofly proclaiming yourself to be one of "the 1% that actually understand such things" you completely missed the concept of Karma. The pretentiousness of your theme, distilling a sacred religious belief held by over a billion people into pop-mysticism, is only outstripped by the arrogance and vociferousness of your prose.

This article is whiny and self-serving and by being whiny and self-serving embodies the worst stereotypes of Seattle sports fans. Do you really feel like you, as a sports fan, as a Seattle sports fan who in the past 10 years has enjoyed 13 playoff appearances by its 3 major franchises, a 116 win team, not to mention a Super Bowl berth, that you are the victim of some curse? Some cosmic force blighting Seattle sports?

The pure spectacle of your first 550 words, in which you unabashedly pronounce among your many achievements that:

A combination of luck, intellect, savvy, charm, grace, and whatever you want to call it, has provided me a blessed life. I've always been able to overachieve or succeed despite the obstacles laid before me

Compelled me to finish this 2,600+ word slog, this "article". The audacity of the whining, bitching and belly-aching is stomach turning. Clearly, you've lost all sight of how amazingly fortunate you are to even have the luxury to care this much about sports. I could go line by line examining how infuriating almost every word of this piece is, how, when you write:

Like all things Seattle sports, you sat helpless and frustrated, begging for an answer to "why?"

You give credence to every accusation that Seattle sports fans are disloyal, reactionary and above all, entitled. But I'd be remiss to spend so much time on something so trifling.

Suffice to say, it is galling that the site you write for, Seahawks.net, as part of the Scout.com ring of sites, expects payment for the majority of its content. If this article is any indication, I'd be more inclined to pay you to stop writing, Mr. Davis, than to support you continuing to misrepresent every Seattle sports fan like you have done so enthusiastically in this piece.

Sincerely,

John Morgan

[Update 7-14-2007 1:29:16] Despite what I might have implied, opinion pieces do not make up a part of Seahawks.net's premium content. I do not personally subscribe to the site's premium content and cannot attest to its quality, but Seahawks.net's editor, Doug Farrar, is a frequent contributor to Football Outsiders, and a person whose work I respect.

So it's deader than Beck's follicles around the NFL right now, and until things liven up, I thought I would get all creative on your asses.

This is the 2006 Season Review for Jerramy Stevens. It contains no insight into his play on the football field. It's a purely fictional account of his one (reported) ignoble night in Scottsdale. This is a work of fiction, no one within it is real, it is not based on anything but a handful of facts and my own ribald imagination. To paraphrase J.D. Salinger, if it is ribald, let it be a testament to my own estranged, ribald father. In other words, this is NSFW.

Enjoy.

Continue reading this post »