A Seahawks-centric NFL blog

That Sucked

2008-10-19T21:17:00.001-07:00

All last week I was going back and forth about when I should start talking about the draft and prepping for the 2009 season. Tonight's game against the Buccs produced an overwhelming 'now'. This season is done. Really, the season was done last week, but any hope vanished tonight, both with the loss and, more importantly, the ridiculously poor performance. This team can't do anything. Will they win even four games this season? I'm not even sure they'll beat the Rams when the go to St. Louis.

I have to say I'm especially disappointed with Seneca Wallace's performance. Maybe I think too highly of him. Maybe Deion Branch and Nate Burleson are much better than we (I) gave them credit for. I guess it could be that these receivers are awful (and if that's the case, why not play Jordan Kent? And why did we give up a fifth-round pick if Colbert isn't going to do anything?). I've loved Wallace as a backup since his 2006 performance and his projected growth since then. There's a great chance he'll start a couple more games, and I really wanted to see him come up big. But it looks like he's become infected with whatever has got into every other Seahawk player.

I guess it's time to start projecting the Mora era.

Bad Team

2008-10-12T17:58:00.000-07:00

John Morgan, FieldGulls:

Five games in, I have no rational hope for this team. Something has invaded this organization, its coaching, its talent, its management, that has poisoned it to its core. It's no longer a matter of a good team underachieving, this is a bad team playing to form.

It's true. The Seahawks aren't a good team playing poorly. They're a poor team.

Five games in, I have no rational hope for this team. Something has invaded this organization, its coaching, its talent, its management, that has poisoned it to its core. It's no longer a matter of a good team underachieving, this is a bad team playing to form.

During the third preseason game Mike Tirico made a comment (which I objected to) about how the team might respond if a (god forbid!) 2-3 start were to happen. Well, we're here. Actually, we're worse. And if this continues for another couple of games (at Tampa, at a surprisingly-explosive San Francisco, home vs. Philadelphia), the Seahawks will be in a position where the reasonable response will be to start planning for next year. With as bad as the Seahawks have been playing, and with Hasselbeck potentially out for a long time, it's not unreasonable to think the Seahawks will be 1-7 after eight games. At that point, the unfortunately-there elephant in the room - Holmgren's final season - will have to be addressed.

I'll hold off on the 'what to keep, what to toss' post (or set of posts) until there's nothing else to write about. For now, I just hope Holmgren can find a way to go out with his head up.

Let's Be Real...

2008-10-12T17:06:00.000-07:00

The Seahawks aren't making the playoffs.

The last chance the Seahawks had vanished when the Cardinals blocked a punt to win in overtime, and that last chance would have been due only to the ineptitude of other NFC West teams. The Seahawks would have had a sliver of a chance only because Arizona would have shown they couldn't get out of their own way. Now, Arizona has a pair of big wins over Buffalo and Dallas. They're a full two games ahead of the second place, 2-4 49ers, whom they also have a win over. Barring and injury-riddled collapse, the Cardinals have this division locked up. I've already posited that the Seahawks have no chance at a wildcard spot, but I'll hammer home the point now:

The NFC East has three teams with four wins and a fourth team, Dallas, with three wins.
The NFC North has three teams with three wins.
The NFC South has three teams with four wins and a fourth team, my preseason dark horse New Orleans, with three wins.

That's ten teams with three or more wins, of which seven will be fighting for two wildcard spots. The NFC is incredibly strong this year. I was shocked when I looked at the divisional standings. Ten teams are at least two games better than the Seahawks. You know what else that means? It means the Seahawks have a horrible record.

Who else is in the one-win club? Cleveland. Houston. Oakland. Kansas City. St. Louis. Seattle.

Right now, the Seahawks have a better shot at a top-10 pick than they do the playoffs. Depressing...

Be Careful What You Wish For

2008-10-10T16:04:00.001-07:00

Somewhere, in some dark corner of my brain, I'm sure I found myself wishing, after watching their obvious chemistry, that Charlie Frye would get a chance to throw to Jordan Kent in a real game. Those two were a money combo in the second and third preseason games.

Well, now it's starting to sound like Hasselbeck won't be playing Sunday. Seneca Wallace is already out with a reaggravation of his calf injury. So, if Matt can't go, Charlie Frye gets to step up.

Yikes.

So, what's the potential bright side of this? I have a few.

Above all else, everybody on the team, offense, defense, and special teams, steps up their game to compensate. I don't know if this means better preparation, better focus, or just giving that much more effort than they otherwise would have.
On a similar note, use the loss of your leader as a point to rally the team around. Thank goodness this is a home game.
Establish the running game from the start. Holmgren (probably) won't feel comfortable coming out with his normal plan, and instead tries to run the ball down the throat of the Packers (who have given up 100-yard rushing games in four of their five games). Let Julius Jones carry this team.
With a greater focus on the run, both by the Seahawks and the Packers, there should be plenty of extra space for the Seahawks receivers to get open.

It's going to be a tough game, and without Hasselbeck the Seahawks are probably an underdog, even at home. But, the Packers are equally banged up, and if, say, Aaron Rodgers gets knocked, the Seahawks could feast on Matt Flynn.

Sometimes it's just not your year, and if the Seahawks lose this game it's probably Not Their Year. Hell, even if they win it may not be their year. Realistically the Seahawks probably have to win this game and the Tampa game, and then the 49ers game before the season is no longer on life support. Time to cheer extra-hard.

The Curse of Forsett is Lifted!

2008-10-09T14:59:00.000-07:00

Justin Forsett was signed to the Seahawks practice squad today. All is right in the world again, and the Seahawks will go on to win their next 12 games and ride the momentum all the way to a Super Bowl championship.

On a more serious note, there had to be some bad vibes around the team, certainly among the running backs, when Forsett was lost to the Colts. At the same time Jordan Kent was cut while Courtney Taylor was kept. I know it was wishful thinking on the behalf of the coaches, but it's obvious to all of us in hindsight that Taylor wasn't ready for the job. I'm wondering if there weren't rumblings in the locker room about favoritism? This is certainly on a much smaller scale than the favoritism shown to Shaun Alexander, but the underlying principle is enough rub some players the wrong way. As much as I love having Holmgren as the coach of the Seahawks, he does have a few flaws, one of which him letting his affection for players get in the way of playing the best players.

So, Kent is back but may not play, and Forsett is back but definitely won't play, but I think whether they play is insignificant compared to the lightening of spirits that will follow the return of these two hard-working young players.

I Just Found a Reason to Watch Sunday's Game

2008-10-07T17:59:00.000-07:00

First, I'll qualify that statement. Other than Sunday or Monday night games, maybe two Seahawk games get televised in LA each season. Last weekend was one such lucky (or unlucky) weekend. For the remaining weekends I have to decide whether I want to spend the $20 (more if I treat my girlfriend for coming with me) to sit at a sports bar for three hours to watch the game. Some weekends, even if I have nothing else going on, it's just not worth it. This weekend's game was one I was on the fence about. Then, courtesy of Mike Sando, I learn that Jordan Kent has been signed. Awesome. I don't know much about evaluating football talent but I do know this: Jordan Kent caught passes, which more than can be said for Courtney Taylor, who incidentally was the player released in favor of Kent.

So, this means Kent is playing this weekend, right? Well, after thinking for a moment, not necessarily. It only means Holmgren wants to retain the option of activating, and possibly playing, Kent. Still, that speaks to progress - or a serious regression by Courtney Taylor. What a fall from grace.

Another interesting tidbit from Sando - the Colts released Justin Forsett. Huh. So, if the Seahawks initially wanted him on the practice squad, they'd put a claim in for him now, right? I mean, has anything changed since he was lost to the Colts? I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying...

Anyway, what I like best about signing Kent, and maybe this is just me, but Kent brings excitement to the game. He brings an extra 'gamer' element, which is something that could be used on game day. I haven't heard much reporting about Kent since he was cut, but last I heard he wasn't learning Deion Branch's position. Courtney Taylor was, but he obviously hadn't learned it enough. Kent is so inexperienced that I wouldn't expect he would be inserted for Branch in this game. So who fills in for Branch at flanker? Colbert? Engram has filled in at one or both of the outside receiver spots before, so maybe move him outside with Bumpus in the slot? Or use two tight ends with Carson in the slot? As for split end, it'll be between Robinson, McMullen, or Kent. I'm tired of McMullen - he was a good story in the Rams game, but otherwise he's hurt more than helped. If Kent doesn't play because Robinson is healthy enough to go, I'd be fine with that.

The Defense as a Whole

2008-10-06T14:34:00.001-07:00

I'm not sure why I decided to single-out Julian Peterson first, because the defense as a whole failed miserably yesterday. I'm not the best person to give advice as to where to defense should go from here, but I'll talk about where to go because I can't get it out of my head.

Somewhere (FieldGulls? SeahawkAddicts?) I heard the suggestion of putting Hobbs in as the starting corner opposite Trufant. What's the worse that could happen? (Snark alert) The current starting right corner is already getting torched. Hobbs looked great in preseason (I know, it's preseason, I don't really care right now), and Wilson is more of a nickel corner (or so I've read).

Of course, if we're shaking up the secondary, Brian Russell should probably be benched too. Babineaux? I guess if I'm looking for something different, sure, try him there instead. Could we put C.J. Wallace at strong safety and move Grant to Free Safety? I'd be up for trying that.

Tapp is really starting to look like a second-round bust. That guy can't get any pressure off of right end. I'd love to suggest playing Lawrence Jackson inside a-la Justin Tuck (they're nearly identical in size, btw) to aid in the pass rush, but Tapp is hardly reliable as his backup. Jason Babin was getting great pressure in the preseason, so we had to cut him. Meanwhile Baraka Atkins has zero tackles in four games. I don't even know which games he's been active.

Sigh.... this is just a day full of rants.

Julian Peterson

2008-10-06T13:50:00.000-07:00

I was about to write a post (which will appear later) that started with "I don't have much more to add on top of what I wrote yesterday," and then I started thinking about the game and I immediately came up with a bunch of things to add. I'll keep this post limited to some thoughts on Julian Peterson.

On two consecutive plays early in yesterday's game, Julian Peterson literally bounced off Brandon Jacobs while trying to tackle him. Dude is supposed to be a pro-bowl linebacker and he's bouncing off a running back like a superball.

Tim Ruskell is all about building a smallish defense built around speed, and Peterson is perfectly representative of this. I watched the Pittsburgh-Jacksonville game last night. Every time I watch the Steelers play I come away amazed at the size of their linebackers. I know they run a 3-4, so their linebackers have to be a little bigger, but the difference is beyond noticeable to the naked eye. The Steelers' linebackers are built. The two outside linebackers for the Steelers average 6'1", 258 lbs. Peterson, a 4-3 outside linebacker, is 6'4", 240 lbs, and is skinny as hell. How is he supposed to take down a 265 lbs back like Jacobs? Exactly - he doesn't.

Peterson's smallness may be sticking out more due to the (horrendous) play the Seahawks are getting out of their right defensive end, but I'm starting to get tired of seeing Peterson unable to tackle running backs and tight ends. I know he gets a bunch of sacks each year, but that shouldn't be a reason to inflate his value. I would much rather have the linebackers focus on making tackles and let the ends pile up the sacks. Again, the right ends aren't doing squat, but if they were the Seahawks wouldn't have to rely on a smallish outside linebacker to produce pressure, probably at the expense of overall tackling ability, specifically in stopping the run.

I know Peterson got a huge six-year contract, and hopefully it's front-loaded, as it would be a shame to lose Hill because too much money is already committed to an aging (31 at the start of the 2009 season), undersized veteran with a large contract.

No Longer Watching the Seahawks Game

2008-10-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

Not by choice though. The game was such a blowout that Fox switched to the Eagles-Redskins game. I would have liked to have watched Seneca Wallace play, but at that point it's like watching a preseason game. Of course I would have watched to the bitter end (how often do I get to watch Seahawks games in my living room?) but Fox just put me out of my misery. Now I have a chance to watch some competitive games.

So, let's get onto some quick thoughts about the three quarters I did see:

The Giants are a damn good team. I didn't really believe it until I watched them in this game. From a pure win-loss perspective, there's no shame in losing to the Giants in the Meadowlands. (There is, however, shame in losing by 40 points to anybody. The Giants treated the Seahawks like the Seahawks treated the Rams. Ouch).

Deion Branch left the game with another injury. Deion is a great guy, and a good weapon when healthy, but this guy doesn't stay healthy. Did he have problems staying healthy in New England? The sad truth is that the Seahawks' receiving situation is completely handicapped by Branch's contract and his potential. He's like D.J. Hackett only three-times as expensive.

But, on the flip side, the only receivers with meaningful receptions in this game were Branch and Engram. McMullen is awful. Daryl Johnston spotlighted a horribly-run route by McMullen early in the game, where in jogging out of his route he allowed the defensive back to break up the completion, which I believe would have been a third-down conversion otherwise. McMullen was pulled off the scrap heap of unsigned receivers for a reason.

Where was John Carlson? I'm not even sure if I saw him targeted. That's just good defense I guess, but with a dearth of good receivers Carlson needs to be a reliable target.

Kelly Jennings has regressed. Or maybe there's enough game film on him that offensive play-callers know how to attack him. Whatever the case he's become an absolute liability, especially on deep passes. I don't know how this can be fixed, but it is currently the greatest weakness on defense, and opposing teams are exploiting it every week.

Lastly, I know I said this game was house money.... but the Seahawks did lose something today - hopes of beating any NFC East team in the playoffs. At least, if the playoffs were to start next week, the Seahawks wouldn't be able to be, well, pretty much any NFC playoff team. Of course, at 1-3, if the playoffs started today, the Seahawks wouldn't even be in the playoffs. At this point, I'm still not worried about the Seahawks having a chance to make the playoffs - this game wasn't supposed to be a win, and ultimately it will be all about beating Arizona twice. But this loss is certainly demoralizing. I'm much less confident about the Seahawks chances against the Packers next week, what with Aaron Rodgers looking good this week and the Packers coming in off a tough home loss.

Thoughts on the Giants Game - Preview Edition

2008-10-03T16:54:00.000-07:00

My girlfriend is an east-coaster. I, obviously, am a west-coaster. We like to argue about which coast is better, and there are pluses and minuses to each, of course. One of the huge pluses to living on the west coast is that I get NFL games at 10am on Sunday mornings. This Sunday will be one of the lucky occasions where I get the Seahawks at 10am in my living room.

I'm looking at this game like gambling with house money. What (besides more injuries) can the Seahawks lose? Conventional wisdom around the league is that the Giants are one of the best, if not the best, teams in the league. The Seahawks started horribly, and have already shown this year that they don't travel to the east coast well. I haven't seen a single pundit pick the Seahawks, and really, I can't expect any of them to. Hell, in my pick 'em leagues I'm picking the Giants. The Seahawks should have no business winning this game.

So, what happens if they lose? I initially ranked this game as the third-most difficult game of the season, and it has to be more difficult than a home game against the Brady-less Patriots. Regardless of what the Seahawks record is now, regardless of their division or conference standings, unless they were thinking this game was going to be the difference between 15-1 or 14-2, this wasn't a game that they had to win to get into the playoffs. Now, the 49ers game at home was one they had to win, and now they have to make up for it, but this Giants game isn't that. The game at Tampa, or home vs. Philadelphia, those are the tough games they now have to win to make up for the loss to the 49ers. This game, again, is house money.

Regardless of the final score, if the Seahawks come away from the game without a major injury, they can't be worse off than they are today. Perhaps you can argue that a Rams-style blowout would put them in a worse place in terms of confidence and momentum, but horrible losses can be put in the rear-view mirror.

But think of what a win would do. First, in terms of wins and losses, it would be an absolute steal and would completely make up for the 49ers loss. It will make the trips to Tampa, Miama, and maybe Dallas, easier from the standpoint of having confidence in travelling east. Maybe most important of all, a win would go a large way towards writing off the first two losses to injuries - to the receivers, to Locklear, to Morris. It would put the Seahawk right back on track as the favorite in the NFC West, and give them a ton of momentum going into a home game against a beat-up Packers team.

House money. That means no worries when watching on Sunday.

Watching the Injuries Pile Up

2008-09-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-28T11:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-25T16:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T08:27:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-09-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

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:

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
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

2008-09-22T22:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-22T15:16:00.000-07:00

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:

The Seahawks won.
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

2008-09-19T17:08:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-18T15:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-12T14:23:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-10T14:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-09T16:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-08T21:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-08T19:46:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-08T06:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-06T23:14:00.001-07:00

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

2008-09-04T10:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Vacation Time! Blogging resumes next wednesday

2008-08-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

Respect For Seattle's Five Playoff Births in Five Years

2008-08-27T01:16:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-27T00:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-26T18:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-26T06:59:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T23:13:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T22:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T22:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T21:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-25T21:20:00.000-07:00

Three straight promising plays:

Frye shows poise and gets rid of the ball.
Jones fights for an extra four or so yards.
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

2008-08-25T21:06:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-25T15:56:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-22T21:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-21T21:34:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-08-20T07:31:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-19T22:48:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-19T12:12:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-18T22:28:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-17T16:10:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-17T15:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-15T14:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-13T22:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-12T13:58:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-10T14:50:00.000-07:00

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:

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:
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

2008-08-10T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-09T21:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-08T14:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-08T14:02:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-08T11:53:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-07T12:17:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-07T11:45:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-06T21:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-06T15:47:00.000-07:00

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...

Random Non-Seahawks Topic - Browns vs. Steelers

2008-08-05T14:00:00.000-07:00

I've seen similar sentiments many places, but this post from TheBigLead pushed me just far enough to write about how the Browns compare to the Steelers. TheBigLead has the most egregious rankings disparity (Steelers fourth, Browns nineteenth), but the major sites I've checked out have them even or with the Steelers slightly better (Fox, ESPN, CBS). My sense is that the Browns are rightly ranked in the 10-12 range, while the Steelers need to be put closer to 15 than 5. Why so?

As a baseline, from the end of last season, the two teams were roughly equal, both finishing 10-6 (the Steelers got the division title via having a better record against divisional opponents). Pittsburgh swept the season series, but that stat is a bit misleading - their game in the season opener was the sole Charlie Frye start, and their week nine game in Pittsburgh required a fairly significant comeback by the Steelers for the win. The eye-test reveals the teams were roughly equal. As far as the records go, Cleveland played a fourth-place schedule while Pittsburgh got a second place schedule, translating into games with Oakland and Houston vs. Denver and Jacksonville. Alright, edge Steelers. If the preseason rankings were to be based on last year's performance, then the Steelers should rightly be a few spots ahead of the Browns.

But this is about this year. The teams have changed.

Cleveland picked up a pair of massive defensive tackles, Corey Williams and Shaun Rogers. They added Donte Stallworth as another receiving threat. Yes, they need a corner (or three), but overall they've improved.

Pittsburgh lost Alan Faneca. Two words: Steve Hutchinson. I saw first-hand what losing a premier left guard will do to an offensive line. According to Scouts Inc., the Steelers have the 24th-ranked offensive line now. And the Browns? Number one. That's not even in the same ballpark. Rashard Mendenhall is a nice draft pick, and he'll tandem nicely with Willie Parker, but a running back will only be as good as the line blocking for him. (Seahawks note: The Hawks are ranked 26th. Ouch). On the defensive side, Pro Bowl nose tackle Casey Hampton has reported to camp so overweight that he isn't being allowed to practice.

One of these teams is going in the right direction. The other is going in the wrong direction.

Finally, let's look at the schedules. All AFC North teams have a brutal schedule this year, having to play all of the teams from the two toughest divisions, the AFC South and the NFC East. However, both have identical home and road match-ups with those opponents. Wash. Of course divisional match-ups are identical, so the only difference between the schedules are the games dictated by their 2007 final division standings. Pittsburgh, with a first-place schedule, gets games against San Diego and at New England. Cleveland, meanwhile, with a second-place schedule, gets games against Denver and at Buffalo. Which set of games would you rather your team have?

In the end, all that is relevant about this match-up is who will win the AFC North. Their schedules are so difficult that the best they can reasonably hope for is a three-seed from winning their division. And with all other games being equal, their seasons essentially come down to their two head-to-head match-ups and the two games that differ between their schedules. At best Pittsburgh will match records in the two differing games, and it would be reasonable for those games to result in a two-game difference. The first head-to-head match-up is in week two in Cleveland. That game will either big Cleveland a slight lead or Pittsburgh a huge lead. And the second comes in the last game of the season. That will be a great game.

If it isn't obvious from the post, I am biased in favor of the Browns, and way against the Steelers, but I tried to structure the arguments so that they came from an objective thought-process (even if my tone didn't). This will be a fun, completely-unrelated-to-the-Seahawks match-up to follow.

Thoughts on the Hall of Fame Game

2008-08-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

From Colin Cowherd's show yesterday, TV ratings for sporting events on Sunday:

X Games (ABC): 1.2
Sunday Night Baseball (ESPN): 1.9
Hall of Fame game (NBC): 5.4

Looks like I'm not the only one ready for some football.

You can't take much from preseason games, especially ones this early, as far as team performance, but you can look at individual performances.

Jason Campbell looked sharp. Jim Zorn is going to be missed by the Seahawks, but not nearly as much as he's going to be appreciated this first year by the Redskins offense. Zorn is apparently the Redskins head coach, offensive coordinator, and quarterbacks coach. Sounds like a lot, but the NBC commentators noted that Zorn is leaving the run game to the offensive line coach. I assume Zorn will be doing the play calling, which means he still has plenty of responsibilities on his plate, but allowing him to focus on quarterback development and the passing game will be huge for the Redskins.
Speaking of developing Redskins quarterbacks, Colt Brennan looked great. Keep him as the second or third quarter back for five years and Zorn can probably develop him into a nice starter.
Mike Hart looked great, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if he contributes to the Colts this year. Sure, he was playing against the third team defense, but he still ran great. I just looked up his player page - I didn't realize he was so small - 5'9", 195. That's just barely bigger than Justin Forsett.
Quinn Gray looked awful. So did Jared Lorenzen. The Colts have kept only two quarterbacks in recent seasons, but are thinking of keeping a third as Manning is having knee problems. What's the point of keeping a third if it's going to be one of those two? Lorenzen is just a circus act, and the Colts should know how bad Gray can be, given how he single-handedly gave the Colts a win while playing for the Jags, what with his zero touchdown, two interception, 11.1 QB rating performance on Monday night.

Upcoming preseason games:
Thursday, 8/7 - Saints at Cardinals, 5:00 pm Pacific, ESPN
Friday, 8/8 - 49ers at Raiders, 7:00 pm Pacific, KTLA (somehow the Raiders games get broadcast here in LA)
Monday, 8/11 - Bengals at Packers, 5:00 pm Pacific, ESPN

A Tail of Two Practice Squaders (cont.)

2008-08-04T12:40:00.000-07:00

Finishing up my thoughts on some practice squaders, Justin Forsett seems to be making quite an impression with his energy and work ethic. When he was drafted in the seventh round this year, I thought he'd end up as a fun story with no shot at the NFL. The typical Forsett analysis: He's too small. I completely bought into it, and I should have known better, given that Tim Ruskell is building this team. Turns out Forsett is the high-motor, high-character (assuming this one - haven't heard any bad stories, and he certainly hasn't been involved in any hit-and-runs like certain other Cal running backs) player that Ruskell loves, and that other teams tend to pass on because of their size.

I love what Ruskell has done with the defense, which was built with 'undersized' players like Tatupu, Mebane, Tapp, and Jennings, just to name a few. But can that philosophy work just as well on offense, especially at running back, where speed can only get you so far (see Bush, Reggie)? On the other hand, Ruskell also signed T.J. Duckett, who is monstrous. This comes from the other Ruskell trend - signing former Falcons and Buccaneers players that had played for him previously.

So, where does Forsett fit in? The consensus is that if five running backs are kept, those five will be Jones, Morris, Weaver, Duckett, and Schmidt. I would be surprised if six running backs were kept, as virtually every other position group will be fighting to keep an additional player (see receivers previously, safeties below). I could even see only four running backs kept if Duckett learns enough of the fullback duties to allow Schmidt to spend a year on the practice squad. But Forsett isn't competing with the fullbacks for a roster spot, with the possible exception of Schmidt being redundant. For the most part, Forsett would fill the same role as Morris.

Would the Seahawks cut Morris (5'11", 216) in favor of Forsett (5'8", 190)? I doubt it. Morris has the most experience of any of the running backs, knows the system, and, most importantly, Holmgren knows what he has with Morris, even if that known is limited at being a number two, change of pace back. Forsett could have additional value as a punt/kick returner, but the Seahawks already have a bunch of other potential returners, so I don't know how much of that value would be realized. My guess is the Seahawks would like to stash Forsett on the practice squad for a year and then let him take over Morris's spot next year should they choose not to resign Morris. I'm keeping my fingers crossed he makes it onto the practice squad.

Quickly, there's now a third practice squader I've taken an interest in - Jamar Adams, an undrafted safety out of Michigan. Word was that he was once considered a second- or third-round pick before he slipped all the way out of the draft. Huh. Jim Mora was plenty excited that the Seahawks were able to pick him up, and Adams has shown potential in camp. The Seattle P.I. has an article about the Seahawks maybe keeping nine defensive backs, rather than their normal eight. I really need to find Sando's roster analysis for historical trends by position group so that I can make better-informed statements about roster spots. Anyway, Adams is pushing, and I'm going to keep an eye on him.

A Tail of Two Practice Squaders

2008-08-03T19:36:00.001-07:00

I'm referring to Logan Payne and Justin Forsett, of course.

I've been following the competition between the four young receivers, and the official word is that Taylor, Obomanu, Payne, and Kent are in a dead heat. (I'm serious about the official part - Holmgren said as much on Friday with Mitch). Off the record, it's sounding like Courtney Taylor is the leader in the clubhouse. Unfortunately he's had some hamstring trouble so he hasn't yet been able to absolutely pull away. But who will end up as the number three receiver isn't what I'm all that interested in, mainly because Deion Branch will ultimately return and push everybody down a notch. What I'm interested in is who will be the sixth receiver. Why? Because there's a good chance the Seahawks will keep only six, with number seven making it to the practice squad... assuming another team doesn't sign him to their active roster.

I've been pulling for Logan Payne to make the active roster, and after much thought I've come to the conclusion that he's probably the odd man out, which sounds crazy given his performance in training camp. But how does he get picked ahead of any of the following:

Courtney Taylor, as I said above, is the best of the bunch. He has usable talent now with an upside surpassed only by Jordan Kent.
Speaking of, Kent has raw athleticism that simply can't be taught. He's big, fast, and can jump. He may not be ready this year, but he could well be ready next year, and more than any of the other four there's a big risk another team will sign him if he's cut for the practice squad.
Ben Obomanu has an extra year of experience over the other three (I may be wrong about this part, but he may no longer be eligible for the practice squad), and may be the most game-ready of all.

Payne is great story, but is he any more valuable than the other three? I also think Payne could be the easiest to get back on the practice squad. I'm getting the feeling this isn't Payne's year. Plus, the broken rib from the scrimmage didn't help.

Back in a bit for Justin Forsett.

Competition: Minnesota Vikings

2008-07-30T22:15:00.000-07:00

Have I mentioned I'm completely geeked for the football season to start? So geeked that I'm going to drive to Oxnard this weekend to see the Dallas Cowboys practice. So geeked that I'm going to sit through the entire Hall of Fame game this Sunday, knowing full well Peyton Manning won't play a single down. So geeked that I paid $2.99 each for four NFL network game replays from iTunes. And you know what? It was totally worth it.

I watched the Redskins playoff game. I'd forgotten how much of the scoring happened at the very end. But, nothing much relevant from that game, other than wondering how Jim Zorn will fair in his first year coaching them. I also watched the Bears game. Man, it's nice watching the Bears lose. It was weird watching Cedric Benson just go off against Seattle's run defense. Dude isn't on a team now.

So, what does all of this have to do with the Vikings?

The one player that really torched the Seahawks was Bernard Berrian. His game stats weren't eye-popping (9 receptions for 102 yards), but he repeatedly made clutch plays, and had one amazing catch of a ball thrown well behind him. (Grossman threw a number of balls behind his receivers. Dude sucks). And, of course, Berrian is now on the Vikings. I didn't think that was such a big signing for them until I rewatched this game. Granted Berrian had his best game of the season against the Seahawks, but if that's his upside, it just makes the Vikings that much more scary.

It's kind of ironic that I lead into the Vikings with the Bears, because I can see a bit of the 2006 Bears in the 2008 Vikings: A two-headed monster at running back, a great offensive line, Berrian, a (maybe?) great defense... and a big-ol' question at quarterback. That's a formula that took the Bears to the Super Bowl, at which point the clock struck midnight for Grossman and he tossed the game away with two bad-decision interceptions.

(I should point out that I dislike the Vikings much the way I dislike the Bears. They jacked Hutchinson from us after the 2005 season, and then further wrecked the 2006 season when E.J. Henderson rolled-up Hasselbeck's knee. I'll forever believe was done at least wishfully, if not completely on purpose.)

Still, they got to the Super Bowl. I've got to believe that if the Vikings end the year by losing in the Super Bowl, the 2008 season has to be considered a success. The Seahawks don't play the Vikings in the regular season (though they do play them in the first preseason game), and that's perfectly fine with me. The Vikings have a chance to be scary good, and will almost certainly be in the running for the NFC North title.

Notes from SI.com's Seahawks Preview

2008-07-29T10:41:00.000-07:00

Start off with the link. It's unfortunately that Peter King isn't stopping at Seahawks camp, just because I enjoy his writing. I'm not familiar with Jim Trotter (looks like he was signed away from a San Diego newspaper last year), but the article seemed well written, so good start, Jim.

Here's a stat about Seattle's 2007 running game that I hadn't heard before, but was not at all surprised about:

Percentage-wise in 2007, the unit ranked first in negative rushes (15.8) and last in third-and-1 conversions (45.8). The league average in the latter was 71.6.

I'd like to know what the breakdown was for each running back, which of course means I'd like to know how poorly Shaun Alexander ran. He always seemed to get caught behind the line of scrimmage. Yes, the offensive line shares the blame, and overall there was a negative synergy between Alexander and the line that produced results worse than the sum of the parts. The league average on third-and-1 was 71.6%. The Seahawks were 25 percentage points worse. I guess that's what T.J. Duckett was signed for. We'll check back in on those numbers at mid-season and see how we've progressed.

Although he's not participating in team workouts, Branch has looked surprisingly strong during rehab sessions. On Monday morning he ran, cut and moved laterally without signs of discomfort during agility drills.

I wasn't too worried about missing Deion Branch for a significant part of the season until one of the newspaper blogs pointed out that Hasselbeck has a special (game) relationship with Branch, similar to what he had with Darryl Jackson, that he doesn't have with Burleson or any of the young receivers. And then I got hooked watching nfl.com videos yesterday and came across a couple of beautiful connections between Hasselbeck and Branch:

Week 3 against the Bengals (1:13 in)
Week 4 against the 49ers (1:11)
Week 14 against the Cardinals (0:26 and 1:10)

Damn. Actually, it's crucial that we get Deion Branch back as a top target. I know he won't be 100% at the start of the season - players can play again a year after an ACL tear, but it always takes two before they're completely back. With luck, Branch can be close to 100% by the end of the season, when it counts.

On the Radar: Carolina Panthers

2008-07-28T19:23:00.000-07:00

The Carolina Panthers had a tough 2007 season, losing Jake Delhomme early and struggling to a 7-9 record. This year they're being passed over in favor of the Saints as the sheik team to beat the Buccaneers for the NFC South. But they just may become the sheik sleeper of 2008.

I was listening to a preview of the Panthers on one of my football podcasts and it was mentioned that Jonathan Stewart had been drafted by the Panthers. I already knew that, but hearing it that time made something in my head go 'click': Wow, the Panthers are stocked at the skill positions on offense.

QB: Delhomme - If he can stay healthy he's a poor-man's Hasselbeck at worst.
RB: Stewart, DeAngelo Williams - Really, it's all about Stewart being the next Stephen Jackson.
WR: Steve Smith, former Hawk D.J. Hackett, Muhsin Muhammed, Dwayne Jarrett

Nothing much from the tight end spot, but there are a ton of weapons there. I don't know much about their offensive line, but I do know that they've invested a bunch of money in their two tackles (that was probably the reason Mike Wahle was cut) and drafted Jeff Otah in the first round. What does that say about the line? Not sure. But their offense could be really good.

So, the question, besides can Delhomme (and Hackett) stay healthy, is will the defense be any good? They've got Julius Peppers. The only other guy I recognize is Ken Lucas, so I'll just have to wait and see. If they have a bad defense, they could be the Bengals of 2007. If they have a decent (or better) defense, they could be the Bengals of 2005.

Mike Solari at the Combine

2008-07-28T15:23:00.000-07:00

Somehow I got routed to nfl.com from espn.com and I found my way into the video section. Over the last two season or so, nfl.com has really improved their online video selection. There's a ton from the offseason that I'm going to need to watch at some point, and I'll probably watch the highlights to each game last season to refresh on easily the Seahawks could have been 6-10 (or 13-3).

This time, though, I'm going to post a link to Mike Solari talking about offensive line drills at the NFL combine. Line play is the area of the game I (understandably) know least about, so I found this video interesting and a little educational with regards to what coaches are referring to when they talk about footwork and other fundamentals for their offensive linemen.

More Training Camp

2008-07-27T22:04:00.000-07:00

Following up on some earlier thoughts...

I was wondering where Josh Wilson was...

Williams: Cornerback Kevin Hobbs continues to play well, and at 6-0, 200 pounds is a big corner who can match up with bigger receivers. However, Josh Wilson seems to have responded to the competition and has made some nice plays during 7-on-7 and team drills.

More Williams: Josh Wilson continues to impress, making a couple nice plays and deflecting balls in pass coverage.

And how 'bout a Logan Payne update?

Williams: Payne has caught everything, runs good routes and also would be a solid addition to the receiving core. It will be interesting to see who makes plays during team drills this morning.

Big dose of Farnsworth: In the race between "the young guys" for those fourth, fifth and sixth roster spots, the show of hands by the second-year wide receiver is starting to tilt things toward his favor.
Payne, just as he did as a rookie last summer, is catching just about everything thrown in his direction. In the full-team drill that concluded practice, he made impressive catches on passes thrown by each of the top three QBs.
Cornerback Kevin Hobbs stripped a ball thrown by Seneca Wallace from Payne's grasp, but he double-caught the ball as he was falling to the turf. Then, he got open coming across the middle to take a pass from Hasselbeck. On the third, Payne went down to get a low throw that Charlie Frye put where only Payne could get it.

I love what I'm hearing.

Lastly, John Morgan of Fieldgulls.com made a great observation about Mike Solari's impact on the offensive line's health:

Solari was the Kansas City Chief's line coach from 1997-2005. His offensive lines enjoyed absolutely remarkable health. In 1997, KC's starting offensive line started 79 of 80 contests. The one missed start was not because injury, but a last shot of redemption in week one for first round bust Trazelle Jenkins. In 2002, 2003, Solari's linemen didn't miss a single start. That near-invincible standard existed throughout Solari's time as offensive line coach in Kansas City.

I'm not sure how much preventative measures can be taken for Spencer's shoulders (since he's already on shaky ground), but keeping the rest of the line healthy, especially Walter Jones, will be huge.

I'll be back later with thoughts on the Vikings and Panthers.

Early Training Camp - Part 2

2008-07-27T20:15:00.000-07:00

I made a list of all of the topics to touch on for my first training camp post and ended up doing only half of them with the previous post. As it turned out, the only topics that were left revolved around the running back.

I'm in the group that isn't going to miss Shaun Alexander. He probably would have had a better year behind a line with Mike Wahle, coached by Mike Solari, but that assumes he had stayed healthy, which he hadn't over the previous two seasons, and that those injuries were what affected his numbers, not that he had hit 30 years-old and was experiencing what most running back do at-or-around 30 - a significant drop off in production. Alexander was a major risk on both of those levels and it made sense to replace him.

Alexander's true replacement will be Julius Jones. What are some reasonable expectations for Jones?

Stay healthy
At least 4.0 yards/carry
Be a viable pass-catcher out of the backfield
Be a good enough pass-blocker to be in on third downs.

Health... we'll just have to see. Jones turns 27 just before the season starts. That's prime age for health.

Sando: The Seahawks have not yet committed to Julius Jones as their starting running back, but if he is indeed the favorite, Maurice Morris can't afford to make the decision easier. That thought came to mind as Morris dropped an easy pass roughly 10 yards downfield. A short time later, Jones made a catch over his left shoulder despite tight coverage from linebacker David Hawthorne.

Farnsworth: (Jones) has looked quick and explosive as a runner and sure-handed as an outlet receiver.

More Farnsworth: Hasselbeck dump(ed) the ball off to running back Julius Jones when all his downfield receivers were covered. It might sound like a nondescript effort, but it was significant because Jones caught the ball and then darted up the field. That wasn't always the case when the dump-off target was Shaun Alexander, the back Jones was signed to replace.

Hugh Millen of KJR has great stats as to how little Alexander caught passes in the 2005-2007 seasons. If don't have the numbers available (though if you listen to Hugh he'll repeat them every so often), but the gist was that Alexander was one of the least productive running backs at pass-catching. From my observations, the most productive offenses are the ones where their running backs are check-down threat (Tomlinson in San Diego, Addai in Indianapolis, Maroney/Faulk in New England, just to name a few). Morris could catch passes, but he doesn't have the special 'it' (athleticism?) to be a feature back. Jones could be.

Holmgren says he wants Mo Morris to share duties, but I'd be surprised if Jones didn't get at least 60% of the carries, if not 75%. Last year Seattle had 430 rushing attempts. That number is probably a little lower than average given that Holmgren moved to a pass-heavy offense after the Cleveland game last year. In the previous four years (2003-2006) the Seahawks had 453, 468, 519 (Alexander's MVP year), and 484 rush attempts. The average of those five years is roughly 470 carries, which sounds like a reasonable estimate for 2008. Of those, say Jones gets 300 carries. At 4.0 yards a carry, Jones would end the season with 1200 yards. That's a nice goal number that encapsulates both health and run production.

As for pass blocking...

Williams: Julius Jones picked up linebacker Wesley Mallard on an inside blitz with an audible thud, something usually unseen from a halfback around here.

All good on the Jones front.

I mentioned taking a liking to Logan Payne because of his underdog status during last year's training camp. Justin Forsett is becoming the equivalent for this year's camp.

Sando: Rookie running back Justin Forsett, 5-foot-8 and 194 pounds, can be hard to find out there -- for defenders as well as spectators. He's got some fight, too, at one point winning a tug-of-war for the ball with Lofa Tatupu on the other end. It looked as though Forsett surprised Tatupu with his strength.

He's a total long shot to make the active roster, barring Weaver, Duckett, or Owen Schmidt getting cut. He's probably too small to be effective on special teams coverage, and would have to really show something to move up as a punt/kick returner. What I've heard is that he works hard, and as such he's probably a good candidate for the practice squad. He won't make it onto the active roster until the logjam at running back breaks up. I'll be pulling for him, though.

And lastly, a fun thought from Clare Farnsworth:

Something I'd like to see on the first short-yardage situation in the preseason is rookie fullback Owen Schmitt lead-blocking for Duckett, who has nifty feet for a back his size. That would be 500 pounds of thundering thighs and churning legs slamming into the gut of the opposing defense.

That would be awesome.

Early Training Camp - Part 1

2008-07-26T15:40:00.000-07:00

So glad to see training finally start. It's such a tease that the NFL has a steady stream of news from free agency until June minicamps, then goes dark for about a month before training camps start. That's why the Favre-Packers story got blown up like it did - it expanded to fill the empty vacuum that was NFL news.

The best way to follow training camp are the blogs of reporters that attend the camp. I'm always searching for more, but here's what I follow:

Seahawks Insider - Tacoma News Tribune (Frank Hughes, occasionally Dave Boling)
Seahawks Blog - Seattle Times (Danny O'Neil)
Talkin' Hawks - Seattle P.I. (Clare Farnsworth)
NFC West - ESPN.com (Mike Sando)

There's a good amount of repetition when you read all of them, but that's not a bad thing - if two or three notice a player being exceptional (good or bad) they all reinforce each others opinion. (Of course, such shared opinions could just be due to conversations they have during and after practices...). Plus, each has unique anecdotes that make reading all worthwhile.

So, here are some observations taken from others' observations:

My greatest concern for the season is the potential for injury on the offensive line. Spencer's status is questionable at best, and Walter Jones is getting old. Chris Gray, Spencer's backup, is already old. The other standard backup is Pork Chop Womack, and he can't stay healthy. An offensive line could completely derail the potential of this season (see Rams, 2007).

Sando: Line coach Mike Solari and assistant line coach Mike DeBord stood out as difference makers during my two days at training camp. They appear thorough and efficient. If Solari is running a drill that requires only five linemen, DeBord works with the other linemen in another drill off to the side.
A defensive player told me he already sees signs of a more cohesive offensive line. He notices linemen getting to the linebackers and defensive backs more effectively. Two of Seattle's most important free-agent additions might be coaches.

More Sando: The Seahawks appear to be developing young offensive linemen more effectively with Mike Solari and Mike DeBord coaching the line. Reminder: Keep an eye on Mansfield Wrotto and Kyle Williams in the exhibition games.

Farnsworth: Steve Vallos continues to get some work at center. In fact, with Chris Spencer STILL out, last year's seventh-round pick was even spelling Chris Gray with the No. 1 line this morning. Vallos is in the hunt for a spot on the 53-man roster.
As for Mansfield Wrotto, I wrote about last year's fourth-round pick during the final minicamp. After showing next to nothing while working on the practice squad last season, Wrotto has looked more mobile and athletic this year. Unless something strange happens, he will be one the backups.

Boling: The offensive line coaching duo of Mike Solari and Mike DeBord will be the topic for a column soon, so I'm not going to use all my material, but the energy and coaching they bring should have a big impact.

I was very excited about the potential for our starters under the tutelage of Solari and DeBord. It never occurred to me that they would play a role in developing the younger linemen as well. I will definitely be watching lineplay in the preseason games.

Back during the OTAs Mike Holmgren hinted that the second corner spot would be up for grabs. When I first heard that, I assumed he meant Josh Wilson would be the main challenger. But apparently Kevin Hobbs is the corner that's made the jump.

Sando: Signed from Auburn in 2006, Hobbs flashed surprisingly impressive natural ability for a player undrafted out of college. The Seahawks signed him to the active roster late last season as Hobbs improved under new secondary coach Jim Mora. The trend has continued this offseason, creating a competitive situation. Hobbs holds a considerable size advantage over Jennings, but he's still the underdog in this race.

Williams: probably a long shot to make the opening day roster, Auburn product Kevin Hobbs looked good at cornerback. At 6-0, 188 pounds, Hobbs is a big corner who appears to have the lateral quickness to cover receivers on an island, and might push guys in front of him like Josh Wilson and Jordan Babineaux.

What happened to Josh Wilson? I didn't hear much from him last year, partly due to injury, but he was supposed to be the one to challenge Jennings, what with his amazing speed. Holmgren has said before that you can never have too many defensive backs, so if Hobbs has developed into serious NFL-caliber corner (and probably a cheap one, given he was an undrafted free agent last year), that can only be good. Wilson was a second round pick though. Step it up, big boy.

Speaking of undrafted free agents and recent Auburn grads, my favorite competition of the preseason will be among the young wide receivers. I have a particular affinity for Logan Payne, probably because I heard promising things about him last training camp but figured he'd get cut, then he somehow managed his way onto the practice squad and, ultimately, onto the active roster. But really, all I want is for one to step out of the potential phase and into the production phase. I want to see another D.J. Hackett - someone who just steps up and makes big plays.

Farnsworth: The leader among "the young guys" for that third spot is Courtney Taylor. He has been working in the No. 1 group with Burleson and Engram... (C)oach Mike Holmgren had to admonish Obomanu a couple of times on Friday for breaking off his route too quickly and then not being in the huddle when his grouping was up.
Logan Payne continues to not only catch just about everything thrown his way, he gets open. Payne doesn't have the speed to be a vertical threat, but he does have the savvy and sense to work the middle of the field from the slot – as Engram has done for all these years and all those receptions.

Sando: The young receivers have yet to separate. Ben Obomanu made what I thought was the most impressive catch of the day for a 25-yard gain near the left sideline. None of the receivers appear to be faltering yet, but it's early.

Williams: Ben Obamanu, Courtney Taylor, Logan Payne, Joel Filani and Jordan Kent all looked good catching the ball, and no one distinguished themselves during the first practice... Kent, who hasn’t played receiver for very long, now looks a lot smoother at the position, and not like an athlete trying to play receiver.

Stay tuned, I guess.

This entry is getting long, so I'll stop it here. I'll finish up later with thoughts on the running backs.

Some Hawks Love from Don Banks

2008-07-26T15:29:00.000-07:00

I caught this in his Patriots Postcard:

A 16-0 record is a distinct possibility. Wait a minute, that was last year. No way the Pats run the table again in the regular season. Right? Right. But 13-3 sounds about right to me. Who beats 'em? How about at San Diego in Week 6 (the Chargers are due against New England), at Indianapolis in Week 9 and let's say at Seattle in Week 14 (in an upset).

That's a nice compliment. I was hoping to look at the Patriots' schedule and find some other decent teams that Banks assumed would be Patriot wins, but it turns out the Pats have a fairly easy schedule. Pittsburgh as home could be a tough game, but it's still a home game. If the Jets trade for Farve... who knows. Anyway, no proxy comparisons to the Seahawks from the schedule. Nice to see some respect from a national writer.

Hashmarks Pre-Preseason Power Rankings

2008-07-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

ESPN.com just released their NFL power rankings. Here's Sando's post, which lists each individual voter's picks. Overall I'd say the voters were pretty fair to the Seahawks. Sure, one knucklehead put them at 17, but even that's reasonable if you think Seattle's only good skill player on offense is Hasselbeck.

As Sando pointed out in a separate post (if you don't already, subscribe to the Hashmarks blog) the NFC West has the lowest average team ranking of the eight NFL divisions. I'm split as to whether I want the NFC west to be good (Seahawks get credit for tough wins) or bad (Seahawks cruise to the playoffs). I know I'm counting my chickens before they hatch here, but really, the Seahawks have had major questions (and major injuries) the past two years and each time they've found a way to win their division.

Anyway, the top NFC teams (average ranking in parens) are:

Cowboys (4.4)
Giants (5.4)
Packers (9.1)
Seahawks (9.3)
Vikings (11.7)
Saints (12.1)
Eagles (12.3)

Interesting to note that while the absolute rankings of these teams spread out fairly evenly between 4 and 13, the average rankings suggest there are three tiers. I guess I'll put up the fourth tier as well:

Buccaneers (15.3)
Redskins (16.0)

Four from the East, two each from the North and South, and Seattle is the long representative in the West. (To be fair, the Cardinals were the next team, but had an average of 18.3 - well below the fourth tier).

I'll touch on each of these teams in future posts, as well as some others I'm keeping an eye on, but for now I'll talk a bit about the Giants.

The Giants peaked at exactly the right time last year. The won three road playoff games (funny how that was supposed to be unheard of, yet two to the last three Super Bowl winners have done just that) before giving me the second-best Super Bowl outcome behind a Seahawk victory - a Patriot defeat. The question is whether the peak will ultimately become a spike or a plateau.

I would be shocked if the Giants were a top NFC team this year.

The four 2008 post-season games aren't a large enough sample for me to consider Eli Manning a Pro-Bowl level QB, especially given his career as a whole.
Doubling-down on looking past the 2008 sample-set, in the last three regular seasons the Giants have won 11, 8, and 10 games. Winning 9 or 10 sounds right, not 12 or 13 (which is what it will take to be a top NFC team).
The Giants lost a number of starters, either to retirement (Strahan) or free agency (Wilson and Mitchell are the first that come to mind).
Newcomers in 2007 (Brandon Jacobs, Ahmad Bradshaw, Kevin Boss) will be fully-vetted by opposing scouts in 2008.

To finish up, I certainly don't think the Giants will be bad, but I don't expect them to compete with Dallas for the NFC East title (assuming Dallas stays at the top). The Giants are probably second- or third-tier NFC team.

Training Camp and Injuries

2008-07-20T21:43:00.000-07:00

Rookies report Tuesday. Vets report Thursday. I'm all excited, ready for the season to get going... and then I hear about Philip Daniels blowing out his knee on the first play of the first practice of training camp. Sure, the Redskins were able to pick up Jason Taylor, which is certainly an upgrade (though at the cost of a second round pick, and a 6th rounder in 2010, which means the Redskins will once again be low on draft picks), but they were lucky to have Taylor available. Most other teams won't be so lucky.

Somehow I happened to get the Oakland broadcast of the Seahawks-Raiders preseason game last year. More than anything else, the moment I remember from that game was watching #90 limp off the field, his weight resting on the shoulders of two accompanying teammates, and me thinking "oh crap, I hope that's not Tubbs." And, of course, it was. That injury hurt, but I certainly wasn't expecting Tubbs to be a major contributor, and ultimately it allowed Brandon Mebane an opportunity to blossom.

Still, other injuries didn't have as great of silver linings. As much as I like Leonard Weaver, he didn't adequately replace Mack Strong. Alexander's injuries kept him tentative. (that's a lot of problems with the running backs....). Anyway, injuries are bound to happen. So, I'm going to explore what injury risks the Seahawks will face this year.

Hasselbeck: Seneca Wallace is to Hasselbeck what Brady was to Bledsoe? I think not. Wallace, given an entire season, and with the help of the defense, could probably win eight or nine games. Super Bowl? No way. We need Matt if we're going to have any chance at the Super Bowl.

Running backs: I'm excited to see what Julius Jones can do with the chip he has on his shoulder. Losing him basically gives us what we had last year. Plus T.J. Duckett, but who knows what that's going to be. No concerns with the current crop of fullbacks.

Offensive line: The Seahawks could have a great line this year. Or, they could end up like the Rams line from last year. I'm most concerned about Chris Spencer, just from what I've heard/read about his lack of participation in the off season camps. And, of course, losing Big Walt would be a killer. The Seahawks have poor o-line depth, maybe the worst among any position group on the team (the linebackers aren't particularly stacked either), so any injuries here will really hurt.

Tight end: I don't know what to expect from John Carlson, but he has the potential to great help the offense. At this point, losing him means losing that potential. The rest of the bunch look fairly interchangeable.

Wide receivers: The major injury to this group occurred in Green Bay last January. A second injury, to either Burleson or Engram, would hurt, but there are four young receivers waiting for their chance. I'll be keeping an eye on the reps that they get in the preseason.

Defensive line: The Seahawks are stacked at tackle. I was excited when Larry Triplett was signed, and he may get cut because there are six other tackles that could play ahead of him. The ends are less stacked, but one major loss could maybe be schemed around (playing Peterson on the line, etc).

Linebackers: Great starting three. The back-ups are... back-ups. Losing any of the starters will be a major drop-off in talent and production.

Corners: Depth here all depends on how good Josh Wilson is. Trufant is great, and Jennings is (probably) at least good. Lose one and Wilson has to step in. Again, watch for it in the preseason.

Safety: Deon Grant is amazing. Brian Russell... he seems to get ripped by John Morgan and other bloggers whose opinions I respect. I certainly don't watch enough tape to give an informed opinion. Babineaux, the next on the depth chart, is equally ripped. Is Mike Green still on the team? Losing Grant would hurt significantly. Not so much the others.

Why does this blog exist?

2008-07-17T12:17:00.000-07:00

I'm a Seahawks fan stranded in LA. During the season I get either the Chargers or the Raiders on CBS. Phoenix and San Francisco are roughly the same distance from LA, and neither are close, so FOX usually gives us the national game of the week (read: NFC East). I love my apartment, but one of its major downsides is that it doesn't have a clear view of the southern horizon, thus I can't get DirecTV's NFL package. The NFL coverage in LA is essentially 'general national coverage', which typically translates into 'no Seahawks coverage'. In short, I have no outlet for my Seahawks thoughts... until now.