Watching the Injuries Pile Up

And, this time, not for the Seahawks.

With the Seahawks-Packers game coming up in two weeks, the Packers have been hit with the following:

• Al Harris has a ruptured spleen.  It's unclear whether or not his season is done, but he's definitely out for the Seahawks game, and that's huge, because the Seahawks receivers had a horrible time dealing with the Packers' physical corners.  Now they'll only have to deal with Woodson, and he's nursing an injury himself (though it wasn't bad enough to prevent him from returning an interception for a touchdown last week).
• A.J. Hawk, Nick Collins, and Jason Hunter all were unable to return to the game against the Buccs.  I'm not sure who Hunter is, but Hawk and Collins (especially with Atari Bigby hurt) are key defensive players.
• Cullen Jenkins is out for the year.  Here's what PFW had to say about him:
  

  The loss of Jenkins is a huge blow to the Packers’ defense. He had missed only two games in the four-plus years he had been with the Packers and was off to an exceptionally strong start this season with 2½ sacks, 10 QB pressures and four tackles for loss.
  

  The Packers use a rotation of Jenkins and Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila at the all-important right defensive end spot.  KGB was hurt going into the Buccs game, and he was more of a situational pass-rusher.  Jenkins got the majority of the playing time.  And who is third on the depth chart behind those two?  Jason Hunter.  This should be a huge blow to the Packers' pass rush.
• Lastly, Aaron Rodgers suffered some kind of shoulder injury.  It sounds like he's going to play, albeit with pain.  Rodgers has been shaky enough as is, and this injury can't help.  Even worse (for the Packers) is that their back-up QB is Matt Flynn, whose abilities the Packers seem to have little confidence in, as they brought in an injured Aaron Rodgers over Flynn for the potential game-winning drive.

The Seahawks injury situation hurt, but the initial wave may have passed.  Injuries are fairly random events that, in most cases, even out between teams over the season.  The Seahawks lost the 49ers game in large part because they had no receivers.  Perhaps they're due to pick up a win or two due to opposing injuries.

Early Game Halftime Thoughts

With the Seahawks not playing, this week is all about rooting against the Cardinals and Niners, and, of course, fantasy.

Currently, the Cardinals are getting beat down 34-0. Kurt Warner's line: 9-15, 99 yards, 0 TD, 2 Ints. Yep, same old Cardinals. In my Pick-'em league I originally picked the Cardinals, figuring that spending the week back east would somewhat negate the travel factor. The Jets also looked awful in their last two games. Then I saw that the Cardinals defense would be without Bertrand Berry and Adrian Wilson and I switched my pick. Will those two ever stay healthy? The Cardinals need both to be healthy for their defense to function. As you can see, it's not functioning today. (On a side note, my girlfriend has Laveranues Coles starting for her fantasy team today. She's quite happy).

The 49ers were keeping the game close for a while but it looks like the Saints have finally broken through and are up 21-6. O'Sullivan hasn't done much, nor has Frank Gore.

I'll grant that it's just halftime, and I may be counting my chickens before they hatch (moreso with the 49ers than the Cardinals), but as a Seahawk fan, these are exactly the kind of results I want to see from the other NFC West teams. Playoff teams win road games like these. Not-quite-playoff-teams don't. I'm not saying this means the Seahawks are obviously better. On the contrary, the Seahawks also lost their one road game, quite badly too, and have another tough road game coming up next week. However, what this does mean is that the Cardinals and 49ers (I guess I have to take them seriously as a division title threat) have yet to take that next step as a playoff-caliber team.

The game I'm watching right now is Green Bay-Tampa - convenient as the Seahawks will play both in upcoming weeks. Both look good, but neither looks dominant. Both have tough defenses that force turnovers. Aaron Rodgers looks a little mistake prone while Brian Griese is a bit more conservative. Tampa doesn't seem to have any gamebreaking talent on offense (Galloway is hurt, Cadillac Williams hasn't played a game yet this season), so I'm not entirely sure how they're scoring points. Isn't Warrick Dunn about 43 years old? Anyway, the games the Seahawks play against these teams should be close - both winnable, both losable.

My Favorite Play of the Rams Game

Here comes a story that will seem totally unrelated to the title but does actually have a point:

For two years in high school I ran cross country.  After jogging through my first year, I ended up with a serious coach for my second. Example:  In my first year a workout my first year might have been to run six miles.  In my second year the warm-up and cool-down for the workout involved running three miles to the place where we would do the workout and three miles back when we were done.  It was crazy.  And this coach wasn't just about running hard.  He approached training from all angles.  One day, instead of our typical grueling workout he had us jog a couple of miles then had us watch Rudy for inspiration.  How awesome is that?

One of the most memorable things he did as a coach was talk about a race strategy (yes, there's more to cross country than one foot in front of the other) he called 'Will-Kill'.  The theory went like this:  There are certain times during a race (5k in my case) your opponents will be most psychologically-vulnerable to a sudden burst of effort, lasting maybe a minute or so in our 5k races.  By executing these will-kill efforts at the proper times you can drain your opponents of the mental energy it takes to win.

Pseudo-y?  Possibly.  Basically, what's being described is a way of manipulating that ethereal substance known as momentum.  When a runner performs their temporary burst, they want to do it at a time where their opponents think "damn, this guys isn't actually running hard now, is he?" rather than "good, I'm ready to take it up a notch too."

So, flash-back to the game against the Rams: 8:02 left in the first quarter, the Seahawks are up 3-0 and just came up short on a third and five from the Rams' 19.  The Seahawks have a choice: kick the (chip shot) field goal or take a chance on fourth and one.

The Seahawks went for it, got it, and two plays later Bumpus caught his first touchdown pass.  There are so many reasons why I love this call.

• I love Holmgren's aggressive play calling.  Worst-case scenario the Rams offense starts deep in their own territory, going against a jacked up Seattle defense supported by jacked-up Seattle fans.
  
• The Seahawks converted.  If the Seahawks are going to be a good team they have to know they can get a yard whenever they need to.  This is a great step in the right direction.
  
• After stalling in the red-zone on their first possession, coming away with only a field goal, a second defensive stop for the Rams (leading to a second field goal) could have been a momentum shifter.  I know the Rams went three-and-out on their next possession, but what if the Rams offense had taken the field thinking they'd dodged a bullet and knowing they could take the lead with a touchdown?  An inspired team could have driven the length of the field and taken a 7-6 lead, and the game would have been very different from there on.  Instead the Seahawks literally imposed their will through the running game, and figuratively kept their foot on the Rams' neck and didn't let them get up.  Will-kill.
  

Burress Out For Seahawk Game

Hot off the AP wire:

Super Bowl star Plaxico Burress was suspended for one game by the New York Giants on Wednesday for an undisclosed violation of team rules... The suspension takes effect immediately, meaning Burress will miss the Giants (3-0) game against the Seattle Seahawks on Oct. 5... The Giants did not specify why Burress was suspended. FoxSports.com said that Burress did not show up for work on Monday and did not telephone or answer phone messages to explain his absence.

Here's to hoping that this doesn't end up as an all-around misunderstanding, that everything ends up fine in Giant land, and the Plax is welcomed back for the Seahawk game with open arms.  Putting aside the obvious statement that I hope nothing serious has happened to Burress or someone around him, it would be huge if he doesn't play in the Seahawk game.  He's one of the most difficult receivers to defend and he's Manning's favorite target, one he has unmatched chemistry with.  With Burress out the Seahawks can focus more on stopping the Giants' massive running game without fear of being burned.  Stay tuned....

Willis Staying at RT?

What's up with these quotes?

Of Locklear, Holmgren said they are in a little bit of a conundrum. Now, with Pork Chop (who is OK) playing so well, they have three players for two spots, right guard and right tackle. He said they have not figured out whether to go (L to R) Willis and Locklear, Locklear and Willis or Pork Chop and Locklear. But he really likes what Willis has been doing at right tackle, and Chop has been good as well, certainly much better than Rob Sims. - Seahawks Insider

Obviously this is a better problem than not having enough talented offensive linemen, but more than that it's just weird. How much were we all fretting over the Seahawks' ability to resign Locklear after last year? A ton, that's how much. Locklear is generally considered (by Seahawk fans, at least) to be a top-10 right tackle in the NFL, and losing him, while not of Hutchinson-proportions, would have been a giant loss. Yet for week five, Holmgren is openly considering playing him at right guard while keeping Willis at right tackle. Never mind that of the two, Willis is the one who has taken reps at guard. I haven't heard Locklear do anything other than play right tackle since taking over the spot in 2005.

So, I've been reading around and listening to sports radio, trying to make sense of this, what all of this means as far as how good Willis is, how hurt Locklear is, and how the team is playing with the current line. Here's my best guess:

• The line has played well during the last two games and Holmgren has been impressed with how Willis has played at right tackle. I heard one of the KJR hosts (or one of their guests) specifically say that Willis brings something extra with his run blocking that Locklear doesn't. Maybe with the running game going so well and the passing game still up in the air, at least until Branch and Engram get a few games under their belt, Holmgren will want to milk the current running attack for all he can.
• Locklear isn't completely healthy, maybe 90-95%, so why rush him back?
• On a similar note, maybe Holmgren is uncertain about Womack's hamstring injury and is trying to plan around it.
  
• Womack simply can't be counted on, and if Locklear and Willis are two of your best five linemen you have to find some way to get them both on the field. If Womack goes down, and with Sims already out, next up would be either Vallos or Wrotto. Can you really justify sitting either Locklear or Willis while playing one of those two?

What amazes me is how Willis was never considered a viable replacement for Locklear when Locklear had yet to be resigned, and now he could keep him out of the starting lineup for another week. Two possibilities here at to how this happened:

1. The Seahawks underestimated Willis' potential. Given that Willis has been around for at least three, maybe four years, I find it hard to believe that this sudden development was merely overlooked talent
2. Willis has been coached up by the new line coaches, and with some solid game experience he's been able to blossom.

Mike Solari and Mike DeBorg are already paying dividends.

Bumpus

I grew up a WSU fan, so I was happy to see him catch a touchdown in Sunday's game. I hope it's not his last.

Every report I'm ready says that Engram and Branch will be back for the Giants game. So, after weathering the storm of injuries at receiver, the Seahawks will have the following receivers available for the week five game against the Giants:

• Branch - obviously kept on the roster, though probably with limited snaps initially, potentially requiring an extra active receiver. That, or a game plan that involves lots of two running back, one tight end sets.
• Engram - also on the roster, likely at full speed.
• Colbert - he cost the Seahawks at least a fifth-round pick, and he had (still has, hopefully) potential.
• Robinson - no way he's dropped after being back, and inactive, for a week. Right? Moreso than Colbert, there's a ton of potential once he's in game shape. Plus he can return kicks.
  
• Taylor - this guy has got to be on thin ice, right? He's already been demoted out of his starting job. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a Taylor (re)evaluation meeting between Ruskell, Holmgren and the rest.
• Bumpus - with Engram coming back, his value as a slot receiver decreases significantly, but he still has value returning punts.
• McMullen - you like to root for the underdog, but this guy was signed off the street for a reason, right?

Believe it or not, we're right back in the same situation we were at the start of training camp - a couple of established starters and a bunch of reserves competing for a few spots. And one name I didn't list was Jordan Kent, who probably won't make an appearance on the 53-man roster but is guaranteed to stay on the practice squad. Would the Seahawks keep two receivers on the practice squad? Kent, Taylor, and Payne were all on the practice squad at points last year.

In recent years Holmgren has kept a total of 11 receivers and running backs. With Forsett gone to Indy the running backs are set at five. Babin was released, and I can't see any new defensive players being added, meaning six spots will definitely be available for receivers. Actually, a quick review of the current roster shows that all seven of the above receivers are on the 53-man roster, so the Seahawks don't have to cut one (or more) with Branch and Engram coming back. So... do we keep seven receivers just because we can? Hell, we're keeping two kickers. Maybe another linebacker to help with special teams.

Whatever the case, I hope to see Bumpus fielding punts as the season goes on. Just so long as he catches said punts.

Initial Game Thoughts

And just like that, the season is back on track.

There were a lot of good things to take away from this game, but I'll highlight two:

1. The Seahawks won.
2. The Seahawks won big.

I know it was against the Rams.  I know that.  Let me refresh your memory from last year:

• Saints 28, Seahawks 17
• Panthers 13, Seahawks 10
• Falcons 44, Seahawks 41

Yes, there are extenuating circumstances for each of those games.  So what?  Good teams don't squeak by (or lose to) bad teams.  Good teams pummel bad teams.

In the NFL, a win is a win is a win.  But when you're trying to project how your team will do in the upcoming weeks, a 24-point blowout is a hell of a lot more encouraging than a 6-point nail-biter.

I've got a bunch of specifics I'll get into over the next two weeks, but for now I'll simply say I feel pretty good about this team's chances.

Robinson and Colbert

These two are sure as hell better than retreads McMullen and Parker.  It's unfortunate that Robinson has been limited in practice, and likely will be limited in the game, due to a sore knee, but that probably should have been expected given he wasn't in football shape.  Kerry Colbert, however, is in game shape, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.  Or, not seeing, as I will once again be away from home this weekend.  There's an off-chance that my trip away from home will involve a side-trip to a sports bar (it's a birthday weekend surprise), so we'll see.

Still, who are the receivers this week?  I'm assuming Bumpus is still around.  Taylor is still around, but it sounds like he got demoted in favor of Colbert.  McMullen starts opposite Colbert?  Ugh.  Branch and Engram can't come back soon enough.

As a side note, I'm in an eliminator league, haved picked correctly in weeks one and two, and have decided to pick the Seahawks in week three.  I'm not sure if that's a smart choice, especially when I figure that Buffalo is guaranteed to beat Oakland, and the Giants are nearly guaranteed to beat the Bengals, but to hell with hedges.  I'm all in for a Seahawk victory on Sunday, because a Seahawk loss means the season is over.

Where To Go From 0-2

I wasn't able to watch last weekend's game, as I was away vacationing at the Grand Canyon.  As it would happen, though, I was at someone's cabin (with DirecTV and internet) on Sunday, so I was able to follow the game via NFL.com's game tracker.  So, I ended up knowing what was happening in real time without seeing how such happenings actually occurred.  I've tried to fill in the gaps through newspaper articles, blogs, and sports talk radio, but with only second-hand info I'm not going to comment on the game other than to say that it was incredibly disappointing.

I still believe the Seahawks can play like a playoff team once Engram and Branch come back - the running game looks fine, John Carlson is a stud, the o-line looks better, the front seven on defense looks fine.  Pretty much everything other than punting and (possibly) defending deep pass plays looks good enough for the Seahawks to be a playoff team.  The wide receiver situation is the obvious wildcard here, but as a fan I have to have hope - hope that the Seahawks have a chance to get into the playoffs.

With all of that said, what's the current state of the Seahawks' season, with respect to their record, opponent records, and potential NFC playoff teams?

• The Seahawks lost one game (Buffalo) that would have been necessary to reasonably have a chance at a first round bye.  Buffalo may turn out to be quite good, and maybe a win wasn't as reasonable as it seemed at the time.  But, given the second loss (below), getting a first-round bye is completely off the table.  However, this was a road loss to an out-of-conference opponent, which means a home game wasn't squandered and it won't count towards playoff tiebreakers.
• The Seahawks lost a second game, a division that should have been an easy win.  This is the loss that really hurts because of (a) how close is came to being a win, (b) how much it figures into divisional and conference tie-breakers, and (c) now the Seahawks have to win a much more difficult game later in the season to make up for the loss.  Overall, it just makes the road to the playoffs that much tougher.
• The Cardinals look like a potential 9 or 10 win team.  Given that the Seahawks have won the NFC West with 9 and 10 wins in the previous two season, and look to be roughly as good as the previous years, the Seahawks are in for a dogfight.
• The NFC East looks to have three legitimate playoff contenders - the Cowboys, Eagles, and Giants, meaning two of those three will be in the running for a wildcard berth (just like the previous two years)
• In the NFC North, the Vikings have had an equally rough start, albeit against teams better than San Francisco, but they could still recover and compete for a wildcard spot.  The Bears have an outside shot.
• In the NFC South, Carolina looks good, and New Orleans and Tampa may also be good.

So, as I asked in the title, how do the Seahawks proceed after their 0-2 start?

• Their week three game against the Rams, at home, is an absolute must win.  Besides the stat that no team has ever started 0-3 and made the playoffs, a loss to the Rams would mean the loss to the 49ers wasn't a fluke, and the Seahawks would simply be not that good this year.  If the Seahawks lose in week three, it probably means they're a 6-10 team.  Ouch.  Let's hope for a win.
• With the Cardinals looking like challengers, maybe even favorites, for the NFC West crown, the two games against the Cardinals are now the most important games of the year, as earning a wildcard spot in a newly-competitive NFC looks nightmarish.  Fortunately, these games come later in the season, which should provide enough time for the Cardinals, specifically Kurt Warner, to get beat up.  Furthermore, the receiver situation should be fairly settled by the first game, as Branch and Engram will have had enough time to recover to 100% of their potential for this year (which may mean 80% for Branch, but that's still more than he'll have for, say, the Giants game).  If the Seahawks are going to win the NFC West, they'll likely have to win both games against the Cardinals - two Arizona losses, two Seattle wins, plus the head-to-head tie-breaker to Seattle will be tough for Arizona to overcome, again assuming they're a 9 or 10 win team.
• To make this point more concrete, the Seahawks can be no worse than two games behind the Cardinals in their 14 other games.  Say the Seahawks go 6-8 in their 14 non-Cardinals games, while the Cardinals go 8-6.  In such a case, the Seahawks need these four wins - at 49ers, at Dolphins, Redskins, at Rams - and two from Packers, at Buccs, Patriots, Jets.  I left out a couple that I figure are lost causes, but the above is probably reasonable (the hard part will be winning in Arizona, in week 17, with everything on the line).  Meanwhile, the Cardinals will need six losses, likely coming from these games - at Redskins, Bills, Cowboys, at Panthers, Giants, at Eagles, at Patriots.  And that assumes they sweep their divisional rivals.
• The wildcard picture looks brutal (as I outlined in the teams above), but the Seahawks do have some control over their fate with games against the following teams with similar wildcard possibilities: Cowboys, Eagles, Giants, Buccs.  They also have a game against Green Bay, but with Minnesota slipping to 0-2 I'd be shocked if the Packers didn't win the division.

Assuming the Seahawks have hit bottom in terms of injuries (and with Hasselbeck's back, you never know...), they still have a great shot at winning the NFC West.  It all comes down to the two games against Arizona.  The Seahawks have three tough games following the Rams game and the bye, so they could reasonably start 1-5 and still have a shot at winning the NFC West with eight wins overall, including two wins over the Cardinals.  And, no matter how poor their record is, and NFC West title means a first round game at Qwest, and that always leads to good things.

So, back away from the edge.  This season isn't over by a long shot... just so long as the Seahawks beat the Rams.

The Coattailes of Cutting Plackemeier

I talked to Courtney Taylor, who said he is approaching this week's game like it could be his last. I asked him if the club actually told him that, produce now or never. He said no, but he said he also knows the nature of the sport and that if you are not going to produce you are replaceable. He saw that with Ryan Plackemeier. He said he has been thinking about Sunday since the last second ticked off the clock in Buffalo, and he will have a big game. - Frank Hughes

Exactly:

[E]ven if there were no single person who might warrant being fired, someone should be fired regardless, just to shake things up, just to show every other person or player that doing enough to not get fired is not good enough.

I can't help but wonder if Courtney Taylor was acting a bit like Leonard Weaver during last season's training camp, where, paraphrasing Holmgren, "Some people think they already have the roster made." Weaver improved and made it (thank goodness), and I'm hoping Taylor shows that he can be a player as well.

Part of this may lay at the feet of the coaches, who had Taylor running with the ones from the beginning of the off-season without him having earned it on the field (practice or playing). That seemingly goes against the philosophy of merit competition that pervaded every other position battle (starting tailback, right defensive end, nickle back, fourth safety, starting tight end, just to name a few). Maybe it was most important that Taylor be given first-team reps, but in the end he didn't progress like certain other young receivers (i.e. Kent). He's naturally a cocky character, which can be a good trait for receivers, but his starting spot may have gone to his head a bit. Now he gets two games to show what he can do before he starts splitting time with Branch (or moves to split end). I'm hoping for the best.

Not East Coast Bias, Just East Coast

I just read Don Banks' recent column, Teams hoping to avoid 0-2 starts. In the column, based on the well-known stat that teams that start 0-2 rarely make the playoffs (19 in the past 18 seasons), he highlighted the "top eight, ranked in terms of their sense of urgency." Now, I'll grant that the Seahawks a 50% chance of not getting named, but really, how do they get left out of that list? Houston? Minnesota? Tampa? Those are the compelling stories? It'll look even worse when I list the seven other 0-1 teams that didn't get listed: Bengals, Lions, Chiefs, Dolphins, Raiders, 49ers, Rams. Donnie Banks, come on now. The Seahawks are not in the same boat as those teams.

I'm not sure if the Seahawks have been judged to be too boring (nationally) to comment about, or if they literally just get forgotten, but it just rams home the point that the Seattle teams just get forgotten.

Maybe the Seahawks Aren't Well Run

Danny O'Neil:

Forsett was claimed by the Colts, according to someone who saw the NFL transactions wire. His agent just confirmed the Colts had claimed him.

The title is in reference to this post. Ruskell was damn lucky that Jordan Kent wasn't claimed as well, not so much from a football perspective, but from a fan perspective. I don't think I'm the only one who saw good things from Jordan Kent, and losing him on top of Forsett would have prompted further outrage from fans.

So, our supposed brilliant GM Tim Ruskell has this as part of his legacy, which includes these whoppers:

• Hutchinson. Enough said.
• Resigning Alexander. Don't say there weren't concerns about him after the season. Want to know what a good GM looks like? Bill Polian. Which team made the better decision? And, how ironic is it that the Colts were the team to claim Forsett?
  
• Giving up an unconditional first-round pick for Deion Branch. Name another big-name player traded for a first round pick: Farve? Only if the Jets win the Super Bowl. Jason Taylor? Second round. Thomas Jones? Second round picks swapped. Randy Moss? Fourth round pick. That first round pick should have been a tight end who would now have a year of experience under his belt.

Yes, Ruskell has done some great things - signing Deon Grant, Patrick Kerney, Julian Peterson, Mike Wahle, drafting Kelly Jennings, Brandon Mebane - but none measure up, in terms of positive impact, to the negative impact of those hugely consequential mistakes. Losing Hutchinson and keeping Alexander completely changed the trajectory of this team. If anything, the Seahawks achieved in 2006 despite Ruskell's mistakes.

If Forsett blows up in Indianapolis, Ruskell won't hear the end of it.

Now I'm Pissed

From the SeattleTimes.com Seahawks blog, though I'm sure every major Seahawks news outlet is reporting this now:

The Seattle Seahawks have released running back Justin Forsett, receiver Jordan Kent and punter Ryan Plackemeier, the team announced this afternoon.

Of course Plack's release was expected with all of the rumors floating around about him getting cut. Forsett... yeah, he was on the bubble already and he had a poor finish to camp. But Kent? Really? You're going to keep Kent over the butterfinger crew of Taylor and Payne? Like I said yesterday, Kent was the one learning Burleson's position. He's the one that stepped up in the preseason while the coaches' favorites did squat.

What the hell is this organization thinking?

How Brady's Injury Affects the Seahawks

With all of the hubbub over the Seahawks nasty loss, the Seahawks injuries, and the shock of the Brady injury, I guess the effect of a Brady-less Patriot team on the Seahawks got lost in the shuffle. I'm not talking about not having to face the Patriots in the Super Bowl. After Sunday's loss I'm definitely not jumping that far ahead. No, the Seahawks play the Patriots in the regular season, and with Brady I judged that game to be the second most-difficult of the regular season games. Without Brady, assuming Matt Cassel plays like he typically does in the preseason, that game just got a heck of a lot more winnable.

So, what's the potential impact towards winning the division? Previously, the Seahawks had a good chance of losing to the Patriots at home and the Cardinals, who play the Patriots at New England late in the season, were virtually guaranteed to lose (assuming the Cardinals are no better than a 10-win team). With Brady out, the Seahawks have a much better shot at beating the Patriots while the Cardinals still have a decent chance of losing in New England.

So, the net result of the Brady injury could be a game difference between the Seahawks and the Cardinals.

Replacing Burleson

Well, the other shoe dropped today and the Seahawks will have to do without (another) one of their starting wide receivers and best punt returner, Nate Burleson, for the rest of the season. This is going to hurt most over the next two games, before either Engram or Branch return, as Hasselbeck will be without a single receiver that he really trusts to catch the ball. To get a sense for how bad the situation is, I would guess either Will Heller or Leonard Weaver is Hasselbeck's most trusted target. Ouch.

So, now the Seahawks have to find a replacement for Burleson which, unlike the fill-ins for Engram and Branch, will be permanent. Now the injury to Obomanu really hurts, because he would be probably have been the top candidate for Burleson's spot, and he has real game experience and some amount of rapport with Hasselbeck. But, we move on.

I don't know of any free agents available, other than Joe Horn (who I want no part of in a Seahawk uniform), so I'm just going to consider internal replacements. The Seahawks have four receivers between the 53-man roster and the practice squad. Their preseason stats are as follows: 4 receptions for 39 yards, 8 rec./82 yards, 8 rec./133 yards, 11 rec./128 yards. Which receivers had which stats? Taylor, Payne, Bumpus, and Kent, in that order. Stats don't reveal the full picture, but I can't help but point out how little Courtney Taylor, the one current starter, has done.

I was especially bothered by how little I saw Kent in Sunday's game (no catches, and I can't remember seeing him lined up as a receiver). I know it was the preseason, but Kent was an absolute stud, and showed way more than any other receiver. Why wasn't he used on Sunday? I haven't seen any reports of him being hurt. Does Holmgren not trust him? I can't imagine Hasselbeck has any less trust in him than any of the other young receivers.

When Engram went down, Kent wasn't mentioned as a possible replacement because he was being groomed to back up just one receiver position - Burleson's. In fact, there was talk of Burleson temporarily playing slot and Kent moving into Burleson's spot until Engram came back. Furthermore, no other young receiver was being groomed at Burleson's position (sorry, I always get flanker and split-end mixed up and I can't remember which one Burleson plays...). So, now that Burleson is down, that means Kent moves into his starting spot, right? Right?

I want to see Kent play. Unlike the coaches' darling Taylor, Kent looks like a gamer, and he noticeably improves with every game. Imagine where he could be towards the end of the season? This should be a no brainer.

Of course, with Burleson leaving the roster, a new receiver is going to have to be added. Furthermore, with Kent and Taylor filling the two outside spots what's needed is a slot receiver. Payne could fill that role, but I'd just as soon see Bumpus signed off the practice squad. I'll grant that Bumpus's production in the preseason should be treated with a bit more skepticism than, say, Kent's, but at least he had a full off season to learn the offense, which is more than can be said about any free agent that could be brought in. The only reason I could see for not bringing Bumpus up is if the Seahawks want to keep him 'hidden' for a year before giving him a real shot to make the roster next year.

I imagine Carlson or Putzier could play out of the slot as well, but that alone won't solve the numbers problem with receiver. My vote is in: Kent and Bumpus.

Who to Fire

Immediately following Sunday's game, my first reaction was, "after a showing like that, somebody has to get fired." And while I'll get to who I think is a reasonable candidate for being fired (or, if we're talking about a play, cut), even if there were no single person who might warrant being fired, someone should be fired regardless, just to shake things up, just to show every other person or player that doing enough to not get fired is not good enough.

This isn't a football thing so much as it is a business thing, a people management thing. When dealing with human error, you basically have to ways to approach fixing it: the hug or the whip. Sometimes it's best to give the person a hug (figuratively or literally), treat them with kid gloves, and tell them that it'll be ok. That is not this time. This is a time you bring out the whip. This is the time you pull a Jimmy Johnson and cut a player, in front of all of his teammates, on the flight home after a road loss. After a showing like that, the Seahawks need to be whipped into shape.

Candidate 1: Ryan Plackemeier. Plack had a tough year punting last year. I heard Ian Furness say today that he was worst in the league in two of the three major punting stats (average yards is one, not sure what the other one is). More so, he would regularly make poor punts at crucial times and killed the Seahawks in the battle for field position. Last year's ire was directed at the long snapping problems. I don't think he'll have that luxury this year. Yesterday he had punts of 31, 22, 22, and 39 yards. That's awful. One more point: Plack tore a pectoral muscle lifting weights over the summer. Why is a kicker lifting weights heavy enough that it's possible to tear a pec? That was a poor decision, one that I can't imagine the team encouraged, which hurt the team in terms of its ability to prepare on special teams, and it hurt him by allowing another punter like Reggie Hodges to come in and show that he can boot the ball just as well as Plack. A meaner, more cold-blooded coach may have cut Plackemeier after Sunday. If Plack has a second bad game this week even a nice guy like Holmgren may be forced to get rid of him.

I'm going to list a few more people, but unlike Plackemeier I don't actually think any of them should be cut. These are more just me venting about a poor showing.

Candidate 2: Courtney Taylor and Logan Payne.
Let's be real here: Neither of these two can hold onto the ball. I've pulling for Payne, but he can't hold onto balls in games. In preseason both this year and last year he seems to almost make a catch more often than he actually makes a catch. In his one big reception yesterday he coughed up the ball immediately after catching it and was fortunate the ball rolled out-of-bounds. Taylor also seems to have problems catching the ball. I'm not sure what the coaches see in Taylor that makes them so excited about his potential. Payne is a backup so I don't know how much you can really expect of him, but Taylor is supposed to be the starter while Deion Branch rehabs, and he isn't doing anything. I'll get into the receiver situation more when I post about Burleson, but for now I'll just say that those two aren't contributing much.

Candidate 3: Kelly Jennings, or whoever was supposed to give him help with Lee Evans
Damn, did Jennings ever get torched by Evans. To be fair, Evans is a really good, really fast receiver, not to mention the Bills number one receiver, and Jennings is our number two corner. But it was obvious early on that the Bills were going to pick on Jennings with Evans and the Seahawks didn't adjust.

Candidate 4: Rob Sims
This guy seems to get worse each season. In 2006 he filled in well once Spencer took over center for Tobeck. He regressed over the 2007 season, and yesterday he was repeatedly blown up. I know he was lining up against the massive Marcus Stroud, but I'm pissed and am looking to point fingers. Make a play, Rob.

One Bad Game a Season Is Allowed

It took me a day to work up the motivation to write about yesterday's abysmal showing by the Seahawks. We'll see if I can write about the game rationally.

Seattle seems to have a game like this every year. At Pittsburgh in 2007. At Chicago in 2006. At Jacksonville in 2005 (which also happened to be the opener). These were games where, for one reason or another, everything fell apart and the Seahawks got routed. Perhaps each game provided its own unique confluence of negative inputs that led to the Seahawks looking horrible. In each year, the Seahawks, on average, were much better than they looked on those worst performances of their respective seasons. You could call each of those games 'outliers'.

Was Sunday's performance by the Seahawks an 'outlier'?

I would say yes, but I'm not sure by how much. Other than a fairly stout defensive performance (four three-and-outs to start the game, plus only one first down allowed in the two Buffalo possessions following the first touchdown), the Seahawks looked bad - special teams, offensive line, the mystery group or whatever they're calling themselves, the running game. It was all bad. Thank goodness the Seahawks get, by my judgement, their two easiest games of the year in the next two weeks, which they can hopefully use to fix these problems.

I'll post about a number of topics as the day goes by, but here's my overall take:

For now, I'm going to write this off as a bad performance that by no means signals the Seahawks' window closing. However, if this is an outlier performance, a typical performance should be good enough to beat the 49'ers and Rams at home in the subsequent weeks. If either of those games are lost, that will be a signal that the window is closing. But, if everything goes according to plan, with the Seahawks winning their next two games, then going into New York with Locklear and Branch and/or Engram back, with Rocky Bernard and Jordan Babineaux back from their suspensions (which will help next week), possibly with Nate Burleson playing, and putting on a good showing against the Giants, then I won't be concerned.

11 Wins

I've gone back and forth as to what my expectations for the Seahawks 2008 season should be. Nothing short of a Super Bowl victory is a bit much. Missing the playoffs would be an obvious disappointment. Where should I draw the line?

On his Friday show, Ian Furness suggested that anything less than an appearance in the NFC championship game would be a disappointment. That sounds right. The Seahawks have lost in the divisional round the past two years, and I have every reason to believe that this year's team is better than the past two. So, that sets playoff expectations.

However, the playoffs are a little far away, so I thought I'd set expectations for the regular season. I'm going back and forth between the second and third playoff seed, but what I keep getting stuck on is that the only way the Seahawks can absolutely guarantee they get a two seed rather than a three seed is by winning every single game. So, rather than go by playoff seeding, I'm going to go by wins.

11 wins is the expectation. I'm setting that irrespective of their schedule (which happens to be fairly week). 11 wins virtually guarantees a playoff spot (when was the last time an 11 win team missed the playoffs?). 11 wins forces the national media (whose attention towards my team I crave) to take notice. 11 wins would be the third-most by a Seahawks team ever.

So, with the 11-win expectation set, let's have a little fun and try to figure out where those 11 wins will come from. Here goes a ranking, from least difficult to most difficult, and we'll see how reasonable 11 wins are:

15a: Week 2 - 49ers (1pm start)
15b: Week 3 - Rams (1pm)
I don't think too highly of either the 49ers or the Rams, so the games against them at Qwest Field (or Q-West if you're the horrible Raider's preseason TV team - that's one thing I didn't mention in my last post, how horrible they were). It doesn't matter who is injured for these games. There's absolutely no excuse for losing them.

14: Week 12 - Redskins (1pm)
This game got a whole lot easier after Thursday's performance. There's a chance that by week 12 the Redskins will have picked up Zorn's offense, but there's an equal chance that the team has quit on Zorn by then as well. It's a big help that a game like this comes before the Thanksgiving Day game against the Cowboys.

13: Week 8 - at 49ers (1pm)
By week 8 the league should have J.T. O'Sullivan figured out. It's a road game but is in the pacific time zone. There's always danger when playing a divisional opponent, but like I said, I don't think much of the 49ers. Also, Holmgren always coaches a little harder when preparing for the 49ers.

12: Week 15 - at Rams (10am)
By week 15 the Rams will probably have broken down, lead by Orlando Pace's inevitable season-ending injury at mid-season. The danger is if the Seahawks still haven't figured out how to play at 10 am.

11: Week 10 - at Miami (10am)
I have no idea how good Miami will be. A five-win improvement over last year still makes them only a six-win team. Miami doesn't have many weapons, on offense or defense but, above all else, this is a Bill Parcells-run and Bill Parcells protege-coached team, and that counts for a lot. By week 10 Miami could be pretty good.

10: Week 6 - Packers (1pm)
Besides this being a home game, there should be a little extra motivation to avenge the playoff loss.

9: Week 11 - Cardinals (1pm)
The Seahawks get a huge break by not having to face the Cardinals until week 11. I'd be surprised if Warner lasts the year (especially with the injuries to the Cardinals o-line piling-up), meaning the Seahawks could catch them with either a dinged-up Warner or a rusty Leinart.

8: Week 9 - Eagles (1pm)
I think the Eagles will be the second-best team in the NFC East. The Seahawks are lucky to get the Eagles at home this year.

7: Week 1 - at Bills (10am)
This game gets special treatment, relative to the others, because I know what the injury situation for each team will be. This game is made that much more difficult by missing Deion Branch, Bobby Engram, Sean Locklear, and Rocky Bernard.

6: Week 7 - at Buccaneers (5pm)
The Seahawks catch a huge break with this being a night game, hence the curse of the east coast, 10am-start game doesn't apply.

5: Week 16 - Jets (1pm)
The Jets should come into this game needing a win to keep their playoff hopes alive, meaning this will be a dogfight.

4: Week 17 - at Cardinals (1pm)
With any luck, the Seahawks will have a playoff-birth locked up before this game. The Cardinals, however, won't, and what better way to make the playoffs than by beating the division rival at home?

3: Week 5 - at Giants (10am)
In addition to this being an east-coast game starting at 10am, it also follows a bye week, which Holmgren's Seahawks have historically done poorly in. Oh, and the Giants look like they could challenge for a wildcard, if not their division.

2: Week 14 - Patriots (5pm)
Man, it would be great to beat the Patriots, wouldn't it? By week 14 both Branch and Engram should be as healthy as they can be and John Carlson will have 12 games worth of polish under his belt. That's significant because the Patriots' weakness looks to be its secondary. With that said, I can't make this game easier than the Giants game because, well, it's the Patriots.

1: Week 13 - at Cowboys (1pm Thursday)
The road to the Super Bowl in the NFC is going to go through Dallas, so long as their motley crew of personalities doesn't lead to the team self-destructing mid-season. This is a road game against the class of the NFC with three days to prepare.

As promised, that was fun. Here are a couple final thoughts after looking back through that list:

The five easiest are no-excuse-for-not-winning games.

The next five are significantly tougher. All five are winnable though, and losses in this group of games will be the difference between hosting a wildcard-round game or having the week off. Notice that this week's Bills game is in this group.

Four of the five most-difficult games come during the final five weeks of the season. The Seahawks had better take care of business early in the season.

Preseason Week Four Is a Total Tease

Back from vacation. I taped the Seahawks fourth preseason game and was planning on writing about it, but, really, that game was a big pile of garbage. With the exception of Seneca Wallace (and a few other nice performances I'm not picking out because I didn't watch all that closely), the game resembled some of the week one college games I saw over the weekend. I don't complain as much as most about the NFL preseason. Of course, I'd rather have 18 regular season games and 2 preseason instead of what we have now, but I still enjoy the first three weeks of preseason games as a way to preview teams and get a look at teams' depth, specifically for the Seahawks. Week four, however, is awful. I think I saw a stat that said 37 of the combined 44 starters between the Seahawks and Raiders wouldn't start (if play at all). That's horrendous. Unfortunately, I don't think shortening the preseason will necessarily get rid of the 'week four' game. Coaches will still want to give many of their starters an off-week before the regular season starts. If the preseason gets shortened to two games, I imagine the first game will resemble the current week three, 'tune-up game', and week four will be the 'determine who gets cut' game - i.e. the twos and threes will be on the field the entire time. Still, that will be better than what we have now.