Vacation Time! Blogging resumes next wednesday

Respect For Seattle's Five Playoff Births in Five Years

After a Peter King-inspired rant by TheBigLead sparked a fire (with the kindling laid by Tirico monday night), I thought I might deal with some revisionist history as to how easy Seattle's path to the playoffs have been over the last five years.

2003 - Seattle (10-6) grabs a wild-card birth. The NFC West-winning Rams have the second seed in the playoffs, and the NFC West has the best average winning percentage of the four NFC divisions.

2004 - Seattle (9-7) grabs its first division title since 1999. The NFC West again sends two teams to the playoffs.

2005 - Domination. Seattle (13-3) goes 10-2 against the NFC in the regular season and goes on to win the NFC, concluding with a ridiculous blow-out of the national media's darling team, the Carolina Panthers. Wha happened?

2006 - Seattle (9-7) wins a third-straight division. For all the talk of the NFC West being weak, it had teams with 9, 8, 7, and 5 wins. Meanwhile, the 'powerhouse' NFC East had teams with 10, 9, 8, and 5 wins. Not much difference. Also, the NFC East went 1-3 in the playoffs, with the one win coming when two NFC East teams played each other. Oh, and Seattle beat an NFC East team in the playoffs.

2007 - Seattle (10-6) earns its easiest playoff birth by going 5-1 in a horrendous division. No way to make this one look tough.

Mainstream NFL commentary is a lot of 'what have you done for me lately?' All the Seahawks have done lately is make the playoffs five years in a row. Maybe the national media should put two and two together and consider Seattle's 7-3 record against Arizona over the past five years when wondering why the Cardinals continually fail to meet expectations.

Seattle's Soft Media

Mike Tirico made some comments last night that flew right past me, but really hit a nerve with some people at KJR. To paraphrase, Tirico suggested that Seattle's media wouldn't be as aggressive in pursuing the Holmgren vs. Mora narrative should the Seahawks stumble out of the gates. He specifically made reference to some of the larger east coast cities (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc) as examples of 'tough' media markets, and specifically referred to them as towns 'with multiple newspapers and sports radio' (that's a near-exact quote, taken from memory from hearing it 20 times on Mitch's show).

As I said, what Tirico said didn't initially bother me, but as I listened to it again (repeatedly), the sheer ridiculousness of the statement, and the ignorance it reveals, did get to me a bit. Anybody that's familiar with Seattle sports media would know, at a bare minimum, that the Seattle Times and Seattle P.I. cover all Seattle-area sports (that's two, Tirico). In reality, three major papers cover Seattle sports - those two plus the Tacoma News Tribune - as do a number of smaller papers (the Everett Herald comes to mind). As for sports radio, KJR is a highly-rated sports talk station in the 11th largest media market (I learned that from the Sonics trial). And, as Mitch pointed out, New York has only one full-time local sports talk station (WFAN).

So, I can whine about this, but in reality I'm hardly bothered about it. I'm used to Seattle getting treated like it's in Alaska by the generics in the national media. I grew up in Seattle, spending the first 19 years of my life upset (not really, but kind of, in a sports way) that the national media had an east coast bias. Then I moved to LA, where I've spent the last 8 years and gained some perspective.

There certainly is some bias, but it's not purely directed at the east coast. Los Angeles teams have no problems getting noticed. Bay Area teams are equally covered. To some extent, San Diego teams are well represented. Hell, just look at the Arizona Cardinals, a team that the national media has repeatedly despite real evidence to support such sentiments. It's not an east coast bias. It's an anything-but-the-provincial-northwest bias.

Seattle really is ridiculously far away from all other parts of the counter. If you were to calculate the expected value of a United States citizen in the contiguous 48 states, Seattle would surely be the furthest (major) city from. Combine such proximity with Seattle's reputation as a gloomy city (never mind that it's the most beautiful place on earth during the summer) and its lack of a reputation as a destination city (no conventions, no industry hubs, a tourism industry hurt by its rainy reputation) and you get a discarded sports market.

Long-Snapper Schmitt to Injured Reserve

The Seahawks trimmed their roster to 75 today, with the one notable 'cut' being long-snapper Tyler Schmitt. That's a disappointment. Schmitt was supposed to make us forget the Seahawks had a long snapper. Now we start the year with a guy we signed just to fill in until Schmitt got healthy.

Behind only the playoff loss to the Packers and the defeat-snatched-from-the-jaws-of-victory loss to Arizona, the loss to New Orleans was difficult to watch. The Saints definitely came ready to play, the momentum for the entire first half was set when Boone Stutz botched a snap to Plackemeier and the Saints got an easy touchdown. I know players are supposed to persevere, not let stuff like that get them down, but momentum is a palpable source of energy in the NFL, and that bad snap completely let the air out of the Hawks, never mind all of Qwest Field.

Maybe it was just me, but it seemed like the Chargers were getting awfully close to the punter last night. That could just be bad blocking (they did give up two blocked punts against Chicago). I sure hope it's not the snapper.

Burleson From the Slot

For having watched the play at least 10 times, I'm not sure how I missed that Burleson's TD catch came when he was lined up in the slot. (And as I rewatch the play again, Jordan Kent was the other slot receiver, with Mo Morris and Courtney Taylor wide).

[Burleson] also said he was working in the slot for the first time this week and he was in the slot when he caught his TD pass. He said it gives them more options on offense. He said he was tutored this week by Ben Obomanu because he forgot some of the plays at that spot. - Seahawks Insider

Could Burleson, who has played slot previously with other teams, be being asked to play slot for a couple of games as a way to get Jordan Kent in the game? My point isn't helped by Jordan Kent also running from the slot on that play, but I have a hard time believing Kent would play much in the slot. Unless he's asked to run down the middle of the field each time, playing in the slot would neutralize Kent's speed and size advantages.

Last Tape-Delay Entry, Unless Overtime Comes

The second team defense has a shot to come up with a big stop after the untimely fumble by Forsett. Kevin Hobbs just made a nice play to almost pick off a pass. Man, I only got two sentences written before the defense forced fourth down. Chargers are punting... from the 40? I guess that's right in that in-between area, just outside of field goal range.

No magic for Justin Forsett tonight, running the ball or returning kicks.

Hobbs just made what looked like a beautiful play to break up a long pass in the endzone, but a flag was thrown. He touched the receiver but he didn't redirect the receiver at all. That hurts for the game, but that should grade out well for Hobbs. The Seahawks really have great depth at corner right now. No more signing of forest rangers (or whatever) to play significant time in playoff games.

Hobbs' penalty just led to a touchdown. Chargers going for two to avoid overtime... successful. Damn. Well, two and a half minutes are left to drive for a game-winning field goal. That's got to be doable, right?

ESPN just showed that the Chargers have seven TEs and WRs that are 6'2" or taller. Damn.

The two and a half minute drill just turned into a two minute drill after a single (short) play ran the clock all the way down to the two minute warning. If the Seahawks don't have at least two timeouts, that probably was a bad decision.

I'm surprised to find myself thinking this, but I kind of feel like Charlie Frye would have a better chance at completing this drive than Wallace (if only because Wallace wasn't expecting to play). And, as I write that, Wallace takes a sack and throws an interception. Tough way for a game to end, but it's just the preseason.

And, to add insult to injury, ESPN just said Lofa Tatupu may have a sprained knee. Not good. The games over, so it's time to go find out what's been reported since the game ended 3.5 hours ago. I'll summarize my thoughts on this game probably tomorrow.

Rivers Out, Seahawks Defense Still Struggles

I wrote the title after two plays, so take that with a grain of salt.

Did Frye just duel Rivers to a draw? This performance from Frye is a complete 180 from last week against the Bears.

It looked like Volek was going to complete his second pass attempt, except a linebacker brought the heat and knocked the ball loose. Guess who: David Hawthorne. Love that guy.

Duckett just made his first appearance with three second left in the third quarter. How is this guy not completely redundant given our other backs? As I wrote that, Duckett just got about 23 yards on two carries. Then another seven on his third carry. Perplexing... Haven't seen Forsett on offense at all. What does that mean? Damn, Duckett just had another 10+ yard carry.

Frye's game stats just flashed on the screen: 17/27, 202 yards, 1 TD, roughly through three quarters. That's Hasselbeck quality there. And he's doing a good job of standing tough in the pocket. Roughing the passer penalties don't happen unless the quarterback is willing to take a hit to get a pass off.

Frye just got his second touchdown. Of course it was thrown to Jordan Kent. Kent's made the team. One small problem, though, brought to my attention by Hugh Millen on KJR, is that Kent has been taking most of his reps at Nate Burleson's position (which I think is split end, but I can't remember for sure), who is the one starting receiver not hurt. This means Kent hasn't been groomed to step in for Branch (that's supposed to be Taylor) or Engram (that's Obomanu, Payne, or even Bumpus - another guy I haven't seen yet tonight).

The defense either stepped it up a bit, or the Chargers second team offense drops off significantly from the first unit. Jason Babin gets the first sack (that I can remember) of the night, which is huge given that he's fighting Baraka Adkins for (probably) the last DE roster spot.

Frye is apparently hurt, so we get to see a bit of Seneca Wallace. Nice. Forsett just fumbled. That's sure to piss off Holmgren. Previous to that Courtney Taylor made a nice diving catch that was worth mentioning. Damnit, Forsett, you've got to hold onto that ball.

Second Half Starts

Trufant is having a shaky night by my eyes, blowing another ankle tackle. For what it's worth, Kelly Jennings made a great open-field tackle on the very next play. The Seahawks do end up stopping the Chargers on fourth down, but that wasn't better of a showing, especially for the pass rush.

As Carlson makes a catch on the Seahawks first offensive series I'm reminded that I didn't mention him in the halftime wrap-up. He's had a number of nice catches.

Seahawks get a third shot at third-and-one, Weaver gets the carry, and they convert. That's two of three by my count. Both of the successful attempts were Weaver carries, the first one led by Owen Schmitt, the second led by David Kirtman. What's missing here? T.J. Duckett. Either the coaches already know what they have with Duckett (or Duckett is inactive... damn tape delay), or they want to see if Weaver can be a legitimate short yardage back. Well, Weaver is two-for-two. And now that I think about it, Duckett has got to be inactive, right? How else would he not see any action given that he may be on the bubble?

Jordan Kent just made a big catch in the middle (let me get my foot out of my mouth) for a big catch on second and 25. Then Kent makes a huge catch on a busted third-and-two play. That looked like an incredibly difficult catch, certainly one I was expecting Kent to drop... except that he didn't. Those two clutch catches probably just earned him a roster spot, barring anything horrendous later in the game. (I just rewatched the play another three times. That catch on third down was impressive.)

Geeze, Frye is pretty mobile. He avoided two sacks just on this play (looks like the second team line is in - no wonder protection was so bad on that play) and ended up with at least eight yards on first down. Then Weaver converts a second and short.

Ed note: With this being my first 'live' blog and all, I figured I'd have some bumps to smooth out. One I just noticed is that many of my comments make a lot of sense to me while watching the game, but don't provide a good reference to the plays they're about. I'll figure out some way to fix that.

A nice drive stalls in the red zone, but the Hawks at least come away with a field goal. 10-10. I'd be surprised if Rivers comes out again, especially with him limping on his last series.

All Tied at 7

Darryl Tapp just got abused by the Charger's right tackle (guard?). I don't catch much line play, but that was so obvious that even I picked it up. Overall, the Seahawks aren't getting much of a pass rush. Combine that with the inability to stop the run and it's enough to get worried about the front seven. For as much as the Seahawks weren't stopped on offense, the Chargers have been unstoppable minus a three-and-out.

Ouch, Grant has to catch that interception. It doesn't matter much in a preseason game, but if this were a regular season game, with Rivers playing so well, that's the kind of mistake that you have to take advantage of, one that could mean the difference between winning or losing against a top team. In this case it cost the Seahawks three points. 10-7, Chargers.

Subsequent kick-off - don't let Jordan Kent return kick-offs. Hell, after the way he shied away from the coming hit he shouldn't be anywhere near the middle of the field as a receiver.

Time for Frye to work the one-minute drill...

Payne has a chance to make a big play but can't pull it in. To be fair, he didn't have more than a split second before he was hit (hard), but... that's the second drop for Payne today. I'm pulling for Payne, but he doesn't make catches in preseason games.

So, halftime, still 10-7 Chargers. The Seahawks dominated the first quarter, the Chargers dominated the second quarter. The Seahawks running game looked great, then it disappeared after they missed on their second third-and-one. Maybe the Seahawks coaches wanted to call more runs. Anyway, I feel pretty good about our running game.

The offense clearly targetted Courtney Taylor early. The slant he caught was the highlight, as that's a vital route that Hasselbeck and Branch hooked up for a lot last season. Kent looked good again. I haven't heard Obomanu's name called, which is bad for him. He needs some catches in the second half.

Our defense has been awful. I know San Diego is one of the best teams in the league, but that assumes they have LT and Antonio Gates playing, which isn't the case tonight. I'll check the stats when I finish the game, but there had to be at least 80 yards rushing, 180 yards receiving in the first half for the Chargers. Yet again, crappy road defense.

I wonder if Frye is going to play the entire game again. If so, it says a lot about how the coaches feel about Seneca Wallace, namely that they don't think he needs significant preseason reps - kind of like a starting quarterback. Again, I feel pretty good about Wallace as a backup.

Oh, and I'm not missing Kornheiser at all. I love him on PTI and his radio show (which he does when it's not football season), but his absence tonight is noticeable.

More Summarized Comments While I Cook Dinner

I guess Rivers/Turner think they can beat Trufant? Two of the three plays that series were direct challenges. Trufant won both. Nice.

After Forsett makes a rookie mistake by not fielding the punt (should have grabbed it earlier, been a bit more aggressive. Once it was bouncing he correctly let it go) the Seahawks moved the ball well to reestablish field position. Tough to not get that third-and-one.

I'm starting to wonder if the Chargers saw some stuff on tape that they think they can exploit in our secondary. Rivers continues to throw deep, only this time he succeeded on what must have been a blown coverage by somebody. I'll have to defer to someone better versed in this stuff (Hugh Millen) to get an explanation on that one.

Seahawks Second Series

Three straight promising plays:

1. Frye shows poise and gets rid of the ball.
2. Jones fights for an extra four or so yards.
3. Taylor runs a Deion Branch-esque slant.

Another big run for Jones, and another catch for Taylor. Hope Jones isn't hurt...

Nope, he's back in, and pretty much can't be stopped. I can't look at stats (tape-delay, remember), but I don't think a run has gone for any less than three yards. Schmitt blocks for Weaver and a third-and-one is picked up with ease. It's worth noting that two starters are out, with Vallos at center and Willis at right tackle. Look for lots of runs left.

Drive stalls and Mare gets a long field goal attempt... nope. No hook, just not straight.

Tape-delay live blog - Seahawks vs. Chargers

I love TiVo (or, actually, my generic DVR).

I think I finally get what this new defer rule on the coin toss is. From what I can tell, the winner of the coin toss gets their choice to kick or receive at the start of the first half and the other team either automatically receives in the first half or gets their choice (and somehow field direction has to be picked). I'm not entirely sure why that rule would get added. Unless you're the 2006 Bears with Grossman at QB, why would you ever choose to kick in the second half after kicking in the first half? Unless your defense scores more points per defensive series than your offense does per offensive series you're basically giving away points on average.

Anyway, beautiful throw by Charlie Frye to start the game - better than any I saw last week. It certainly helped that he was throwing to a receiver with good, developed hands (as opposed to Kent, who should have caught at least one of those deep balls. Not a knock on Kent, just evidence that he's still developing). Obviously Burleson was helped by horrible tackling by that safety (can you really call a hit that helps keep the receiver upright a tackle? That's kind of what Brian Russell does). Nice block by Courtney Taylor to ensure the touchdown.

First San Diego play on offense - Marcus Trufant misses a shoestring tackle, kind of like the one he blew in the Minnesota game. Then Sproles gets another long run. Then another for a first down. Not good for the defense. On the flip side, that's what Justin Forsett can (potentially) do to other teams.

Two stops against the run inside the three, and then the Seahawks get bailed out with a botched snap, apparently caused by a bad snap from their backup center. This serves as a reminder that (a) every stop by a defense is important, because you never know what will happen on the next play, and (b) we're lucky Vallos hasn't done that yet (knock on wood).

The Best Decision Matt Leinart Made

This thought comes courtesy of a segment on All Night with Jason Smith, where the top 10 picks of the 2005 NFL draft were reviewed. The point of segment was that the top of this draft, led by Alex Smith, was especially horrendous. Either Jason Smith or his guest, Mel Kiper, pointed out that Matt Leinart was supposed to be a part of the 2005 draft, likely as the top overall pick. The subtext to that point was that Leinart would fit right in as another top-10 bust.

Leinart was roundly criticized when he passed up #1-overall money, but with the benefit of hindsight I think it's fair to say Leinart made the correct decision.

• In place of his would-have-been rookie season in 2005, Leinart spent an extra year at USC where he did nothing but play football, take his last remaining course (dancing), and, presumably, party. That season may have ended bittersweetly, thanks to Vince Young, but that year will probably go down as the best of Leinart's football life, barring a future Super Bowl victory.
• Alex Smith may not have been deserving of being picked number one, but he also didn't deserve a new offensive coordinator (and, hence, new system) each year. I'll grant that Leinart, with a better pedigree coming into the NFL, may have been able to cope better, but the situation in San Francisco was hardly one that would project a large second contract for any quarterback. In fact, I seem to remember on of the reasons Leinart stayed an additional year at USC was that he did not want to go to San Francisco. Smart.

Ultimately, Leinart's current status with the Cardinals is his own fault. He was gifted a gold opportunity with two amazing receivers and a solid running back (albeit not such a hot offensive line), which is way more than Alex Smith got.

Taking Stock of the NFC West

As it so happened, I was able to watch two NFC West teams play their third preseason game this weekend - Arizona and San Francisco. Coincidentally, both of those teams had quarterback decisions that rested on individual performances in those games, so I watched the first half of each with an eye towards quarterback play, as well as how each team performed overall.

I'll start all of this by saying the only way the Seahawks will lose the NFC West is if injuries derail their season. I'm specifically concerned about injuries to any of the offensive linemen, Engram and Branch, and maybe Hasselbeck (I feel pretty good about Seneca Wallace). I don't think there's a single defensive player whose absence would break the defense. Maybe Tatupu. The defense has good depth, especially with the way some younger players have played in training camp. Anyway, the Seahawks are damn good while the rest of the division is at least a notch lower. That doesn't mean we can assume a 6-0 in-division record (start doing that and you might end up 3-3 like in 2006), but that it's doable. It goes without saying how much more important the division games are towards making the playoffs. The Seahawks can likely win the division with 10 wins this year, maybe 9. If they go 5-1 in the division, they'll only have to go .500 in their other 10 games to make the playoffs.

Onto the division rivals...

It looks like J.T. O'Sullivan is going to be the starting quarterback for the 49ers. There's definitely talent there. He seemed relatively calm and collected. He completed seven of his eight pass attempts. His most impressive moment was his touchdown pass, where escaped the pocked towards the sidelines and at the last moment zinged a pass 40 yards to a receiver in the endzone. If he hadn't already won the starting job, I think he did it on that play. Alex Smith didn't put up much to argue with, and Shaun Hill has been absolutely silent since the start of camp.

So, how good is J.T. O'Sullivan? He'll be in his 8th year out of UC Davis (now there's a football powerhouse), has played in all of five games (four last year) during that time, and pretty much got this job by (1) knowing Mike Martz's system and (2) not being Alex Smith. I guess there's a chance he's the next Kurt Warner, except that the 49ers have no receivers. Their most athletic receiver is probably TE Vernon Davis, but Martz traditionally uses tight ends more for blocking. Frank Gore looked spry, and he should be their #1 weapon, but their options really drop off after that. I think the 49ers are going to struggle scoring points. Their defense looks like it could be good (though their supposedly talented cornerbacks seemed to get beat a lot. Maybe that's a scheme thing...), so maybe the 49ers can win some low scoring games. My guess is that the 49ers will win six games this season.

Next up is Arizona. Matt Leinart laid one of the largest eggs I've seen for someone trying to win a starting quarterback job. What I find strange about Leinart is that he never looks like he's struggling. Alex Smith looked completely overwhelmed when playing this week. Leinart looked like he was playing ball in the park. It's odd because it's rare to see a quarterback play with the appearance of confidence while making so many horrible throws. I have no idea what has happened to Matt Leinart. I remember him playing in one of his first starts, in the Monday night game against the Bears (the one with the infamous Dennis Green blow-up), and he looked pro-bowl-bound. Now, he's just lost.

So, Kurt Warner gets another shot. Warner is a walking turnover waiting to happen. Besides his tendency to throw interceptions (a lot), he's not particularly mobile and can have trouble holding onto the ball. The Cardinals have a pair of money receivers (I've flipped on Boldin, now thinking he'll have his typical solid year). Where I think the Cardinals will have problems this year is in their running game, largely because I think Edgerrin James will start his decline this year. Their defense looks decent (I may have read that some of their DBs are injured, but I can't find anything at the moment). The Cardinals are the one team that I think can potentially knock Seattle of their perch. I'll put the Cardinals down for 8 wins.

Lastly, the St. Louis Rams. I think the Rams are in for a long season. They've already experienced more injuries on their offensive line, and word is that Orlando Pace is still rusty from not playing much the past few years. I think 'rusty' will ultimately translate into 'done', like Jonathan Ogden done, and without a left tackle playing at Pace-prime-level the offense is going to sputter much like it did last year. I haven't heard many good things about the defense. What I have heard is that Chris Long isn't stepping in with an immediate impact like they hoped he would. (How great would it be if Lawrence Jackson ended up having a better rookie season than Chris Long?) Four wins, and Linehan gets fired at the end of the season.

Why the Seahawks Absolutely Shouldn't Trade for Anquan Boldin

Or Joe Horn, or any other veteran receiver. Before I get started, I should qualify that statement by saying that if Anquan Boldin could be swapped onto the Seahawks roster in place of one of the younger receivers (probably Logan Payne or Ben Obomanu) they would be a better team with a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than they do now.

That's a pretty strong statement there. Isn't the NFL a win now league, with no guarantees for next year, where you go for it all when you have the opportunity to? Sure... if your organization is poorly run.

Perhaps I've been spoiled with the success of the Seahawks in recent years. Perhaps. But history will have to prove me wrong on that one, because I believe the Seahawks are by a man, Tim Ruskell, who has set a principles for how to build a winning team for the present while keeping an eye towards success in the future. Such principles include:

• Build through the draft.
• Keep your own players.
• Make full use of younger, cheaper players to allow you to keep your own players
• And, of course, build the team with high character, high motor individuals.

There are a number of other organizations that use essentially the same principles. New England regularly lets big name free agents go, from Lawyer Milloy to Asante Samuel. The Pittsburgh Steelers let Joey Porter go, which allowed James Harrison to step up. The Colts let Edgerin James go and were better off for it. It's not just that these teams were able to replace these players, it's that they saved money in doing it and allowed them to build a stronger overall team.

The Seahawks, of course, need only look back on the Deion Branch trade from two years ago for some insight into how to approach such a situation. If anything, the Deion Branch trade emphasises that nothing in the NFL is guaranteed, that there is always some inherent risk that a trade won't work out.

The consequences of that trade are twofold - the money allocated for Deion Branch's (6 year, $39 million) contract, and the first round draft pick the Seahawks traded. I don't know how the Seahawks structured Branch's contract, but it's safe to say that the money he got in 2006 didn't prevent them from signing any additional players. So, the true consequences of the Deion Branch trade were, are, and will be experienced in the years after.

Such consequences are typically thought of only in the abstract, but I'll give a very concrete example: John Carlson. Or, more accurately, the need for a Tight End that is being filled this year, Mike Holmgren's last year, with rookie tight end John Carlson. This isn't a new need by any means. By all means the Seahawks utterly failed to find a competent tight end after letting Jeremy Stevens go, and thus the Seahawks were stuck in Green Bay watching balls go through Marcus Pollards hands.

What if the Seahawks hadn't traded their first round pick and were able to use it for a tight end. Check out the 2007 nfl draft. Greg Olson and Zach Miller would both have been available. Or, the Seahawks could have taken Ben Grubbs and used their Mansfield Wrotto pick on someone like Kevin Boss. Or, the Seahawks could have targetted a safety like Brandon Meriweather (though his character issues may have kept him off Ruskell's list) and we wouldn't have to deal with Brian Russell play. Of course, these are all hypotheticals, and draft picks are probably less of a sure thing than free agents (or trades). But the point is that a trade like the one for Deion Branch are not done in a vacuum. They have very real consequences, like Holmgren taking his last shot at a second Super Bowl title with a rookie tight end.

It's also worth pointing out that the Branch trade wasn't made out of immediate need. The Seahawks had two solid receivers, Jackson and Engram, a promising young prospect, Hackett, and a free agent pick-up, Burleson, that provided depth as a fourth receiver. Without foresight of Engram's kidney problem and Burleson's busted thumb, that's good enough. Branch was traded for because Ruskell's relationship with Darrell Jackson had broken down and after a second offseason of dealing with his BS he knew he was going to need to replace him after the season. Branch was traded for because he was probably going to be better than any free agent wide receiver. Access to Branch was what the Seahawks gave up the first round pick. The salary is roughly negligible because that same money would have gone towards a wide receiver starting in 2007 anyway.

The Seahawks current situation, with regards to the future, is the exact opposite. While Bobby Engram will have to be replaced within a few years, The Seahawks have a group of young receivers that they believe will produce their receivers of the future. Again, there's no guarantee, but good organizations develop their young talent into impact players.

So, let's say the Seahawks trade for Anquan Boldin. That trade would be undertaken with the understanding that Boldin would want a new contract, probably larger than Deion Branch's. Meanwhile, Leroy Hill is set to be a free agent after this season. Taylor/Kent/Payne/Obomanu might not be ready this year, but there's a darn good chance that (at least) one of them blossoms this season and challenges for a starting job next season. While the choice for this year may be between Boldin and Taylor, the choice for years to come will be between Boldin and, say, Lance Laury vs. Hill and Taylor. Not such an easy choice anymore, is it? I don't think it's possible to keep Hill if Boldin is acquired, and if they try they'll have to cut money from some other place, like Julian Peterson. What's the point of keeping Hill if you lose Peterson now? Why not keep the trio together for another couple of years, and when Peterson starts to decline and cutting him would have negligible cap impact, replace him with a younger, cheaper linebacker, which then allows you to give someone like Kelly Jennings or Lawrence Jackson a (potentially) deserved large second contract. And such the cycle of player development goes.

The Seahawks have what they need in wide receiver right now. Yes, it's going to hurt going the first few weeks without Engram and Branch, but that won't be something that keeps the Seahawks out of the playoffs (maybe it keeps them from earning a first round bye), and if Boldin is the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs then trading for Boldin shouldn't even be considered. This is the kind of trade you make, if you're at the level that the Seahawks are, to win the Super Bowl - not to just make the playoffs.

Two seasons from now, when the Seahawks are making another run at the Super Bowl, I would hope they learned their lesson about jumping at wants that violate core principles. I don't want to start the 2010 season thinking, "The Seahawks would be solid if they just had an impact outside linebacker. Ooh, so-and-so is available from this team. Let's trade a first round pick for the rights to give him a big contract!" We already have that guy. His name is Leroy Hill, and the only way we'll be able to sign him is by saving money by developing 5th- and 6th-round picks into starting wide receivers.

Why Is the NFC East Good?

In continuing to think about the NY Giants, and their placement relative to the other teams in the NFC East, it got me thinking about why the NFC East is regularly so strong. The NFC East has earned five of the six NFC wildcard births in the last three seasons. Wow.

The easiest thing to point to are the coaches:

• Bill Parcells took over for Dave Campo in 2003
• Joe Gibbs took over for Steve Spurrier in 2004
• Tom Coughlin took over for Jim Fassel in 2004
• Andy Reid has been around since 1999 (and, surprise surprise, the Eagles have been the most consistently successful team in the last 10 years).

Huh. I didn't have that list made up before I started writing this (I looked up everything as I was writing) and now that it's all laid out in front of me it seems pretty conclusive - get your team a good coach. Consider:

• The last ownership change in the NFC East took place in 1999, when Dan Snyder bought the Redskins.
• Parcells, Gibbs, and Reid all took multiple quarterbacks to the playoffs.
• GM info has been tough to find, but the Cowboys have always had Jerry at the helm, the Eagles last change was an in house promotion, as was the Giants. The Redskins apparently have no GM, so I'm not sure what to make of that.

Overall, of the four categories I've looked (owner, GM, coach, quarterback), each team's coach seems to be the most significant factor in the success of the NFC East teams.

And, of course, the obligatory NFC West sidebar:

• The Rams with Mike Martz were just like Mike Martz - good, but erratic. Under Scott Linehan? Not that good.
• The 49ers were decent with Steve Mariucci, and have done much since with Dennis Erickson and Mike Nolan.
• The Arizona Cardinals have been a dumpster fire for quite some time. I thought Dennis Green was a decent coach, but he couldn't do anything with the Cardinals. If Ken Whisenhunt fails miserably as well we'll know the organization is cursed.
• The Seahawks have future hall-of-fame coach Mike Holmgren and have been the most successful NFC West team since Holmgren was relieved of his duties as GM.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

Browns and Giants

I watched the rest of the Browns-Giants game this morning. There wasn't a whole lot to take away from that portion of it, except for maybe seeing more of Brady Quinn. I heard a lot of talk today about Quinn having a good game, and with Derek Anderson's lackluster performance topped off with a mild concussion there might be a quarterback controversy in Cleveland. Stop it. Quinn's stats (7/12, 124 yards, 1 TD) look nice until you consider that his touchdown pass was in the defensive backs' hands for nearly a second before he bobbled it away to the receiver. Take away that fluke and Quinn's line is 6/12, 80 yards, and maybe an interception if the DB holds onto the ball. If this trend continues for the next two preseason games, then maybe a controversy starts. Quinn looked good last night, but probably isn't ready yet. Unless Anderson completely tanks, sit Quinn for another year, and maybe make the starting Quarterback spot an open competition next year in camp. Maybe.

The more relevant (to this season) note is that the Browns looked awful. Like Seahawks-against -Packers-last-preseason awful. It's tough to tell what that means. Derek Anderson was without his two favorite targets, Edwards and Winslow, and the Browns were playing on the road against at minimum a playoff-contending team. Next week they play at Detroit. If they struggle there as well, maybe I'll rethink my putting them above the Steelers. Of course, the Steelers didn't perform all that well against Buffalo, so who knows.

Meanwhile the Giants looked great, especially Eli Manning. In his second touchdown pass I swear he looked just like Peyton, minus the happy feet. Manning went 4/7 for 52 yards and 2 touchdowns and, just like Derek Anderson, didn't have his favorite target either. I'm leaning towards moving the Giants away from 'no way they're a top tier NFC team' to 'maybe they could be' as my original ranking was based on the premise that their playoff performance was a spike and they would revert to the norm in the 2008 season. Maybe I'm wrong. Imagine that.

Two Quick Thoughts

1. I don't believe I've yet read a column or blog that has speculated that Charlie Frye might get cut. Among other reasons, this is probably because everyone (including me) assumes the Seahawks will keep three quarterbacks on their roster. What if, due to the roster crunch, the Seahawks kept a total of 12 running backs and wide receivers (one more than their normal 11) while going with two quarterbacks? I wouldn't expect this this scenario to last for the entire season, but what about for the first three weeks of the season? Consider:

• Teams will on occasion go with only two quarterbacks. The Colts have done this the past couple of years.
• After Frye's dismal showing last Saturday, how much better will he be than a generic backup given a week to prepare?
• If the Seahawks coaches feel they could use a few more weeks to evaluate their running back and wide receiver talent, this would give them such time, and when Branch and/or Engram return they could make cuts as necessary and bring in a new third-string quarter back.

2. I've been trying to get a feel for how good I think the other NFC West teams are going to be. The quarterback situation in San Francisco (plus their lack of quality receivers) has me thinking they won't score many points this year, and are probably set for a four or five win season. I thought St. Louis might be decent (6-8 wins), but they have a mess of problems, including another round of offensive line injuries, Steven Jackson's hold-out, and Chris Long's slow start. Furthermore, Marc Bulger looked awful when I watched him last week against San Diego. That team will be better than the 49ers, but only by a bit. The Cardinals, however, looked like they could be legitimate contenders if everything went right for them. Unfortunately for them, one of their main offensive weapons may be turned against them.

There is big trouble, perhaps along the lines of Terrell Owens vs. the Eagles, brewing in Arizona because of wide receiver Anquan Boldin's unhappiness over his contract with the Cardinals...
Boldin has asked, through agent Drew Rosenhaus, to be traded, and the Cardinals have refused. Now there are reports that Boldin isn't speaking to Coach Ken Whisenhunt, and there is speculation that Boldin even could walk out of training camp.
Boldin told the NFL Network on Monday that he has "no relationship" at this point with Whisenhunt, apparently believing that Whisenhunt became more involved in the contract negotiations than a coach should be.
Boldin also told the league-owned television channel: "As long as I'm here, I can't see myself as a happy member of this organization at all, not with this situation being what it is. I don't see it being rectified, either. The relationship with me and the organization is done. I'm here to uphold my contract. That's it." - Maske

T.O.-Eagles looks like a fair comparison. Earlier it looked like Boldin would handle his situation more like Bobby Engram than Owens. But, with Larry Fitzgerald getting a huge new contract, can you fault Boldin for being upset with the salary disparity while (historically) putting up only slightly worse stats than Fitzgerald? This is the fault of the Cardinals organization. (On a Seahawks note, we need to get Leroy Hill signed yesterday, because this is the same type of situation. The only reason it isn't blowing up now is that Hill will be a free agent next year, while Boldin is stuck with two years after this one). If Boldin ends up not playing for the Cardinals, be it from a hold-out or a trade, their offense is going to suffer severely. Larry Fitzgerald will be double-, if not triple-, teamed, with no serious second receiving threat for the defenses to worry about. Defenses will be able to stack the box, Leinart (Warner?) will be holding onto the ball longer, and that whole offense will suffer. It's not looking good for the Cardinals.

Update: TheBigLead comes to the same conclusion.

My One and Only Alexander Post

That is, until he gets signed, or makes it through eight games unsigned, both of which would be noteworthy so of course I'll comment then.

I really didn't think I was going to have a topic to write about tonight. My goal is (at least) one post a day, but if I'm not inspired I'm not going to force a post. I've done that before - those posts suck. Perhaps today was a slow news day (except for maybe the news of Locklear's knee injury, but what can I say other than that will hurt the line play? Well, duh. Let's see how Willis plays next Monday, then I'll comment further), or I was spent after busting out four posts yesterday, but for whatever reason I had nothing.

Then I watched two halves of Cleveland Browns football. Not the entirety of their preseason game, mind you. I still have the second half of that to go through tomorrow morning. I watched the first half of the preseason game, plus the first half of the NFL Network replay of the Seahawks-Browns 2007 game ($2.99 on iTunes). I have plenty of thoughts on the Browns, plus some more on the Giants, but I'll get to those tomorrow (hint: I'm a total flip-flipper).

The Seahawks-Browns game is the fourth 2007 Seahawks game I've watched (the others being the Redskins playoff game, the Bengals, and the Bears twice. How do you not love watching the Seahawks beat the Bears?). It's a different experience watching games out of the moment, outside of the emotion of the season. There have been a number of little things I've noticed while rewatching games (Morris is better than I remembered, Burleson was quite productive, Hasselbeck can still has a tendency to throw ill-timed interceptions, Brian Russell is actually pretty awful), some of which I may touch on in detail at a later point (such as days like this where I don't have a preseason game to jump me out of writers block). But above all else, one thing suck out like a soar thumb:

Shaun Alexander was a horrible detriment to the Seahawks ability to produce offensively in 2007.

I know, duh, right? I was far from an Alexander apologist last season. I always held out hope that he might return to 2005 form, but equally hoped Holmgren would have the guts to give Morris the bulk of the carries. But in rewatching some of these games, and especially after watching Morris, Jones, and Forsett carry the ball this preseason, I was completely smacked in the face with Alexander's complete lack of ability to cut, dart, and get up to full speed.

Alexander's best game from the past two seasons was the 2006 snow game at home against Green Bay where he ran for 201 yards on 40 carries. Ironically, in every 2007 game I've watch Alexander runs just like he did that game - as if he were playing on snow - while the opposing defense is playing on the actual turf. Alexander's 2006 season wasn't that bad, actually, but it certainly foreshadowed his completely drop off in the 2007 season, which was abysmal for a former league MVP.

Maybe the most overlooked difference between this years' and last years' Seahawks is how much better the run game, the offense, and overall the Seahawks will be by simply not having Alexander's drive-killing carries as part of the gameplan. The Morris-Jones (and Forsett?) combo can be merely average as runners and still outproduce Alexander, plus they'll offer blitz pickup and additional receiving options. I happen to think Morris-Jones will be better than average, but the key point is that they don't have to be any better than average to make the Seahawks better.

Purely through the removal of Shaun Alexander, the Seahawks will be 1-2 games better than they were last year. Never mind the Mike Wahle addition. Never mind Mike Solari and Mike DeBorg coaching up the offensive line. Never mind the addition of new running backs that refuse to go down at first contact. Alexander surely cost the Seahawks at least one game with his inability to get past the line of scrimmage, and I'm not even going to get started on the botched hand-off in game two when Shaun was out in lala land while the rest of the team was trying to put together a game-winning drive. But Shaun is gone now. And the Seahawks will be better of because of that.

Holmgren's Coaching Tree Grows a New Branch

Another quote from the Pro Football Weekly link:

There is a growing sense of respect for new head coach Jim Zorn around Redskins Park — from top to bottom — we hear. The players reportedly love his coaching style and organization, and he has made a lot of people move on very quickly from Joe Gibbs — perhaps faster than anyone could have predicted.

Not surprising. I know it's just the second week (of games) in the preseason, but I expected this from Zorn (nothing to back that up - you'll just have to take my word), largely because of all I heard from his days with the Seahawks. Zorn, a players coach, replacing Gibbs should have an effect similar to Philips replacing Parcells, plus Zorn has a chance to really grow the Redskins (I don't think that highly of Wade Philips). If you've followed the Seahawks closely, you've seen the incredible progress Seneca Wallace has made in the six years since being drafted. If Zorn can do that for Seneca Wallace, an after-thought, fourth round, probably-receiver-not-QB, imagine what he can do with Jason Campbell. The Redskins may not be playoff bound this year (mainly because the NFC East is brutal), but they will be soon.

One final thought. While it's unfortunate Zorn left, if he had to leave I'm glad it was this year rather than next, as, in theory, it will make the transition from Holmgren's offense under Zorn's tutelage to whatever Mora wants more gradual. Hasselbeck is a smart quarterback, but he's played in the same system his entire (pro) career. This way, maybe next year won't be such a large departure from what he's used to.

Keeping Wide Receiver In Perspective

I'm excited to see how the battle at wide receiver shakes out. I'm hoping that at least one player emerges much the way D.J. Hackett did a few years ago - coming out of nowhere (from the national perspective, but not for us, since so much focus has been put on the "young 'uns") to make big plays. I was disappointed to see both Obomanu and Taylor without any catches. That's probably worse for Obomanu, who started camp slow needs to show more to make the team, than Taylor, who the coaches love and see a ton of upside in. Payne gutted out a couple of catches, which also hurts Obomanu (I'm on record saying I think Taylor and Kent are on the team, and the final spot, if one is available, is between Obomanu and Payne, or even Michael Bumpus, who is making a late push for a spot should neither impress).

Still, none of the young receivers has performed in a way that would make me feel comfortable (in the short term) with Branch and Engram out. It sure would have been nice to have had Hackett resigned, even if only for one more year, to offset those losses. Right?

At this late stage of his career, many expected WR Muhsin Muhammad to be, at best, a No. 3 receiver for Carolina this season, but he could end up being the No. 1 target in the team’s first two games while Steve Smith serves his suspension. He seems to have a strong relationship with QB Jake Delhomme, and his main competition, WR D.J. Hackett, has been out battling toe and knee injuries. - PFW

I loved having Hackett on the Seahawks, but the truth was he couldn't stay healthy. All that could be hoped for was that he'd help some during the season and be healthy for the playoffs. Not that my opinion means anything, but good job, Ruskell. Any one of those young receivers is better than Hackett inactive with an injury.

Another Game Watched - Chargers vs. Rams

By virtue of living in LA I get preseason games for the Chargers. I'm not particularly interested in the chargers at this point, but I was interested in how the Rams looked. I won't go into detail, but overall, the Rams looked awful. Neither Steven Jackson nor Torry Holt played, and it's obvious that the offense grinds to a halt without them. Still, Marc Bulger made some very questionable decisions, specifically the interception by Stephen Cooper, and didn't look sharp at all. Perhaps he was forcing his play without his normal weapons. Still, the team that played didn't pass the eye test.

As a side note, it was emotionally gratifying to see Chad Brown miss a 50-yarder in the Edward Jones dome. Have fun with your money on that 6-10 team, Chad.

And, for a game I didn't watch: 49ers 34, Packers 6. WTF? That's a good showing for the 49ers. Could O'Sullivan actually be the starter?

Immediate Thoughts - Chicago Bears

The only way for me to see this game was through the NFL Network replay, except that Charter (sucks) doesn't give me the NFL Network. Fortunately for me there's a sports bar-ish restaurant nearby that opens at 7:30 am, which allowed me to see all but the first 30 minutes of the game. And it was totally worth it. Not that the game was that good, but for preseasons standards, it was pretty entertaining.

Story number one has got to be Justin Forsett. There's no way this guy can be kept off the 53-man roster. The dude just produces. 136 yards rushing, including one touchdown, seven runs of 10 yards or more, and a long run of 40 yards... and he only played one half at running back. He had 117 total return yards, including a 40 yard punt return and kick-off returns of 33 and 37. I don't care that he wasn't going against the Bears' starters. Nine yards/carry is a ridiculous amount. Overall, Justin Forsett accounted for 40% of all team offense and special teams yards. Give this man a roster spot!!! Unless Forsett shows otherwise, he'll probably make the team as a special teams returner, which is needed with Burleson giving up duties while being the number one receiver.

Story 1a is the atrocious punt-team play (minus Forsett, of course). Two punts were blocked, one of which resulted in a safety while the other gave the Bears a chance to win with a late field goal, and a third punt was returned 75 yards for a touchdown. That's horrible. I know the Seahawks coaches use the preseason for experimentation with player pairings on special teams. Alright, so don't use the combinations from this game ever again.

Other notes:

Kyle Orton has got to be leader for the Bears QB job. The stats between him and Grossman weren't that different (except for the vicious hit-induced interception), but there was a very telling shot of the two after they were both done for the day, with Orton laughing, chatting it up with teammates, and Grossman walking along the sidelines, alone, with slightly dejected look on his face.

The first team defense appeared to redeemed itself, giving up only three points in the first half, coming during a bend-but-don't-break effort in the final two minutes. After their poor showing in Minnesota, this was a confidence-inspiring showing.

Charlie Frye has a long way to go. He had some good moments, especially in the two scoring drives following his interception and the punt return for touchdown. It looked like the game was getting away from the Seahawks after the punt return, but Frye took command and brought Seattle back. Unfortunately for him, his 209 passing yards are overshadowed by the three interceptions, including the horrible decision to chuck the ball while being pursued in the endzone, which led to the easiest pick-six a cornerback will ever have. He played better than David Greene did in preseason week two last year, but that is only good enough to not get cut. This performance means Seneca Wallace won't be getting any reps at wide receiver anytime soon.

Jordan Kent had a couple of nice catches on intermediate routes, but really blew a chance to make a statement by missing two deep balls in the endzone. One was in tight coverage, but the other went right through his arms. NFL receivers are expected to make those catches. Kent's special value will come from his ability to stretch the defense deep (plus his ability to get above defenders from his height and vertical leap), but that only works if you catch the ball. Looks like he's not quite ready, but he could be soon.

Seattle doesn't have much of a second string offensive line. Frye was under constant pressure, especially from that one Bear with crazy long hair. I'm doubling down on my concern of offensive line depth.

Darryl Tapp was Kelly Herndon-esque with his inability to bring down the quarterback after a botched snap (and poor protection) gave him a would-have-been gimmie sack. To be fair, he also dished out the brutal hit on Grossman that led to an interception, but given that he's fighting for a starting job with Lawrence Jackson he can't afford misses like that. Meanwhile Jackson has been consistently good, and I'm getting the feeling Jackson will win the starting job, if not immediately then within a few games of the start of the season.

John Carlson had some nice catches, but he also had two false starts. It's all part of the learning process.

Charlie Frye seemed to favor Jordan Kent while he was playing. Perhaps this comes from both playing with the third/scout team last year?

I missed most of Julius Jones' carries, but his stats looked nice. Mo Morris looked explosive, but his stats don't show that at all. Not sure why.

At one point near the end of the game, Seattle had converted only 3-15 third downs. That would be worrisome, except that Frye was at the helm for that. On the flip side, it was good to see the Seahawks pound the ball into the endzone with three straight runs.

Kevin Hobbs had a beautiful interception. If he wasn't already off the bubble, he should be now. Josh Wilson looked active too.

Coutu was 5/5 on field goals, including the non-chip-shot game winner from 36 yards.

Time to go read the reactions from others. Next stop: Monday night in San Diego.

The (NFC) Favorites: Dallas Cowboys

I've been sitting on this post for a while because I actually had some original media that I wanted to accompany it. Two weekends ago I got up early on Saturday and drove up to Oxnard to see the Cowboys practice in person. I have some pictures and videos that I'd like to post, but they require some editing, which I may never actually get to, so I'll just up and write the post without the picture accompaniment.

The Cowboys are good*. Really good*. Peter King was at the practice I got to see (though I unfortunately didn't see King there, only read that he was there later), and he had this to say:

It's amazing how many big names and big stories there are here. Look, over there -- Dave Campo, back coaching the secondary ... and he's working with Adam (nee Pacman) Jones. With the linebackers, there's a new number 55 -- Zach Thomas, the seven-time Pro Bowl defender coming home to redeem himself. That strong-looking whippet in the backfield? Felix Jones. And the guest coaches: Erik Williams, old Big E, is here on a minority coaching fellowship, working with the line. Michael Irvin had been working with the receivers before leaving the other day for the Hall of Fame ceremonies. Dat Nguyen is working with the linebackers. And Nate Newton is hanging around, doing some media and promotional stuff.

Those are just the new guys. That all comes after names like Romo, Owens, Barber, and Witten on offense, and Ware, Spears, and Newman on defense. I didn't even mention the three pro-bowl offensive linemen. This team is loaded with talent.

So what's the asterisk for? Two words: on paper. This team is loaded, and is realistically a number-two receiver away from being better than any AFC team... on paper.

I add that caveat largely because I'm a tad skeptical that the Cowboys are as good as they seem to be, and maybe that's wishful thinking on the part of the Seahawks fan that knows the road to the Super Bowl goes through Dallas. But if I'm going to look for ways poke holes in the Cowboy's armor, here they are:

• Wade Phillips. On top of everything else, Phillips hasn't won anything, including a playoff game. That may not be a problem on a team that has an established winning tradition, but the Cowboy organization is equally starved of playoff wins. Most of the players have only experienced regular season success. I don't buy Phillips as the man to lead the Cowboys to a Super Bowl victory.
  
• More Wade Phillips. Does this guy have control of his team? I'm sure he was a godsend in the first post-Parcells season, but honeymoons don't last forever, and players-coaches can be taken advantage of by knuckleheads. Meanwhile, Jerry Jones has turned the Cowboys into the Oakland Raiders of the new century - willing to take a chance on any troubled player so long as they have talent. The T.O. experiment looks like it's succeeding. Tank Johnson could well be reformed. But Jerry is pushing his luck with the Pacman signing. How well will the team hold up should they start the season 1-2 (not unreasonable - see below).
• Lack of wide receivers. After Terrell Owens, the Cowboys' receiver talent drops off significantly. If Joe Horn gets his trade to the Cowboys the problem is probably neutralized - Patrick Crayton is much better as a third receiver, plus Witten and whichever back is in will be receiving threats as well. Still, Horn is getting old (36) and his last good season (2004 - 1399 yards, 11 TDs) nearly equals his combined production from the previous three seasons (1576 yards 6 TDs). And Owens isn't exactly a spring chicken himself, turning 35 at the end of the season. Can we expect another pro-bowl season out of T.O. Two years ago he was an aging receiver with a bad case of the drops. Was that all Parcells' fault?
• Romo. This will be the first year where teams will have a full season of game tape to gameplan with. Romo could well be great, but I'll need to see another season of it before I consider it a given.
• Marion Barber as a feature back. Barber has an insanely-punishing running style, which works great if you're a third-down, goal-line, and end-of-game back. Barber has averaged 159 carries/year, with 2007 being the year he was used most (204 carries). Can he keep up that production while increasing his attempts to 250-300 (that's only 15-20/game - not at all unreasonable). Remember the Giants game: After being the backup all year, Barber was made the starter for the playoff game. He got 27 carries, well above his 13/game average for the year, and while he had a great game statistically, most of his production came in the first half. When the second half came, and the Cowboys needed him to help fight off the Giants' comeback, Barber was noticeably tired. That doesn't bode well for transitioning to being a feature back.

Now that I'm done nitpicking I can go back to talking about how good the Cowboys probably will be. Did you notice that I didn't nitpick their defense? That's because it's solid. Maybe I could go after the secondary (Newman is hurt, Pacman hasn't (yet) played up to his potential, Hamlin is not at all a pro-bowl safety and is a total liability against deep passes), but that will sort itself out. Overall, the Cowboys are definitely the favorite in the NFC, and should remain so until they show themselves not to be, either by (1) coming out of the gate stumbling, or (2) getting demolished at home by another playoff-caliber NFC team.

The Cowboys don't have any killer parts to their schedule, but certainly the start of the season is one of the more difficult portions:

• Week 1, at Cleveland: Cleveland could be good. Maybe really good. Maybe mediocre, or even bad. But what I know for sure is that Cleveland is going to enter week 1 thinking they're good and knowing they have a great shot at beating Dallas at home.
• Week 2, Philadelphia: Prime time Sunday night game, which should up the intensity of this game further. McNabb and Westbrook should be healthy so early in the season, which give the Eagles the ability to beat anybody. Let Asante Samuel shadow Owens, move one of the safeties up in the box, and suddenly you have a grinder that Philadelphia could eek out.
• Week 3, at Green Bay. The Packers are a total wild-card with Aaron Rodgers at the helm, but the rest of their roster is mostly in tact. They'll definitely come into this game with something to proove. Oh, and it's a monday night game, so you know everybody will be ready to play.
• Week 4, Washington. The hated rival comes to town.

None of those games are gimmies. 3-1 would be a great start. 1-3 (especially with two division losses) and the team might come apart.

As for getting demolished at home by another playoff-caliber NFC team... you can probably guess where I'm going with this one. The Seahawks go to Dallas on Thanksgiving for a game that will either (a) immediately make Seattle the favorite in the NFC, or (b) confirm the conventional wisdom that the Seahawks are just a so-so team that has trouble on the road and gets into the playoffs by virtue of playing in the NFC West. No doubt, this is a big game, and the Seahawks don't have much of a chance at winning it - maybe 20%. However, if the Seahawks want a first-round bye, they probably have to win this game.

Injury Concern: Defensive Tackle

I would have labelled this post 'Marcus Tubbs', except 'concern' implies that there's some uncertainty in the situation. With Marcus Tubbs, there's no uncertainty - he's gone. Yeah, I know there's talk that he was released so that he wouldn't take up a roster spot, and that he could potentially return once his knee heals, but that's not going to happen. I wish the best for Tubbs, but the Seahawks have to move on.

I wasn't counting on Tubbs being available much, if at all, this year, but as long as there was a chance that he could play even 15-20 snaps a game, the potential of the Seahawks defense was that much better. It's not a coincidence that in 2005 Tubbs had his most productive year and the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl. In the three years (2004-2006) that Tubbs was a contributing member of the Seahawks defense the Seahawks allowed 42 fewer rushing yards per game and 0.99 fewer yards per carry. Be it from Tubbs or another source, that kind of production will be necessary for the Seahawks to contend for the Super Bowl.

The first team tackles are set: Rocky Bernard and Brandon Mebane. They aren't an elite tandem, but they're pretty darn good. Mebane may have pro-bowl potential if he can improve his ability to get the quarterback. So, minus injuries (which, with Bernard, you never know), I'm fine with these two.

The backup tackle picture is still a bit fuzzy. Red Bryant appears to be the only one with a guaranteed roster spot due to his size and upside. His unpolished, though, and missing most of training camp certainly won't help make him game ready. Ideally Bryant can be a solid second-team tackle by the end of the season, which would be a huge boon to the Seahawks' overall run defense. The current second team tackles are probably Craig Terrill and Howard Green. That tandem generates a decent pass rush but gets gashed against the run. The Seahawks have a couple of other tackles in camp but none have shown themselves to be any better than these two (especially after Green's showing against the Vikings). Ultimately, if Bryant can replace one of those two, probably Greene, the Seahawks can probably match the Tubbs-era run defense. That would be awesome.

Injury Concern: Chris Spencer

I think there's a decent chance that Chris Spencer won't play a single down for the Seahawks this year.

It's reasonable to say I'm panicking a bit with that statement, but I think it's a reasonable time to panic, as Spencer's injury and Chris Gray's retirement have left the Seahawks with Steve Vallos, a player who had not played center before this training camp, as the first team center. The next backup, Mansfield Wrotto, is equally experienced. That's a huge hole in the (literal) center of the line.

So, what's so bad with Spencer right now? Well, at the start of the off-season - pre-OTAs and all - Spencer and Sims were both understood to need a lot of work to compensate for their regressions during the 2007 seasons. Unfortunately, both underwent offseason surgeries and their participation in minicamps and OTAs were limited. While Sims was recovered by the start of camp, Spencer suffered a new injury - the out-of-nowhere vague back problem - which has prevented him from learning from the new line coaches. Word on Sims is that he's made remarkable progress in camp. Spencer needed that same work, if not more, what with his line call duties as center. So, at this point, Spencer at best has watched a lot of film, but has spent zero time in physical drills. Still, if Spencer were ready go by the end of camp he could at least rely on his athleticism to get by early on while learning during the season.

That's a big 'if' though, and when Holmgren says Spencer's back is so bad that he can't even bend down to tie his shoes, and that Spencer is well past his initial expected-back date and no new date has been given, I'm lead to think that (a) the Seahawks don't know how bad Spencer's back is, and (b) it's hurt bad. Like Chris Williams bad. At best, I would expect Spencer's back to be a nagging injury all year.

Enter Steve Vallos. It's certainly not fair to ask a second year, undrafted, college-tackle-turned-nfl-guard to step in as the starting center for a team that has Super Bowl hopes. But Holmgren said that may well be what transpires and, largely thanks to Solari and DeBorg, Vallos may turn out to be serviceable. Serviceable is probably the best case scenario for Vallos, but with the rest of the line playing at a fairly high level this far, I'd take that. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in the new line coaches, but I think Vallos could be coached up to be a contributing member of a Super Bowl offensive line. Worst case, Vallos gets run over all year. Yikes. I don't even want to think about that scenario. I'll just hope Vallos plays like he did in the Vikings game.

Injury Concern: Bobby Engram

Perhaps I spoke too soon when I said the Seahawks escaped the first preseason game without any major injuries.

Actually, only one of the three injuries occurred during the preseason game, which was Bobby Engram breaking his shoulder. First of all, who breaks a bone in their shoulder? The shoulders have the most padding of any body part in the football uniform. I'm tempted to say that this is exactly why the Seahawks held back from giving Engram a bigger contract after he outperformed his current one last season, except that Engram is far from brittle. Outside of that weird kidney problem in 2006, Engram has played in at least 13 games every season since coming to Seattle, and unless he is severely calcium deficient, this injury is just an unfortunate freak accident.

This injury is supposed to keep Engram out 6-8 weeks. Holmgren said best case he's back for week three against the Rams, worst case he's back week five against the Giants.

Quickly, the silver lining of this injury is that the young receivers get more reps, which should give the coaches extra information with which they'll determine who's a starter, who's a reserve, and who gets cut. It could also speed up the development of said receivers by giving them more game reps, both in the preseason and in the beginning of the regular season.

With that said, there isn't much good that can come from this injury. The above paragraph is about a drop of lemonade coming from a bucket of lemons.

Bobby Engram isn't injury prone Deion Branch, D.J. Hackett, or Darryl Jackson, so this comparison may be unfair, but if I've learned anything from the past few seasons it's that receivers rarely come back when initially expected. I think the Seahawks will be extremely lucky if Engram is back for the Giants game, and similarly lucky if Branch is ready to go by then regardless of the 'ahead of schedule' comments from the coaches. The same was said of Tubbs (I'll get to him later).

Nate Burleson is not a number one receiver. At least, judging from his previous seasons, he's not. In the past, when he's been asked to step up, from the season after Moss left Minnesota to opportunities with the Seahawks, he's struggled. That's not to say Burleson can't be a number one this season - he'll be 27 this season (beginning of his prime), has (slowly but) steadily progressed in the Seahawks offense, and has shown flashes in camp this year. But until proven otherwise, Burleson is a receiver that performs best when playing along side better receivers. He's a perfect number three when paired with Branch and Engram. But with those two out, at least for start of the season, Burleson will be asked to step up.

The young receivers will lose a learning resource by not having Engram practicing with them.

Still, assuming Engram is back within a reasonable amount of time (and similarly with Branch), the challenge will be to get through the beginning of the season unharmed. So, in terms of wins and losses, what affect will this injury have?

• Week 1 - at Buffalo: First game of the season, on the road. I've already noted the danger in this winnable game, and having only one veteran receiver will only make it more difficult to start the season with a win.
• Weeks 2 and 3 - San Francisco, St. Louis at home: Cupcake games. Not worried.
• Week 5 - at NY Giants: I don't think this game is winnable unless both Branch and Engram are back, even if each is only at 80 or 90 percent. This is the sort of game that can make the difference between earning a first round bye or hosting a first round game. Even at full strength I wouldn't expect the Seahawks to win, but without key offensive weapons it's not even worth hoping for.

Past week five, Engram is either back to normal or will be dealing with a nagging injury for the rest of the season. If the Seahawks can go 3-1 in their first four games, I'd consider the affect of the Engram injury nil.

The final consequence of Engram's injury is the roster spot he'll take up, and specifically who gets left off if an extra receiver is kept on. It was already going to be tough for Justin Forsett, Jamar Adams, and other bubble non-receivers to make the final 53-man roster. Even if Branch (off the PUP list) and Engram take up roster spots, I'm of the mind that the Seahawks shouldn't keep more than five additional receivers, and could maybe get away with just four, if it allows someone like Forsett to make the team. But even if Forsett or Adams do get cut, if they make it onto the practice squad then there's no problem. It's if the Seahawks keep an extra receiver and one of their non-receiver young prospects gets signed to another team's 53-man roster that the Engram injury hurts, even if the affect isn't felt until later years when such players would make a meaningful impact.

Update to the Starting Running Back Situation

From Danny O'Neil:

Julius Jones will start at halfback in the team's second exhibition game, which will be Saturday against Chicago... Coach Mike Holmgren has said he will be using Morris and Jones as a tandem, considering them co-starters so to speak. "We're going to play both of them," Holmgren said.

A quote like this comes about in one of two ways:

1. Holmgren sensed some discontent coming from Julius Jones and wanted to make a public statement to assuage that sentiment. I'd be surprised if Holmgren bowed to internal pressure, so more than likely it's the other case:
2. Reporters at practice, like me, are curious about the running back situation and want some look-ahead for the near future.

Here's to hoping this doesn't spiral into a soap opera.

Random Non-Seahawks Topic - Patriots Offensive Line

The NFL is, if anything, a copycat league. As such, after watching the Giants solve the Patriots riddle with constant pressure on Tom Brady, seemingly every team has made it a priority to improve their pass rush. What I find interesting is that it took a dominating pass rush being shoved in everybody's face for this meme to propagate league-wide. What if the Chargers had managed to knock off the Patriots in the AFC championship? Would every team now be looking their own Antonio Gates? Would having a dominating pass rush be any less necessary for championship team? I'm probably complaining more about conventional wisdom and narratives among NFL media members (read: ESPN), as I would expect every NFL coach to recognize the value of getting pressure on the opposing quarterback. Anyway, the Giants had a great pass rush, for sure, but how much of the pressure from that game was due to the failings of the Patriots's offensive line?

The Seahawks play the Patriots this year, so this isn't entirely irrelevant to the Seahawks, but I'm writing this more out of curiosity of how good the Patriots will be this year. I don't buy into the Super Bowl loser curse - it's a random statistic that is bound to have runs of seeming non-randomness. The Patriots are accustomed to winning, then coming back the next year and winning again, so unless the team's age becomes a factor (after a grueling 2007) I don't expect a letdown simply from the Super Bowl loss. However, there could be a decline due to poor(er) performances by certain units.

The most obvious candidate for a decline is the Patriots secondary, which lost Asante Samuel and Randle Gay, and will start an aging Rodney Harrison at safety. That may be a concern, especially if some of the younger players (including two draft picks) are unable to step up, but ultimately their secondary play can be mitigated with a pash rush and good overall play from their front seven. Plus, Bill Belichick is a brilliant defensive coach, especially with individual game plans, so I'll give that unit the benefit of the doubt.

If there's a potential vulnerability for the Patriots this year, it's their offensive line. The Boston Globe took a look at the problems emerging in training camp, namely that the offensive line has been hit with a disproportionally large amount of injuries. I'm sure nagging injuries and general fatigue from a long season contributed at least in part to the offensive line's failures in the Super Bowl.

What happens if the Patriots line declines? Tom Brady will have less time to find his receivers. Randy Moss won't have the time to stretch the opposing defense vertically. The running backs will have fewer holes. Offensive production as a whole will decline.

So, will the Patriots offensive line decline? For that we'll have to wait and see. But, given the copycat nature of the NFL, opposing teams will try to replicate the success the Giants experienced. The line will be tested in such a way every week. So if the Patriots look weaker this season, I'll being looking closely at the offensive line.

Game Ramblings - Minnesota Vikings

I didn't get to watch this game. Of course it wouldn't be broadcast in the LA area, so my only chance would be if I had the NFL network. My cable provider, Charter, doesn't carry it. So, the best I can do is watch the nfl.com highlights, look at the box score, and read the comments of everybody else that did get to watch it. With that in mind, here's my reaction to the game.

The best sign from this game was the play of the offensive line. Even without Pat Williams playing, the Vikings have a great defensive front, and the Seahawks were playing with uber-green centers. One stat really sticks out: Zero Vikings sacks. I was reading through the comments of a game preview post on daily norseman and commenters were discussing how many sacks the Vikings defensive starters would get in the first quarter. And I can't blame them - I would have expected at least one, which is why zero is such a pleasant surprise.

Overall the offense seemed to be humming along - 4.6 yards/carry rushing, 257 yards receiving, multiple touchdowns - and that further reflects on the line play. Mike Kahn, on with John Clayton today, said the offense had the kind of up-tempo rhythm that a properly-functioning Mike Holmgren offense should have (and usually doesn't early in the season). Hasselbeck looked as good as he could have.

The running game looked great, minus T.J. Ducketts's performance. I'm surprised with how well Morris ran, and couldn't be happier with Forsett's stats - 4.5 yards/carry across 13 attempts. That guy is really pushing for a roster spot. I must say I'm a little surprised Julius Jones didn't get more carries. I read that the coaches intended to get him more and circumstances didn't work out quite right. He also got his runs with the second unit, which could be troubling. I say 'could' because Jones might get the first team carries next week and everything will even out. But consider this game a red flag for how Holmgren might treat the running back rotation this year.

Holmgren has been saying all training camp that he doesn't expect to have a workhorse back, that the carries will be split between Morris and Jones primarily, plus some small amount going to the big backs. I assumed this was Holmgren's way of not rubbing it in Morris's face that Jones was brought in to be the #1 back and Morris would be 1a at best. But what if Holmgren pulls the same loyalty act with Morris that he did with Alexander last year? It was so obvious that Morris should have been getting the bulk of the carries in 2007, but Holmgren seemed to want to will Alexander back to the player he was in 2005. Unfortunately, will isn't enough to get production from a running back over 30. Now, this thought is premised on Jones being the better, more productive back. If Morris can consistently run like he did last night (note that he was running against the Vikings' number ones as well), that premise may be incorrect. But I'll believe that when I see it. In the meantime, and until I'm shown otherwise, I want to see Jones getting 60% of the carries.

The first team defense was apparently a disaster. I'm not too worried, mainly because it's so out of character for a unit that collectively isn't competing for roster spots. The Vikings also came out with an all-pass game plan for Tarvaris Jackson, which seems perfectly reasonable in hindsight, but wasn't excepted at the time. Mike Kahn talked about a conversation he had with Lofa Tatupu after the game, and Tatupu said that the defense was so jacked up about stopping Adrian Peterson that they were caught off-guard with all of the passes. If the first team gives up a bunch of points to the Bears next week, then I'll be worried. As a side note, what is worth being worried about is how good Tarvaris Jackson looked. He played really well at the end of last season. If that continues, or gets better, the Vikings will be that much better.

Quick notes: Jamar Adams had the kind of game he needed to push for a roster spot. Jordan Kent had a nice touchdown catch (it's in the nfl.com video), while Obomanu and Taylor had no catches, for a touchdown or otherwise. David Hawthorne, a rookie that was completely off my radar at the start of camp, was blowing people up. That's great - the Seahawks need some depth at linebacker, especially with Will Herring's mysterious illness.

Final thought: Super Bowl dreams can't really be stoked with a preseason win, but they can definitely be dashed (like with the loss at Green Bay last preseason). This result is probably the best that can be hoped for - no injuries, the offense clicked, and the defense received a nice dose of humble pie. Here's to putting a whoopin' on Chicago next week.

2008 Game Start Times

One thing just jumped out at me about the Seahawks 2008 schedule: For having to play the AFC East and the NFC East, the dreaded 10 am pacific start-time effect may not be that bad this year. Consider:

• Games at Buffalo and NY Giants in weeks 1 and 5 occur when routines may be slightly off - start of the season and after a bye week. (Counter pointer: Holmgren teams start slow (Detroit in '06) and typically don't fair well following a bye).
• The game at Tampa (week 7) is the NFC Sunday Night Football game, thus no early start.
• If you had to pick a team to play at 10 am, you'd probably want a crappy team like Miami, such as the Seahawks play in 10.
• The Thanksgiving game at Dallas (week 13) is the late game (or middle game, if you have the NFL network), meaning a routine 1pm start.
• The last 10 am game is week 15 at St. Louis. Seattle should be fighting for playoff position at this point, plus the Rams are a rival, so you figure the Seahawks have extra motivation to get up for this game.

I'm not sure how valid all of this reasoning is, but I can say this: the schedule definitely could have been worse. I'm especially happy that the game at Tampa is a night game, as the Hawks will need as much help as possible to pull out a road victory there (and possibly go 2-1, rather than 1-2, in their second three games, which would be an incredible start).

Thoughts on Saints vs. Cardinals

Saints first:

• Drew Brees looked sharp. Mid-season sharp.
• Reggie Bush looked strange running between the tackles. That's not to say he can't do it - in fact, the commentators noted that he had a better yards/carry running between the tackles than outside of them - just that I'm used to seeing much larger backs do that.
• Who is Robert Meachem? Apparently he's a first-round draft pick from 2007 that was injured and unable to play for his entire rookie season. What happens if he becomes another weapon for Brees?
• The Saints offense looked dangerously good, and that was without Deuce McAllister and Jeremy Shockey. Yikes.
• Not sure what to make of their defense, but they drafted Sedrick Ellis, traded for Jonathan Vilma, and picked up some more corners to take over for Jason David. It could be good, and that would be plenty to get them into the playoffs.

Now the Cardinals:

• Edgerin James looks old, and the rookie they drafted looks like a backup. I wouldn't be afraid of that run attack at all.
• Matt Leinart (7/8, 91 yards) ended up with roughly comparable stats to Brees (6/7, 41 yards, 1 TD), but the eye test showed a bit more separation. Brees looked calm. Leinart looked unsure.
• I didn't notice anything else about the Cardinals, and certainly nothing that would hint that they could overtake the Seahawks, but it's the preseason so take that for what it's worth.
• On that note, I just noticed the Seahawks don't play the Cardinals until week 11. By that time the Cardinals should either be humming along with their problems ironed out, or they'll be reevaluating for 2009.
  

Roster Slots

Mike Sando put out his roster analysis of the Seahawks a few days ago, so I finally have some numbers to apply towards the possibility of my practice squad guys making the team.

I read/heard that Holmgren prefers to keep a combination of 11 running backs and receivers. Apparently tight ends serve a different enough purpose that they don't factor into the equation. Sando's numbers actually show slightly fewer in the average of the past five season: 10.4 running backs and receivers. It doesn't look good for Payne or Forsett, as I don't think anything has changed since I last looked at their roster potential.

With Payne out with a cracked rib, and not being able to show his game abilities, I think he's almost guaranteed to get cut for the practice squad. If Deion Branch gets put on the PUP list to start the year, Payne probably makes it onto the roster.

Baring an ultra-spectacular showing by Forsett in preseason games, which would effectively force the Seahawks to keep him on the roster, I think there's one scenario where he makes the 53-man roster: Duckett shows himself to be a more adept fullback than Owen Schmidt (who could probably be cut for the practice squad without much danger of another team picking him up, given how raw he is) and Forsett shows enough punt/kick return potential that Holmgren feels comfortable relieving Burleson (now a starter) of (the majority of) his return duties.

Lastly, Jamar Adams. John Morgan at FieldGulls.com had a great breakdown of the competition between Adams and C.J. Wallace. Earlier I thought both might make the team, but with roster spots being scarce, what's the point of keeping two young, developing safeties that are basically redundant? I'll admit to pulling for Wallace because of his UW connection, but if he's not good enough, or at least not better than Adams, then there's no reason to keep him. Sando has the average number of DBs at 8.0, and seven this year are locks. Barring injury to one of those seven Wallace and Adams will have to fight it out in the preseason. Stay tuned. I'll be following the game against Minnesota tonight via whatever live blog is available (I know Frank Hughes will have one going, at the minimum).

VMAC Photos

The Seattle P.I. has a nice gallery of pictures from the Seahawks new practice facility. Sure looks nice.

Also, Frank Hughes posted a comparison of the old practice facility vs. the new one. Upgrades all around.

Two questions:

• Will training camp be open to the public at the new facility? Not that it does me much good while I'm in LA, but I occasionally make summer visits to Seattle, and this would just be added incentive to go...
• Will it attract more free agents? Can't find the link that said this, but apparently Julius Jones was drawn in by the allure of the new practice facility.
  

Worried About Spencer

Or, generally, worried about who will be the Seahawks starting center when Spencer inevitably gets hurt. The retirement of Chris Gray really hurts depth at center. While Gray was being thought of as Rob Sims's backup at right guard, his true value was as Spencer's backup. The Seahawks have a number of reserves that can fill in if Sims goes down - Willis, Wrotto, Womack. At center, the Seahawks basically started camp with two centers, one of whom is now retired and the other can't get out of the training room. Can you imagine Wrotto, Vallos, or Claxton lining up against Marcus Stroud to open the season? That would be awful. I'm hoping the Seahawks can pick up a viable backup option when guys start getting cut towards the end of camp.

The Only Favre Post

I was thinking about how this post would go on the drive home, and now I have to go and change part of it because Favre is apparently going to the Jets. The Seahawks will play the Packers, Buccaneers, and Jets this year, so they were going to see him one way or another. Favre on the Packers was probably the worst-case scenario (actually, it was the Vikings, but that wasn't going to be compromised on), because the Packers would have been another elite team in the NFC that the Seahawks would have to get by. Tampa would have been the best case, as even with Favre the Bucs wouldn't have been too dangerous (Galloway and who else?). On the plus side, Favre on the Jets puts him out of the NFC. On the minus side, the Seahawks will face the Jets in week 16, by which time he should have completely absorbed their offense and the Jets will probably be playing for their playoff lives. Luckily that game is in Seattle, and that's certainly better than playing Favre in Tampa.

As far as who is at fault between Favre and the Packers... Both should have been more proactive. The Packers, however, will be the ones feeling the long term consequences. Mark Schlereth, on with Softy yesterday, made a great point about how current Packers players will reevaluate their standing with the team, given management's willingness to completely abandon arguably the most popular player in Packers' history, if not NFL history. Nobody is safe. Does that affect players' senses of loyalty? Moral? This is the kind of action that can lead to a lack of trust between players and management. Schlereth also drew an interesting comparison between the current Packers situation and the offseason following the Broncos' second Super Bowl. Apparently there was some pressure on John Elway to retire (granted I was young at the time, and the internet wasn't what it was today, but I definitely don't remember hearing about that), and that management saw that offseason as a good time to move on since nearly every starter would be returning and they had a quarterback in waiting - Brian Griese - that they felt was ready to take over the starting job. Sound familiar? So, the Broncos moved on, and went from winning the Super Bowl to missing the playoffs at 6-10. Interesting.

First Game First Look: Buffalo Bills

The first (Seahawks) preseason game hasn't been played yet and I'm already looking ahead to the regular season.

I happened to find an episode of NFL Gameday from the 2006 season on my work computer (Of course I rewatched it - I'm starved for football). As an anecdote, it happened to be week 8, which was the week Seattle lost a heart breaker to Kansas City (and was when I first took notice of Jared Allen, albeit from the play where Deion Branch ripped the ball out of his hands while falling out of bounds). That week Indianapolis won their seventh game. They lost to New England the following week, but still, at 7-1, that's strong start to their season. The previous season they started 13-0. Last year they started 7-0 as well (before, again, losing to the Patriots). What's the point to this? Well, it's an obvious one, but great teams should come out of the gates sprinting.

The Seahawks always seem to start slow. From recent history:

• 2004 - 3-3 after 6 games
• 2005 - 4-2 after 6 games
• 2006 - 4-2 after 6 games
• 2007 - 3-3 after 6 games

That's not exactly dominating your opponents.

What's it going to take for the Seahawks to start strong this year? After the Buffalo game, Seattle has two home games against San Francisco and St. Louis that they absolutely should win. After a bye they'll have three tough games at NY Giants, Green Bay at home, and at Tampa Bay. I'm expecting Seattle to be good, but I think a reasonable expectation for the second set of three games is 1-2. If they can somehow pull out a second win, that would be incredible, but I'm not going to count on that. The two home divisional games are wins. (If they aren't then I'll have to seriously reconsider (i.e. lower) my expectations for the season). That puts them at 3-2, plus the outcome of the Bills game, meaning the outcome of their first game will be the difference between a slow start and a decent start.

The first game of the season is always a bit of a wildcard. Teams can change significantly season-to-season, and the preseason provides as much misinformation as it does good information. Last year's opener against the Bucs looked like a poor showing until Tampa turned out to be a playoff team. The Thursday night opener between the Colts and the Saints was supposed to be a good game, until Indy exposed the Saints' defense and foreshadowed their awful (relative to expectations) season. The point here is: I have no idea what to make of Buffalo. They went 7-3 in the middle of the 2007 season, but lost three game to both start and end the season. Their quarterback situation is somewhat rocky. Trent Edwards is young, and he may yet develop, but his season last year (7 TDs, 9 INTs, 56.1% completion rate, 70.4 QB rating in 10 games - kind of like Alex Smith in 2006) says "developing" more than "ready". Has he made the jump over the offseason? Here's Dr. Z's take:

Trent Edwards can be a good quarterback, but right now he's basically a safety-first guy -- take what's given and don't screw it up. The offense has a few firecrackers -- RB Marshawn Lynch, WR Lee Evans -- but not a lot of them. It needs the all-pro LT to protect Edwards ... the guys they've been working at the position are not the answer. The defense is of playoff caliber, the special teams are knock 'em dead. Pay Peters!

Jason Peters, the Bills' money left tackle, is holding out for a new contract. Apparently he's not even returning team phone calls. The Bills aren't caving because Peters has three years, not one, remaining on his contract. I'd be surprised if his hold out continues into the regular season, but at the minimum his hold out is going to mess with line continuity and familiarity. Again from Dr. Z:

The Bills have a new offensive coordinator, Turk Schonert, with a new system, with different line calls and everything. Not easy to pick up.

This also affects starting right tackle Langston Walker, who has been moved to the left side in the interim. This is a necessary move if Peters holds out into the regular season, but every day Walker spends learning at left tackle is a day not spent learning at right tackle.

Walter Jones, the Seahawks all-world left tackle, regularly held out through all of training camp during the years he was franchised and was able to step in without much trouble when the season started. Of course, the year he was finally signed to a long-term deal and participated in training camp was the year Alexander ran for 1880 yards and 27 touchdowns and the Seahawks rode their offensive line all the way to the Super Bowl. So, these things do have some affect.

Can the Seahawks open the year with a win in Buffalo? I'm not sure. The Peters situation is a good thing for the Seahawks. Otherwise the Bills look like an up-and-coming team that could challenge for a wild-card spot. The Seahawks, specifically their defense, play worse on the road, especially when playing at 1pm eastern. Lose this game and the Seahawks are looking at a 3-3 start. Win and they've got a 1pm eastern road game chalked up in the win column and should have a ton of momentum heading into Giants stadium 3-0 after a bye week. I can't believe I have to wait four and a half more weeks for this game...