tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30124694172154971722024-03-24T16:32:32.694-07:0017 Power, A Seattle Seahawks BlogSeattle Seahawks news, analysis, opinion, and discussion to help fans survive the offseason!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-2296402483276664282015-10-08T15:37:00.001-07:002015-10-08T15:37:36.635-07:00Where I Am Now<a href="https://virginiapatriot1776.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/2013-01-03-russell-wilson-2-seahawks-4_3_r536_c534.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://virginiapatriot1776.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/2013-01-03-russell-wilson-2-seahawks-4_3_r536_c534.jpg" width="320" /></a>A few months ago I stepped away from football blogging. It took me too long to marshal my facts and thoughts, and my teaching job is consuming (I'm having a good year so far). But more importantly, I just felt that there were better minds on the case within the Seahawks blogosphere. I don't want to be a pretender, like the Seahawks' 2007 defense. I don't want to be regarded as more knowledgeable than I am.<br />
<br />
I've now started another blog, this one centered around my pursuit of Jesus Christ. He and the faith built around him are a much more natural fit for my mind and style. It's a much simpler and more refreshing arena, really an emotional antipole to 17 Power, girded with messages I really believe Christian millennials should hear.<br />
<br />
That blog is now up and out of shakedown mode. If you're into this sort of thing, or you're curious as to who Jesus really is and what he represents, my thoughts can now be found here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://brandonjadams.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-size: large;">http://www.brandonjadams.com</span></a><br />
<br />
I hope this new effort interests and encourages you. It'd be enjoyable to see you over there once in a while.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, my sincerest thanks for all your interest and discussion over the years. I'll remain present on Twitter at @17power.<br />
<br />
Go Hawks!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com61tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-25383539185731606412014-10-26T14:51:00.001-07:002014-10-26T14:51:08.260-07:00Seattle's youth bungle, then salvage Carolina victory<a href="http://mynorthwest.com/emedia/seattle/12/1274/127495.jpg?filter=mynw/300x180_cropped" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://mynorthwest.com/emedia/seattle/12/1274/127495.jpg?filter=mynw/300x180_cropped" height="192" width="320" /></a>Today was a go/no-go for the Seahawks. Fork in the road, with a left turn leading straight to <.500.<br />
<br />
Today the Seahawks picked the road less traveled by, sneaking past the underrated Carolina Panthers with a gorgeous TD throw by Russell Wilson down the seam to tight end Luke Willson. I likes.<br />
<br />
With all the injuries hampering our play on both sides of the ball (and if you ask me, the injuries haven't gotten nearly enough credit for the team's struggles), it was good to see the Seahawks get back to winning ugly instead of losing pretty. That they did it on the road was reassuring. That they quietly cut down on the penalties was even more promising. That they gave their young bucks an opportunity to contribute and benefited from it - despite an infuriating stream of simple mistakes and missed opportunities from top to bottom - the young play may have been the most important feather in Pete Carroll's cap today.<br />
<br />
The Seahawks' struggles lately are very simple: they're a victim of their own success. They've reminded the league how to play football. Other teams are adopting physical play, reliance on the run, and tools like the zone read. They're also taking the same strategy to Seattle's defense that one would Peyton Manning: keep 'em off the field. A steady dose of patient playcalling from the last few opponents has left Seattle's defense worn down by the end, prone to last-minute heroics. Teams have found ways to hurt Seattle right in its philosophy.<br />
<br />
Today, Carolina ignored that strategy and paid for it in the final minute against Seattle's refreshed defense. Kudos to Russell Wilson for that final drive, but honestly, greater kudos to him for maintaining longer drives earlier in the field. It left the defense ready to close the deal.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
It was good to see Seattle's youth step up, because it's time the coaching staff started closely examining what they've got on the bench. Keeping a Super Bowl team together is financially impossible, but it's starting to feel like the Seahawks hit reloading mode a little sooner and a little harder than even the most realistic of us expected. Left tackle is a question mark again. Our front seven is starting to show some holes. In general, the defensive line isn't getting the push they used to, and today's improved performance came against an injury-ravaged offensive line.<br />
<br />
So when our rookies and sophomores started filling in the gaps, it was welcome. But...that's all they did.<br />
<br />
We've got some backup linebackers that can flash and make some nifty plays in Kevin Pierre-Louis and Brock Coyle (go Griz!), but that's starting to feel like a good description for starter Malcolm Smith as well. Luke Willson and Cooper Helfet - look, it needs to be said, they're not Pro Bowl material. They're simply coming through on a weapon-starved team. They're raw on their fundamentals. But they stepped up when they were needed and never gave up. (Schools, corporations, and armies win on the backs of such people.) It still remains to be seen whether Bruce Irvin can become a consistent force at DE, and he's had quite a while to prove himself. Robert Turbin and Christine Michael are not the future. They're spot players, with due credit to Turbin for the hardy catch-and-runs he's showing lately. The staff needs to make more use of him there.<br />
<br />
Then there's receiver. Until the Seahawks find themselves a Kelvin Benjamin, they'll probably be scrambling to win ugly more often than not. Don't get me wrong, we've had extraordinary luck with the receivers we have; scrappy, hard-hitting, full of fire, including what's looking vaguely like a possession receiver in Paul Richardson. These guys make the most of their opportunities, and I stand by that despite the numerous drops this month. But there's just no substitute for a catch-soaking #1 who can drag defenders deep and outleap even the tightest of coverage. You saw those benefits for Carolina today. It would just open up so much for the offense, which up until this point has looked like it's playing in the redzone all the time because of the limited ground our receivers cover. They just don't use space like they could.<br />
<br />
Between all these shades of grey, it's not insane to think that Seattle could still benefit from another trip to the draft. Perhaps they have the bullets already waiting in the wings. Injuries have a silver lining: they afford a showcase for unknown talent on the bench. Countless NFL talents have gotten their chances that way. But there are some pieces that remain elusive for Seattle (and indeed for most teams, like that epic #1 receiver) that will not be found on the bench.<br />
<br />
Whatever. We won. My criticisms aside, all our guys showed up and played hard when it counted. Sixty minutes.<br />
<br />
And that's the most encouraging component of today's victory. The Seahawks showed character and resilience against the Panthers. With rumors of locker room divisions and departing stars swirling around the team like so much fog the last couple weeks, and with so many starters on the bench...most teams would not have been in a position to steal a win from a physical, promising conference rival like Carolina, especially in their house. But Seattle pulled it off. And they did it with their usual formula - run, physical, turnovers, Wilson's legs. It was a relief to see that the formula is not defunct.<br />
<br />
Execution needs a shot in the arm. Max Unger and Zach Miller (underrated cogs in the run game, both of them) are sorely missed. Bobby Wagner is missed. Byron Maxwell was admirably covered for today, and you'd hope so given Seattle's emphasis on DB depth. And what is with the 12-men-on-the-field penalties lately?<br />
<br />
But this team still has a lot of fight in it. The flaccid 2009 team was marked not so much by lack of talent as lack of hope. This team is not that team, nowhere close. And as long as that fight is there, the Seahawks can do what they did last year: hunker down and wait for their starters to return from injury.<br />
<br />
Next week, the intrepid and unexpected Raiders QB Derek Carr has to demonstrate the patience and decision-making of Rivers and Romo if he expects to keep Seattle's offense off its own field. The Carolina game was a good matchup for Seattle, as Cam Newton is not the type of QB to avoid feeding the Legion. Carr is efficient and minimalist, closer to the necessary mold, but his running game is off track despite its talented backs. Their defense is pitiful.<br />
<br />
Just what the doctor ordered.<br />
<br />
Quick rant: another day, another game where careful study shows how overrated the importance of the offensive line is. Seattle's pass protection bounced back from last week's undeniably bad showing, but once again, far too much is being assumed. On the go-ahead touchdown throw to Luke Willson, the announcers immediately and instinctively credited good pass protection. <a href="https://vine.co/v/Ohl6T9IHVpI">Watch the TD again</a>. It's a three-step drop from shotgun. Step, plant, throw. A quick timing play. The role of the offensive line is minimal in that kind of play - delay your man for a split second and you've got it. <i>Yet instead of such nuances, the announcers just tossed up the idea that pass protection must have been amazing since Russell didn't run and the pass was complete.</i> That's ignoring a lot. Broadcasters trade in cliches, and many of them are valid, but this is an instance of how excessively and reflexively chalking up good throws to the performance of the offensive line is a longstanding roadblock to fans' understanding of the game.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-36542717778221120542014-10-12T17:41:00.003-07:002014-10-12T17:44:08.291-07:00When Your Team Takes a Step Back<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/9/931/93117.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.bonnint.net/seattle/9/931/93117.jpg" height="189" width="320" /></a></div>
When a football team struggles, especially after a xenith of accomplishment like the Super Bowl, we fans look for one problem. We like to look for one problem. It gives us a comforting feeling of control, a sense that the solution is close. It's easier to fix one thing than to fix a multitude.<br />
<br />
Because fixing a multitude of problems often requires a draft or three, or perhaps a coaching change. We don't want to hear about that.<br />
<br />
No, I'm not advocating either action for the Seahawks. But after seeing Seattle edged out at home by a good NFC team they're probably going to see in the playoffs, I'm willing to say there are problems with the Seattle Seahawks. Small problems. Surmountable problems. But nonetheless, a multitude.<br />
<br />
I don't think this really surprises any of us. We did win the Super Bowl. But many of us have, way in the back of our minds, the quiet nagging feeling that <i>we won it despite</i>. We won it despite inconsistent play-calling. We won it despite of injuries. We won it despite certain traits missing from our WR corps. We won it despite an offensive line that hasn't yet fully gelled.<br />
<br />
Now, on one hand, if we can win a Super Bowl with all those issues, it says a lot of good things about the Seahawks. On the other hand, it leaves us riding the razors' edge. Twice this year, the Seahawks have slipped on the edge and lost to good but beatable teams. Now it's happened at home, and it's got me going back to my blog.<br />
<br />
<i>(Disclaimer: We're still 3-2, and have lost fairly narrowly to playoff-bound teams like our own. Put the rope away.)</i><br />
<br />
It's been said lately that people are beating Seattle by using Seattle's game: smashmouth, leatherhelmet play focused on big hits, the running game, and a QB less focused on being the all and more focused on simply completing each pass that comes. This is true, but it's even more true than people say. Other teams are playing Seattle's game in a way that many have not acknowledged: <i>they're simply not making mistakes. </i><br />
<br />
This is the secret of Russell Wilson's success. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes. You're not seeing him throwing Hasselbecks into double coverage. This is the explanation for some of the passing game's struggles in Seattle: what you're actually seeing is an ordinary passing game with all the risky throws removed. Seriously, all. With most other QB's, you'd be seeing a lot more cringe-inducing Favres. Wilson's are so rare that you can remember them by the month.<br />
<br />
Tony Romo and Philip Rivers have beaten Seattle with this philosophy. They're contenting themselves with easier throws, taking what the defense gives them, filling in the gaps with heads-up improvisation, and they're doing it for four quarters. That's a patience reserved for few quarterbacks - the ones that appear in the playoffs. As for their defenses, missed tackles are rare and coverage assignments are tight. There's a lot to be said for staying out of one's own way, because it leaves the other team free to choke on its own miscues.<br />
<br />
Seattle's miscues are not huge. But they're adding up. A good football game is a teeter-totter of tiny mistakes, and twice this season, Seattle's end has been just low enough to leave Wilson's theatrics out in the wind by the close.<br />
<br />
Now...I feel good about Seattle losing to the more complete performance.<br />
<br />
And I feel good that teams must resort to physical, mistake-free football (Seattle's philosophy) to beat them.<br />
<br />
But we're still losing. And we're losing in a very gradual manner.<br />
<br />
Today, Luke Willson, Doug Baldwin, and Jermaine Kearse all dropped (or had interfered with) clutch catches they usually make. The receivers on Dallas' side, on the other hand, didn't drop theirs.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
On 3rd and 20 with 4:46 left to play and Dallas trailing, Bruce Irvin broke free on an edge rush and then whiffed twice on the sack of Tony Romo, who flashed a Wilson scramble and then got the ball into the hands of Terrence Williams way downfield.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Early on, Byron Maxwell had his mitts all over a sure pick-six on the Seattle goal-line. Instead of triumphing, he dropped it. After last week's contest Seattle currently leads the universe in dropped picks.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Over and over, DeMarco Murray and whatever nimble Swiss-army-knife guy to whom Tony Romo was slinging the ball would sidestep a Seahawks tackle and take it for another five yards. Our guys couldn't see to get into free space.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Both teams had their injuries. Bobby Wagner on the sidelines is ugly. Seattle's cornerback depth is like the Mars rovers - you can't believe how long it's lasted, but you live every second expecting its sudden implosion. Dallas also lost key guys, but it didn't stop them like it stopped us. Hello, Marcus Burley on the outside.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Dallas' offensive line had a couple of key holding penalties at crucial moments, enough to keep the game in question. But Russell Okung had his quickly-becoming-requisite two false starts to throw on top of a false start by the backup center.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Dallas gave DeMarco Murray his touches. Seattle did not reciprocate with Marshawn Lynch. I'm not about to jump all over the playcalling, which is a series of responses to a constantly shifting and evolving animal whose results only <i>seem</i> to look like a philosophy and are judged by fans without context. None of you would do better. Neither would I. Personnel problems go into playcalling as well (having a backup center doesn't boost a coach's confidence in the run game). But despite that, at the end of the day, Dallas gave DeMarco Murray his touches. Seattle did not reciprocate with Marshawn Lynch.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Losses like these are built brick by frustrating brick over sixty minutes by tiny mistakes. The score is close by the end, but you can always trace the loss back to a handful of moments. There is no one that stands out. It's the amalgamation of them that kills you. This is why I rarely gripe about officiating. There are always bad calls. They go against both teams. But even in Super Bowl XL, there were numerous opportunities Seattle missed that still could have changed things.<br />
<br />
Game.<br />
<br />
Attrition has now struck twice this season, and the league is starting to smell blood.<br />
<br />
Who would like to see Seattle in command of these games as Dallas was, instead of racing to make up for their own mistakes and <i>building an offense more through broken plays than intentional ones?</i><br />
<br />
I wish I could point to one thing, say "fix this", and leave you feeling like that's all it takes. Many writers are unconsciously led by that impulse. But it would be dishonest. Seattle amassed small chinks in every phase and in every unit today, kept themselves in it with gut and the Cowboys' perennial CenturyLink Field special-teams collapses, and then shattered at the end. A common story in the NFL. That sinking late-second-quarter feeling of "the mistakes are starting to pile up and we'll be vulnerable to a couple of clutch plays in the fourth quarter" is starting to become familiar. Indianapolis. Arizona. San Diego. Dallas.<br />
<br />
Credit where credit is due. And that's just it. The victory was earned by Tony Romo, who played one of the finest games of his career today. Seattle has shown that they can only be beaten by complete performances from solid teams. But that doesn't change the fact that they <i>have</i> been beaten. We need to be the solid team with a complete performance. That's how we won last year. Well, no - not really. Not often enough. Too often, we were the team with Russell Wilson's legs and a lot of sprightly luck. It's starting to feel like the Mars rovers.<br />
<br />
Complete football. It's what we need to attain. There is no substitute for it. No "Seahawks philosophy" or talented personnel pickup has ever been a substitute for it. Solid, mistake-free football.<br />
<br />
I wish I had a handy "this is the way out of worry" solution to suggest to fans while the Seattle coaching staff ignores it. Many of you came here hoping for one. But there isn't one. Resist the temptation to think along those lines. It's rarely the case. The Seahawks simply have to go back to the tape, work on their craft, and cut down on the mistakes. There isn't much more to say. There isn't much more to <i>do</i>.<br />
<br />
And when you boil it all down, that's actually a really good thing to say about your football team.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-75817481927207049072014-02-03T11:14:00.001-08:002014-02-03T11:14:19.107-08:00Just the BeginningIt still hasn't sunk in.<br />
<br />
The Seattle Seahawks won the Super Bowl. The<b><i> SEAHAWKS</i></b>! Yeah, <b><i>those</i></b> Seahawks!<br />
<br />
Just four years after posting a 5-11 record, the Seattle Seahawks are world champions.<br />
<br />
After more than three decades without a championship, the city of Seattle is on top of the world.<br />
<br />
After two weeks of practically every NFL pundit shaking their talking head at Seattle's chances in the face of Peyton Manning's offensive onslaught, the legendary QB has been humbled and sent home by...MY TEAM.<br />
<br />
Whoa. My team. Out of all the working joes in the world, the football gods shine upon the team I'M rooting for. I get to be amongst the 3% of the world who can claim we did it.<br />
<br />
It's over. No more games. No more breakdowns, analyses, and predictions. No more practice reports, expert prognostications, fretting over matchups, or ignoring taunts from enemy fan bases. No more digging for news on lasting injuries, substance suspensions, or appeals. No more looking ahead. No more hand-wringing over what might have been. No more cursing the referees.<br />
<br />
The season is over. The Seahawks are on top of the pack. For the first time, the long six months of the offseason hold no angst over how close we came or what we need to reach the top next year. At long last, it's time to relax and bask in pure, unadulterated success.<br />
<br />
Does it get any better than this?<br />
<br />
Actually, it does. In a number of ways.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Even better than winning the Super Bowl is the impact that Seattle's victory will have on the league.<br />
<br />
In the last three years, every big-time quarterback in the league has come before Seattle to hawk his skills, and every one of them has walked away empty-handed. Philip Rivers. Jay Cutler. Drew Brees. Eli Manning. Aaron Rodgers. Cam Newton. Tom Brady. As of Sunday morning, there was only one elite quarterback left from the pass-first era for this defense to prove itself against.<br />
<br />
And then there were none.<br />
<br />
That's why Denver was the perfect opponent. And not just because Peyton Manning provided the ultimate test for this defense. Not even because he brushed off Seattle's offseason, pre-Wilson courtship without so much as a handshake.<br />
<br />
Super Bowl XLVIII was a duel of football philosophies. Manning was the epitome of the one-man show. His record-shattering 2013 season was the culmination of the pass-happy trend that has been infecting the NFL for over a decade. Teams were pass-first. 65%-35% pass-run ratio. Forget the run game, shuttle defensive priorities to the pass. I'd hate to be one of the 49 guys on the Broncos roster not named Manning, Welker, or Thomas. Nobody would ever hear of you. True story - until his midseason health issues, I'd utterly forgotten that John Fox was coaching the Broncos. Not even kidding.<br />
<br />
Flood concepts, timing throws, big receivers, flashy tight ends, 300-yard games, finesse. That had become the name of the game in pro football. Defenses had done little to respond except stacking up on more pass rushers. And the NFL, enjoying ever-increasing ratings, stood only to benefit.<br />
<br />
For a decade, a rebuilding team had only one real goal: find that perfect quarterback with the eyes of an eagle, the mind of a computer, and the arm of a trebuchet. All else is pointless.<br />
<br />
NOT ANYMORE.<br />
<br />
The one-man show is gone. In its place, new-school after being old-school for many sad years...the football team.<br />
<br />
That's been the true glory of the Seahawks under Pete Carroll: you can't name one single player who so utterly overshadows everyone else that he claims all the headlines. Everybody plays a role. Everyone has a game to stake as his own. Russell Wilson's interview gives way to Richard Sherman's gives way to Golden Tate's gives way to Kam Chancellor's gives way to Percy Harvin's gives way to Derrick Coleman's gives way to Doug Baldwin's gives way to Earl Thomas' gives way to Marshaw...oh, wait, he doesn't one. But every one of them matters. No sooner is Joe Buck done talking about Lynch, the heart and soul of the team, than the ball is snapped again and a different guy adds to his highlight reel. A game of musical spotlights.<br />
<br />
And then a 7th-round pick who couldn't lock down a starting spot for years and might not even be playing in the NFL without Pete Carroll and John Schneider, outleaps all of them for the honor of Super Bowl MVP.<br />
<br />
Who saw this coming?<br />
<br />
If I'd told you three years ago that Seattle would win Super Bowl XLVIII with a pack of 6'3" defensive backs, a bunch of 5'11" wide receivers, a 5'10" quarterback, a run-first approach behind Marshawn Lynch, and more undrafted free agents on the roster than Peyton Manning has commercial contracts, you'd have laughed me off the podium.<br />
<br />
Today, I'm laughing.<br />
<br />
And I'm laughing at myself, too. My worries of earlier years ("draft a first-round QB, the run doesn't matter anymore!") are hilarious now. Old-school football is cool again. The run matters after all. Defense can handle every facet of the NFL's most powerful offensive attack. Special teams has survived Roger Goodell's fury. Passing yards are not everything. There's room for innovation. Injuries aren't death to a season. And every guy on the 53-man roster can find a way to contribute.<br />
<br />
The entire league will be scrambling to mimic Seattle's success, but they won't succeed. NFL executives are too bound by conventional thinking and the fear of failure. They'll still laugh each other out of the room at the Carrollian ideas of letting players be themselves, accentuating strengths instead of minimizing weaknesses, gambling on injury histories, or taking the final three rounds of the draft seriously. They won't be able to pass up tantalizing quarterbacks or passing weapons. They'll shoot themselves in the foot with misguided loyalty, burdensome contracts, and free-agency races. They'll still choose proven short-term talent over risky projects. They'll be lucky to find a GM with the synergy and savvy that John Schneider possesses.<br />
<br />
And they'll keep failing.<br />
<br />
Willingness to risk has taken Seattle so far beyond every other team in the league that I no longer think Peyton Manning EVER had a chance in XLVIII. Just like everyone else, I expected Manning to get his yards and points. I still wonder if he had looked better without that early safety. Denver's defense did look sporting until the second quarter, and his offense is not crap. Momentum is something I believe in, after all. There's good reason even Seahawks fans spotted Manning some points in their predictions.<br />
<br />
Instead, depth ruled the day and only the Seahawks had a platoon. Manning's center betrayed him with the safety. His receivers couldn't play a physical game. They kept dropping passes. RB Montee Ball wasn't up to the challenge once Knowshon Moreno went out. Defenders missed tackles, five of them on one Jermaine Kearse run (karma for the tackles the 2006 'Hawks missed on that Brandon Marshall TD). Their D-line, though surprisingly disruptive, couldn't contain Russell Wilson. Their coverage unit - well, it's Percy Harvin, but you still can't let that happen.<br />
<br />
In short, the entire team had to show up. Only Manning did. And despite a few bad plays, I thought he performed well. His team let him down from the first snap. They owe him crab dinner every day for the rest of the year.<br />
<br />
But really, it's clear that Seattle just had Denver's number early on, schematically and philosophically. The Broncos aren't built to handle Seattle's blinding speed or their bruising, cloud-of-dust physicality. San Francisco is. Carolina is. The Rams and Cardinals might be soon, if they ever find a quarterback. The Broncos are not, nor are any team designed around the passing game. If mere lip-service was paid previously to the one-dimensionality of such pass-first teams as the Packers, the Saints, and Manning's Current Team, the cat is truly out of the bag now. The fad of the passing league is now passe.<br />
<br />
At this point, the best matchups are in-conference. The NFC West has gone from the laughingstock of the league to a division that nobody wants to play. Seattle is leading the pack thanks to careful drafting for the clutch gene, the chip on the shoulder, and indomitable spirit, not to mention a simple eye for talent.<br />
<br />
And the kind of team we Seahawks fans respect/fear now? Well, it's no longer the high-flying passing juggernauts than we did in previous years. We've knocked them all off now. The only teams that will ever give us pause now, are teams like us.<br />
<br />
Good thing, too. <i><b>Because I'm not satisfied.</b></i> Neither are the players. Not until we win a second Super Bowl.<br />
<br />
You see, questions remain. It'll be a herculean task to keep this team together financially, barring some generosity from the players. I'll bet the Darell Bevell haters are still out there grumbling. Wilson has more growing to do, as any sophomore QB does. I don't know how we're going to survive the increasing presence of Joe Buck covering our games. And there will always be that handful of neanderthal fans and pundits who question whether this win was a fluke, and whether Seattle can repeat and build a dynasty.<br />
<br />
But for me, our Super Bowl win doesn't just close out an amazing Seahawks year - it sets the tone for the next ten. The defense can now officially handle anything. Percy Harvin, finally healthy, hints at a completely revolutionized offense and special teams next year. The draft is still ahead. The 12th Man - now more of a reality than ever, having traveled brilliantly to the Super Bowl - is not going anywhere. And this team is young. Young, young, young. Whomever we lose this offseason, if anyone, take to the bank that some of the studs who outshone Peyton Manning last night will wind up career Seahawks. They'll grow, improve, and compete for many years. That's exciting.<br />
<br />
Had Peyton won a Super Bowl last night, it would have been merely an exclamation point on a sentence already ending, a sunset on his day.<br />
<br />
For the Seahawks, it's still morning.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-63228808072739628142013-09-29T19:02:00.003-07:002013-09-29T19:02:51.577-07:00The Finest Win of the Pete Carroll Era...So FarRussell Wilson throwing fourth-quarter picks and running for his life. Richard Sherman vomiting on the sidelines. Marshawn Lynch pumping his legs desperately from within a crowd of tacklers. Doug Baldwin being tossed about like a rag doll. Michael Bennett lying in a hospital bed, anxiously awaiting a CTC scan. Two Pro Bowl offensive linemen sitting thousands of miles away and powerless to help against a fully healthy Texans team.<br /><br />And yet here we stand, fans of the first 4-0 Seahawks team in history.<br /><br />The sheer incredulous delight is unspeakable.<br /><br />How do we quantify this? How do we capture the gritty, determined, unshakeable belief that this team displays week after week? The analyst in me wants to get to the source, wants to extrapolate it to next week. I want to know where it comes from.<br /><br />Maybe that's what bugs me. It doesn't feel like we <i>can</i> quantify it. It just happened. It's an intangible. I hate intangibles. I can't systemize or predict them, they just decide whether to happen or not. <br /><br />Or maybe what bugs me is the fact that the only discernible cause seems to be the gut and fortitude of QB Russell Wilson. When he gets going, things happen. Release the guy from the trap of Bevell's mewling play calls and opponents just start collapsing. And something in me sinks. That feels dangerous. I wish the trigger to Seattle's patented comebacks did NOT rest with one man. It feels like there's no redundancy there. Like it's not sustainable. <br /><br />Yet the Seahawks now stand on a nine-game streak of regular season wins, four of them those classic road nailbiters that all came down to fourth-quarter fireworks by Russell Wilson. Starting with the Bears, up to the present day. It sure doesn't look like a mirage or a situational fluke. Instead, it looks like a champion. I'm not sure what more the Seahawks can do to prove their readiness for the big stage. All they can do now is play on it.<br /><br />Some of us don't want to rest on intangibles. We want understandable factors, tangible causes and effects, something we can use to guess next week's outcome. We turn our noses up at "belief" and "resilience", dismissing it as the product of over-exciteable sports media, and try to explain things in terms of the X's and O's that make us feel more in control. And surely those played a part today.<br /><br />But this team's habit of winning ugly makes us feel frustratingly out of control. We truly are along for the ride with this team, no matter how many swings of momentum we experience along the way, no matter how many times Golden Tate stops our hearts by returning punts from the end zone, no matter how many of those awful ugh-I'm-done towel throws we suffer through. Have they let us down yet?<br /><br />Nothing should have gone right for the Seahawks today. We were on the road. The offensive line was spotted with backups against the AFC's finest defensive line. Our receivers were off their game against CB Jonathan Joseph. The Texans had actual receivers to throw at the Legion of Boom, and a QB to utilize them. It's hard to overstate just how much more talent Houston's passing offense boasts over our last three opponents. It's not even close. Schaub looked rattled in the second half, all right, but given time he can slice and dice the best of them, especially a Seattle linebacking corps that hadn't been truly tested in coverage yet. It's a fact that was lost amidst the mockery of Houston's slow start this year, and they chose today to unearth it again. For a while, the league's #1 defense was badly exposed.<br /><br />And on a day when Seattle looked determined to undermine themselves with timid and repetitive play-calling that played right into Houston's hands and away from Russell Wilson's strengths, it seemed that rawness and injury were just the recipe Houston needed. This went beyond simply needing a comeback. The Seahawks looked flat-out incompetent in all three phases and didn't have the bullets on offense to compensate. Halftime adjustments seemed pointless. I confess I was already trotting out the "it's just one game, better health will shift our fortunes" lines.<br /><br />But the darkness didn't hold. Perhaps I should say it was Doug Baldwin who actually flicked the switch, with his requisite weekly OMG-did-that-just-happen miracle catch (he has 123 yards on such catches in four games). Perhaps it was Wilson pulling more of that old spinning, freewheeling scramble magic and picking up first down after first down. Perhaps, as Richard Sherman said, it was the unexpected return of grievously injured Michael Bennett that sparked the team from the sidelines. Whatever it was, the defense heard it. They woke up and slammed the door on Matt Schaub in the fourth quarter. <br /><br />Seattle was outgained badly in yards and time of possession. Wilson was horribly beat in passing stats. They didn't get a third-down conversion until impossibly late. Schaub, at least for three quarters, was the one with the gaudy conventional whiz-bang that analysts eat up because they understand it. On this day, every number on the planet pointed towards a Houston win - maybe a close one, threatened briefly by admirable Seattle grit, but a Houston win nonetheless.<br /><br />Pete Carroll's team wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a win. In the end, the numbers on the scoreboard contradicted every other. How Seattle continues to win with Wilson getting half the passing yards of the other guy, look 20 points down while leading by three, week in and week out is just crazy.<br /><br />This team keeps giving me reasons to silence my inner cynic. The irritable contrarian that wants to grouse about how Seattle needs an entire platoon of pass rushers to match the production of a single JJ Watt. The peevish churl who loses faith against any actual pocket-passing quarterback because we seem forever barred from finding the linebackers to shut him down. The nattering naysayer who's critical of the Michael Robinson cut and disappointed with our tight end situation and aching for a consistent separation receiver and OMG WHY CAN'T YOU GUYS JUST SUCCEED MORE CONVENTIONALLY SO MY SEAHAWKS FANDOM DOESN'T FEEL LIKE LIFE ON A HIGH WIRE!!!<br /><br />Yep, that guy needs to shut up.<br /><br />This is a game whose significance leapt beyond records and statistics and into the realm of statements, character, and immortal sports memories. No Seahawks game of the Pete Carroll era has had the odds more heavily stacked against them. Their resilience has done nothing but produce a string of wins and lead the team to its first-ever 4-0 start. At some point, success becomes hard to criticize. We're past that point.<br /><br />The Seahawks have nothing more to prove, except that they can win a Super Bowl. That is the lone remaining hurdle. This team has once again stared valley-of-the-shadow-of-death adversity in the face and overcome. If you don't yet grasp this team's entertainment factor, I don't know what you're waiting for. The Seahawks are where miracles happen. Repeatedly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-90436505780814588102013-08-21T12:37:00.001-07:002013-08-21T13:21:20.889-07:00Hope, Hype and the Super Bowl (AKA Put a Sock in it, John Morgan)<a href="http://www.point-spreads.com/images/assets/2013/01/Lombardi-trophy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://www.point-spreads.com/images/assets/2013/01/Lombardi-trophy.jpg" width="320" /></a>John Morgan is once again blogging Seahawks. Recently, as I extricated myself from the cobwebs of summer, I found <a href="http://www.fieldgulls.com/2013/7/25/4558158/the-11-5-team-a-muddle">he had posted this</a>. It's basically telling fans what they should be thinking right now: to wit, the Seahawks will win at some point in the Pete Carroll era, but there's no way to predict whether it will be this year. And therefore, we should not invest too much hope in 2013. Or something.<br />
<br />
I agree with the underlying idea. Lombardi trophies are hard to predict: they're basically won by the playoff team with the best turn of luck that year. Fine and good.<br />
<br />
Of course, Morgan fails to offer any concrete prediction of his own. And there's little to his actual prognostication besides some POW story and the observation that Russell Wilson gets almost-sacked a lot. (He probably posted a fuller analysis somewhere else, I can't be bothered to look right now.) But it's fair and defensible to say that projections can only go as far as the playoffs, and hope the ball bounces your way after that. It almost did for Seattle last year.<br />
<br />
What I really take exception to is the article's attempt to define hope. Or structure it, or reevaluate it, or constrain it like veal, whatever.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
You have to understand - for as long as Morgan has been blogging about the Seahawks, he has been unable to go three paragraphs without slipping in subtle putdowns of the uneducated football fan. There exists a perspective that says football opinion should belong to the well-informed, hype-resistant and systematically logical. That includes making predictions. It's easy for that to turn into looking down on bepainted Twelves much like Armond White looked down on the ordinary moviegoer. Don't wade into the waters of analysis unless you've leashed your dog to the treadmill to be walked while you gather an encyclopedic knowledge of football history, play design, and stat categories. And disable your caps lock and exclamation point keys while you're at it, this isn't the ESPN boards.<br />
<br />
Good thing the NFL doesn't restrict ticket sales to people like that. They'd go bankrupt.<br />
<br />
One thing Morgan has often inspired me to contemplate (I'd still recommend many of his articles) is the friction between educated analysis and blue-collar fanhood. It is true that most fans don't know a fly route from a drag route and often can't recite the starting offensive line from memory. It's also true that they often wade into higher analysis and lofty prediction-making without that knowledge, much to all our chagrin. This can be frustrating. <br />
<br />
Yet, last time I checked, they still comprise the 12th Man. And I must have missed the regulation that says they're required to keep their hope in check. Maybe the refs should throw a yellow flag on that. (They certainly seemed itchy to throw them on Saturday.)<br />
<br />
Excuse me for a moment...<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
*checks eHarmony account again*<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
...k, I'm back.<br />
<br />
Hope is an inextricable component of fandom. Morgan calls it "enforcing optimism", looking for reasons to hope. I call it the lifeblood of the sport. Not informed opinion, not reasonable optimism...blind, defiant, purely object-oriented hope. It's the driving force of the industry and the ONLY reason millions of people put their butts in the bleachers across the nation every year. Without hope, countless seats are empty and it's all just an intellectual exercise to be dissected and hmmmed about from the armchair.<br />
<br />
Maybe some people enjoy that. Joe doesn't. Joe's an ordinary football fan. He doesn't know who Phil Bates is. (He probably never will.) Thousands of Joes fill the Clink and create the Seahawks organization weekly. Joe's not shelling out to take his son to the 49ers game in a month because he hopes the 49ers will win, nor because he hopes the Seahawks will win the following year. Joe's shelling out because he hopes the Seahawks will win THAT week. And if I'm reading his green-and-blue wig correctly, he doesn't concern himself with gloomy prognostications about the Seahawks' poor chances, as if letdown were a skin cancer to be guarded against. In fact, he welcomes them as the signal to defiantly get louder.<br />
<br />
In Joe's own words, <em>RAAAAWRRR SEAHAWKS ERRRRRMMMM WILSON GAAAAAHHHHH BEASTMODE MAAAAAAAANNNNNNN SHERMANNNNNNNNN RAAWWWWWWRRRRRR THIS IS AWEEESSSOOOOOOOMMEEE!!!</em> <em>More beer.</em><br />
<br />
Hope that wasn't beneath some of you. I know there wasn't much DVOA in it.<br />
<br />
I used to be one of the guys who based his emotional investment solely in facts. I have a reputation of being a wet blanket on Seahawks.net. Sometimes I was right. And you know how much satisfaction I got out of it? None. The Seahawks had lost, and having seen it coming bore no comfort. I gradually came to realize that while some people appreciated a level approach and an educated opinion, I was also crapping on a lot of Joes. Taking away from people's enjoyment of the game merely to indulge my contrarian personality. Who the hell was I to limit people's expectations of a game known for the phrase "Any Given Sunday"?<br />
<br />
That's purely about me. I make no such judgments on Morgan. But he asks at one point, <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f4cccc;">Is it better to escape expectations, be neither optimistic nor pessimistic, and approach each season with neutrality?</span></blockquote>
<br />
Look at the 70,000 deafening faithful keeping the games from blackout every week, Morgan. What do <em>you </em>think?<br />
<br />
I'm quite confident that without the unflagging hope that ignores logic and defies prediction, the NFL would wither. The Jaguars certainly would, were it not for the few faithful to whom "through thick and thin" is a badge of honor. And it certainly wouldn't carry the Any Given Sunday aura. People hope because even irrational hope has been known to precede triumph. And when it does, is not that triumph even sweeter? Does everyone drive home from such a game feeling utterly cheated just because it's unlikely to occur again next week? I spoke at length about how we weren't likely to beat the Saints two years ago. When the Beastquake occurred, it became more than just an unexpected win. It became one of this century's defining sports moments.<br />
<br />
The NFL belongs to everyone. Uninformed, irrational, decidedly nonsystematic hope is the birthright of every football fan. We can be knowledgeable, we can be smart. But let's leave dictation to the things that matter, like politics and education. This is football. It's where we go in our off-time to believe that we're a part of something. And we are.<br />
<br />
The dating scene disgruntles me. I don't welcome the prospect of heartbreak. I'm sick of it. But I must allow the possibility, even embrace it, if I'm going to win the prize. And upon winning that prize, the disappointments of the past, even the ones I should have seen coming and guarded against, become ennobled. As the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band had it, "Others who broke my heart, they were like northern stars". <br />
<br />
And when Russell Wilson hoists the Lombardi Trophy THIS YEAR (yes, I went there, a concrete prediction, right up to the part where he can't raise it any higher than Jeremy Lane's head) I don't want to be that sadsack who was on the outside of the hope. I want to say I believed. THIS YEAR. Nobody's thinking about 2014 right now.<br />
<br />
I cannot believe that anyone would tell other people how to hope. I don't care how veiled, hinted, subtle, disguised, qualified, tentative, glancing, or implied the suggestion is. It's ridiculous. And it's not all that terribly intellectual. Anyone who does so is simply raining on parades.<br />
<br />
Think this all just a little too...emotional?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.amcnetworks.com/blogs.amctv.com/wp-content/uploads/mt-legacy/scifi-scanner/images/hiro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" src="http://images.amcnetworks.com/blogs.amctv.com/wp-content/uploads/mt-legacy/scifi-scanner/images/hiro.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Here's a picture of me trying to care.<br />
<br />
<br />
GO HAWKS!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com348tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-69018306275179592122013-02-04T15:12:00.004-08:002013-02-04T15:15:39.378-08:00Closing Down the BlogThe 2012 season has come to a close, and there's no way to view it as anything but a whopping success for the Seattle Seahawks. Against all seeming odds, we have found our quarterback of the future. We have a defense loaded with talent. Our offense is well-defined and resilient. And both sides of the ball are still on the way up, with our team philosophy firmly in place.<br />
<br />
It's a great note on which to end my brief career as a football blogger.<br />
<br />
Every once in a while, it's good to take note of what you're doing and ask whether you're making the most of your time and talent. The world is a struggling place, and needs each one of us to be exactly who we are, in the best manner we can manage. Perhaps that sentence makes football bloggers sound superfluous, but I don't think it has to be that way. Guys like the ones at Fieldgulls obviously have a life beyond football. They're contributing. Football is a passion for them that moves them to write, elevates others' thinking, lets us support our team and our cause in a smart and well-informed way.<br />
<br />
But when I started asking myself questions about maximizing my time and resources, my answers didn't fall in the same place. I'm a teacher. If there's one area of education that we could address <i>before</i> reflexively looking to blame government and money allocation, it would be teacher work ethic. The profession is filled with teachers who are checked out, phoning it in, going through the motions. They are shortchanging students of their highest potential and making harder the jobs of every teacher who comes after them. These kids are our country's future.<br />
<br />
Allow me a moment on the soapbox: if you are a teacher who's merely a placeholder and has no real interest in the dozens of children under your charge, then <i>you need to get out</i>. Now. It doesn't matter how hard it would be for you to find another job - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Step aside and allow your job to be filled by someone who loves children, believes in their subject, and has the patience and generosity to walk with them and turn them into the best they can be.<br />
<br />
That's my calling. And when it comes right down to it, I have neither the time nor the football knowledge to justify continuing this blog.<br />
<br />
I honestly don't know much about football. I really don't. That's not a diss on myself, and it's not fishing for reassurance. It's just a fact. I'm fine with not knowing much. What I do know comes from reading others. And one thing I don't want to be is a guy who's writing about his level, even if he can disguise it with his writing. Occasionally I'll have a perspective that nobody has yet touched, and can be written without a great deal of X's and O's. Those are my articles. But with the proliferation of new blogs and the riches of knowledge from others within the Seahawks blogosphere, those moments seem to become rarer and rarer. And I'm okay with that. As long as the thoughts are out there, does it matter who writes them?<br />
<br />
To be a quality blogger - and that's what I'd want to be if I were to keep doing this - you have to be a certain sort of person. You have to be a quick researcher. You must be able to dash off a well-supported, knowledgeable essay without taking days to write it. I'm not that sort. I start a piece with good intentions, take hours to write it, go back over it the next day, rewrite it at least twice, find new information that supports or contradicts my piece, rewrite it again, pull my hair out, and by the time I've gotten close to publishing, the entire week has gone by, everyone else has already talked about it, and posting it would seem lame and out-of-touch. Such is the fast-paced world of internet opinion. Perfectionists have no place in the world of blogging.<br />
<br />
You also have to have a certain objectivity, the ability to criticize football players who are working harder than any of us to achieve a dream that none of us could ever hope to achieve, along with that subtle dash of feigned world-weary snark that fleshes out your writing personality. I realized at some point this season that I don't want to be that guy. I'm too sentimental. Too longing. I wouldn't have the strength to be on the other end of the withering demands of football critics. I don't want to relish that tiny grin of sarcastic delight in blithely dismissing those fringe players laboring through the preseason for a spot only one of them, at most, can grab. And if I wouldn't want to be on the other end, I can't in good conscience stay on this one. That's for the people who can console themselves that those roster cuts will find other jobs and be perfectly fine. Hard for me to remember that, for some reason.<br />
<br />
I pondered all that this season and gradually realized that nothing in my internal monologue was pointing towards me as a long-term blogger. There was also the dawning realization of just how hard one has to work to achieve real profile as a sports critic - the regularity of posting, the demands of solid research, the networking and living on Twitter, the near-shameless self-promotion that turns bloggers into helpless self-retweeters who have no dignity but can't get any visibility any other way. That's how it has to happen, and I just realized I have no interest in it. Call it pride, call it laziness, call it lack of time management, call it I have a job, whatever. But I took one look at it and it turned me off to blogging as a side career.<br />
<br />
Not that having 600 followers and even more readers isn't worth it. You guys have been great. Wonderfully supportive <a href="http://17power.blogspot.com/2011/04/rumor-carson-palmer-to-seattle-for-mid.html">even in my retarded moments.</a> You've convinced me that I have a future in writing, even if it won't be in football (I may actually be starting another blog soon, this one revolving around Christianity, if you're into that sort of thing). I think I've carved out my little niche in the blogosphere, and am proud of the moments worth being proud of. It's just not fair keeping all of you guys on tenterhooks while I struggle to come up with a blogging voice that's probably just not going to come.<br />
<br />
The 2012 season has been a great ride. It's restored my hope in the Seahawks. It's seen the return of competitive balance in the NFL. The run still matters. Defense still matters. There's still plenty of room for innovation. I can't tell you how reassuring it's been to have my fears averted. The Seahawks are going to be around for a long time. What a great future the 12th Man has.<br />
<br />
And I will be sharing it with you. 17 Power is closing down, but I'll be lurking around and rooting with you. Maybe on Twitter. I do see a Lombardi trophy in our future, and I hope to see you around in the moment Russell Wilson hoists it up.<br />
<br />
Until then, don't let anyone tell you the odds. When you're cringing and peeking through your fingers with dreadful certainty of defeat, when hope is hard to cling to and seems to teeter on the edge of your long-earned cynicism, remember that you never know when some dude on the sidelines might call "17 Power". So long.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/xSZdntRnQVg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com119tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-1859021991314727062013-01-18T22:43:00.000-08:002013-01-19T08:57:05.961-08:00Why I'm Rooting for a 49ers-Ravens Super BowlYeah, I said it. I hope the 49ers win in Atlanta. In fact, I hope they leave the Falcons bruised and groaning on the field on their way to face the Ravens, who have just gotten done doing the same thing to Tom Brady.<br />
<br />
Does that make me a traitor to the 12th Man? I don't know. But I've got a reason, and it has nothing to do with wanting to see the NFC West, for all the mockery its endured, become the division with the most SB appearances in the last twelve years, though it would accomplish that. (It also has nothing to do with any tired Harbaugh vs Harbaugh storyline, thank you very much.)<br />
<br />
Nah, I'm just so sick of the era of hoity-toity elite quarterbacks. So fed up with one-man teams. <br />
<br />
Not that I have anything against Matt Ryan, doesn't seem to have that prima donna vibe about him (yet. Let's wait until he gets a ring or two. It got to Aaron Rodgers). But what are the Falcons mostly relying on? It isn't defense and it sure isn't their running game. It's that vaunted air-raid offense of theirs, Roddy White and Julio Jones and Tony Gonzalez magneting every laser-accurate throw from Ryan into their mitts. Unique perhaps in its details, but still a philosophical carbon copy of that daunting deus ex machina of team styles, the pass-first spearheaded by a hyper-accurate, tall-in-the-pocket QB without whom the entire team falls apart. <br />
<br />
Let's be honest, most people outside Atlanta probably don't even know the names of anyone else on the Falcons roster. Because they don't need to.<br />
<br />
<em>Booooorriiiiinnnnggg.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
Meanwhile in Seattle, Pete Carroll has built something incredible. You might have heard of it about 15 years ago. It's called a FOOTBALL TEAM. As in, a group of talented individuals whose collective contributions to success are measurable. Probably much more evenly spread around than the 80% QB, 20% everything-else-combined distribution we see on these methodical pass-first teams that have been hogging the limelight since Brady lit up. Ever since then, it's felt like the only breath of fresh air from one-man storylines has been...the Steelers. Kudos to them for keeping the idea of "team football" on life support all these years, I suppose, but that team is NOT a breath of fresh air.<br />
<br />
In Seattle, you have a wide arrangement of players making noise, enabling success, and gaining notoriety. <br />
<br />
Russell Wilson, for all his heroics, is nothing without the threat of Marshawn Lynch, and many of his biggest plays can be directly attributed to some defender bracing for Lynch and instead seeing a play-action bomb whizz over their heads. <br />
<br />
Lynch, in turn, is nothing without Michael Robinson and his (patchwork, lunch-pail, not-first-and-second-round-picks-everywhere) offensive line. <br />
<br />
Golden Tate, Sidney Rice, and Doug Baldwin have bailed Wilson out, how many times? <br />
<br />
And none of this is a diss on Wilson, obviously, because there is no seriously dissing the guy. It's just team football.<br />
<br />
And how is the defense coming along? I almost think that Richard Sherman keeps his mouth running almost purely because he, too, is tired of one-man football and wants Seattle to be seen as a team. He certainly made it sound that way to Brady. The entire Legion of Boom will be infamous. Bobby Wagner will get up there. Red Bryant has gotten a few moments in the sun. And I'd like to think Pete isn't done filling the defense with smashmouth talent. Not even close.<br />
<br />
Over in Denver, you have Peyton Manning getting <em>his own bloody five-second sideline reaction shot whenever his team gets a punt return touchdown</em>. Seriously? He wasn't even involved in that. Why does the Face of Peyton need to be consulted about things that don't even involve him? Christian Ponder doesn't get that. What's next, a two-hours Sportscenter special on Peyton's opinion of Manti Te'o? Is the man really that god-almighty important???!!!<br />
<br />
Why do I want the 49ers and Ravens in the Super Bowl? Because the Harbaughs, like Pete Carroll, are revolutionizing football. Or better yet, they are returning it to its roots. Reviving a brand of the game that we thought was dead. They are making the "team" relevant again. They are at the forefront of the trend of taking apart those annoying, seemingly invincible superstar QB's with their supermodel wives, neutronium contracts, and untouchable receivers. They are liberating other NFL teams from the "find an elite pocket passer or you have no chance" draft strategy that has held them hostage for years. <br />
<br />
I'll be frank - I used to dread the draft. For a while there, in 2011 as passing records fell without Peyton Manning even contributing to them, the dominance of passing seemed to be shutting down every draft strategy but one. All that mattered was finding that guy who could challenge Aaron Rodgers/Drew Brees and then Tom Brady/Peyton Manning. Not an easy task, to say the least. The running game didn't matter anymore, argued I as I ground my teeth down, because nothing indicated that it did. The passing league sucked a lot of the fun out of the draft, left me clinging to the closest prototype in Ryan Mallett. What was the point otherwise?<br />
<br />
Last year when the Packers didn't float right back to the Super Bowl, undermined by the regression of their defense, I was a little shocked. I'd bought into the idea that the NFL was a passing league. I also suspected that the NFL would make whatever changes it needed to keep it that way, out of a greedy desire for more points and thus higher ratings. (The decade is still young.)<br />
<br />
When the Patriots were (again) brought up short by the smashmouth Giants shortly afterwards, it was shock with a flavor of elation coming into it. Defenses specifically built to hold down elite QB's were succeeding on a sustained basis. What was this?<br />
<br />
By the time Seattle shook off last year's Cowboys defeat and put together a 5-3 streak on the back of Marshawn Lynch, defense, and <em>physicality</em>, the shock had been partially replaced by a biiiiiig, dumb grin. Real football - was it making a comeback? I hoped. I leaned forward. The pass defense still needed to prove itself against the 2012 slate of quarterbacks, rather than last year's murderer's row of Rex Grossman, Vince Young, and Caleb Hanie. But maybe it was real. If this team could find efficiency and success with Tarvaris Jackson at the helm, what more might be possible with even a modest upgrade?<br />
<br />
And now, of course, even with the conference championships still to be played, the battle between NFL philosophies has been decisively blown back open. Finesse is proving NOT to be the needle's eye that we thought it was. Green Bay refused to acknowledge it last week and limped home with Colin Kaepernick's bootprints all over their - well, wait, I can't say that, because they never even managed to touch him. Athleticism and resilience have a place after all. There's still variety, strategy, intrigue, and real competitiveness possible for any football team that find an identity and draft well.<br />
<br />
Two of those teams, the 49ers and Ravens, are playing for a chance at the big dance this weekend. The other two, possible relics of an already antiquated oligarchy that might (please God) be turning out to be just another swing of the pendulum, had to wade through two other tough run-first teams to get there. Seattle, San Fran, Baltimore, Houston, even Minnesota and Washington - these are teams built on innovation, independent thinking, team contributions, running, defense, big hits, and confidence. They give teams bloody noses and make their next opponent suck in an anxious breath. They can beat you multiple ways. They don't need elite QB's to win at the high level. They just need the best from everyone. <em>They're even finding a place for special teams,</em> for crying out loud! Somebody pinch me. (Not you, Danny Kelly. You're always trying to pinch me.)<br />
<br />
Do I feel bad for Peyton charging back into the league and snatching up every single one of the NFL front-page photos, only to sputter in his first playoff chance since major surgery? Feel-good comeback story ruined? Kinda...but not really, no. The man probably has vacation homes worth more than the nation of Chad. And he knows it's not all about him. He did enough to win. He can blame that safety of his who took a little-league angle on a desperate hail mary and allowed overtime to Joe Flacco. Team.<br />
<br />
The NFL's hype machine would probably implode into a black hole if Ryan, Brady, Manning, Manning, Luck, RG3, Brees, AND Rodgers were all to miss the Super Bowl in the same year. And I realize that Joe Flacco belongs in that category of QB's that gets nothing but snide dismissal from pundits and fans for not being in Brady's tier. Can't say that the league would find easy narratives in such a situation. They might have to actually do some heavy research as to who's playing defensive backfield for the 49ers, spread the glory around a bit, force people to acknowledge the existence of 40 players instead of the fun-sized "Dude vs Dude" sound bites that our somnambulant nation prefers.<br />
<br />
But after the 2012 season and its celebration of read-option, reinvention, razzle-dazzle, and TEAMWORK, it would be so <em>poetic</em> to see all those pretty-boy QB's barred from the Super Bowl by virtue of not having a complete team behind them. Left to watch the game from their mansions while two actual <em>football teams</em> slug it out 1970's-style. Even if the Seahawks couldn't be there, it would feel like major validation for them and their style.<br />
<br />
And wouldn't it be absolutely mind-blowing to see Joe Flacco come out with the Lombardi trophy? A mediocre QB winning the Super Bowl? How can that be? (And why is it always the Ravens doing it?) Gee, maybe a team effort still matters. What a great note for Ray Lewis to end on - a defensive legend helping seal the world championship. A poetic reminder that football, along with all its storylines, should be about 53 guys and not just 3 or 4. The Ravens should definitely win this. (You weren't expecting me to root for "one for the other thumb" for San Francisco, were you?)<br />
<br />
The Seahawks may not be playing any longer (though they lost with dignity and made me proud), but the 49ers match our style well. Match it better than ever with Colin Kaepernick now entrenched. I wonder if our Seahawks players will be watching with a guilty pride and hope as their philosophical brethren represent them, test out their shared team model in the ultimate venue. Seattle has already beaten some of those elite QB's. The defense that did it is still getting younger and better. The future is bright. For once, instead of being left behind by the trends, we're riding the leading edge. We're pioneers. And 49ers fans are already ticking off next year's away game as a loss.<br />
<br />
I was so hoping it would be Seattle over Denver in the playoffs. How fitting, to prevail with our fiercely independent style and a 5'11" rookie QB, over the superstar QB who represents the conventional thinking we just spent a season bucking and who sniffed at our free-agent feelers in the offseason. But I guess our present situation will have to do.<br />
<br />
Let's go, Ravens and 49ers. Prove to us that real football is back.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-67992854364861584402012-12-30T18:27:00.002-08:002012-12-30T18:37:30.806-08:00Seahawks Come Back to Earth in a Winning Way, 20-13<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwWDk-VbaUGAP60Q_gmmKBxBDTGczqPiKUHqL5EaOZQl7l_AAHvCiWF-OHaY_q0Fs35LbAy0e4csE5zUseSicyS0TtcFBm0w_ZhvfTQhrz7N-I9RnZULuAQ4fRapcGR2qp001f5dNgsH0/s1600/robinson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwWDk-VbaUGAP60Q_gmmKBxBDTGczqPiKUHqL5EaOZQl7l_AAHvCiWF-OHaY_q0Fs35LbAy0e4csE5zUseSicyS0TtcFBm0w_ZhvfTQhrz7N-I9RnZULuAQ4fRapcGR2qp001f5dNgsH0/s320/robinson.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Michael Robinson denies the Rams an upbeat ending.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I usually like to go against the grain, but today I'm just gonna go along with the general narrative. It's fully true - Seattle needed this game. They needed a "humility check", in Tim Ryan's words, before heading into the playoffs. Not because they were cocky or arrogant, exactly, but because there's nothing like experience to undergird a truth. Seattle isn't invincible and they're not going to be scoring 40-burgers all the time.<br />
<br />
The Seahawks needed this <i>style</i> of game, a knock-down, drag-it-all-out brawl of a 20-13 victory over another physical team. The Rams are good. A few years of drafting has brought them back to respectability, and they have the head coach to make them a threat in any venue on any weekend. Kudos to Jeff Fisher and the Rams for a solid test for these Seahawks. Given the youth of these two teams, this, rather than the 49ers, is the rivalry that will probably last the longest in this era of the NFC West.<br />
<br />
Let's be honest here - the Cardinals, Bills, and 49ers were not that challenging for Wilson. Losing Justin Smith doesn't entirely excuse the 49ers defense, but Wilson doesn't need that big of a crack. Give him anything and he'll break a game wide open with his mobility and cool head, and if that's not enough, try overcoming the additional momentum of Red Bryant blocking stuff. The blowouts were fun and got the Seahawks some much-appreciated national respect, but today, the Rams gave Wilson nothing. It was the most that any team has demanded of him this year. It was the toughest game of December for them, a grind and a scheme-tester.<br />
<br />
And the Seahawks pulled it out. They hung in there. Despite a well-executed defensive setup from St. Louis, despite the offensive mistakes of youth coming back to haunt them, despite every effort from Jeff Triplett's referee crew to stifle <i>both</i> teams (apparently they wanted another tie), despite that horrible sinking feeling that the Miami game was repeating itself, Seattle pulled it out. They maintained focus, they never lost their heads, and they stayed in to live another set of downs. Eventually, the big plays finally started rolling in without yellow flags attached, and the offense trotted into the history books abreast of Peyton Manning (Wilson's 26 passing touchdowns for a rookie) and Adrian Peterson (Marshawn Lynch with ten 100-yard games in a season).<br />
<br />
That's fodder for some serious pride, and it's a sign of maturity on this team. In my humble opinion, it says more about the Seahawks than any game since Chicago. Bring on the playoffs.<br />
<br />
<br />
Since we're thinking about reality checks, this game highlighted some personnel issues than Russell Wilson and Marshawn Lynch have been covering up for weeks. Despite appearances that are understandably deceiving when your team is up by 20 points, Seattle's roster has some vulnerabilities heading into the postseason. If there is a playoff exit by this team, these seem like the likeliest avenues through which it will come.<br />
<br />
It it comes. I give this team a legitimate chance to win it all.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Offense: Limited receiver separation</b><br />
<br />
Give St. Louis their due for finally developing a strong plan for stopping Russell Wilson. The Rams D-line did a good job of containing the edges and keeping Wilson from slipping out into space. This left him pumping in the pocket looking for targets. Along with some well-timed stuffs of Lynch early on, the Rams were able to shut down an offense that had just scored 150 points in its last three games. Seattle's right-side O-line deserves some grace in light of the defensive line it faced, despite its horrid performance.<br />
<br />
The Rams' plan in a nutshell: force Wilson to be Peyton Manning by stuffing the run, containing the edges, and requiring Wilson to beat the blitz through the air. In other words, a complete defensive effort. That's probably the closest thing to a blueprint for stopping this Seattle offense that exists at this point, though it required a very talented and well-coached defense to do it. (It's a little disappointing that Darell Bevell didn't try so much as a single screen or swing pass that I can offhand remember. A back-to-earth moment for him as well.)<br />
<br />
How does an offense address this? If you look back over the last two months and watch Wilson's biggest plays with an objective eye, you'll notice that he's needing a lot of scrambling and improvisation to make it happen. He succeeds, so nobody questions them or looks for a cause. But it's an indicator that our wide receiving corps, now even more depleted than earlier, has nobody who gets quick separation or clears out zones consistently, leaving Wilson in the pocket tomahawking empty air with the football. He's not going to make a lot of risky throws (nor should he), so he needs that separation. And against defenses that can contain the edges, like St. Louis, that will leave him exposed, the O-line overburdened, and the offense jerky and stop-start like it was today.<br />
<br />
Part of averting any sophomore slump for Wilson, in my opinion, lies with restacking our WR corps. They're obviously not going to leave the roster with four guys including Jermaine Kearse, so this is moot. But I'm looking forward to guys who can break off crisp routes and flash open quickly, and/or offer a deep threat to draw coverages away. Give Wilson even more options, hand Lynch a couple more yards up front, make defenses work even harder. Perhaps not in the first round, because Wilson's height will hide some of the shorter stuff anyway and thus can't fully justify a big WR investment. Cobi Hamilton of Arkansas has recently caught my eye as fitting the PC bill; I might write more about him soon.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Defense: Interior pass rush, slot cornerback</b><br />
<br />
Seattle's pass rush was once again unaccounted for, negating the best coverage efforts of our secondary (even Marcus Trufant had a couple wily plays from the slot). Worse yet, today was the worst <i>home</i> performance we've seen from this unit all year. This will not do, either against Tony Romo or Robert Griffin III, to say nothing of who comes afterward. DT Jason Jones' move to IR has proven his value in retrospect, but even he may be too oft-injured to be the answer. An answer is needed, because despite Bruce Irvin's eight sacks this year, his impact has been spotty. Like Aldon Smith, he needs a lightning bear next to him to open up opportunities up the middle, and he needs experience, more pass-rush moves, and more discipline. As it is, he's still sorta the delayed-gratification pick he was in Week 1.<br />
<br />
Earlier last week, CB Walter Thurmond tweeted that his season had come to an end. The Seahawks never confirmed that they had moved Thurmond to IR. Don't hold your breath expecting him to wind up there this week either, as neither Marcus Trufant nor Jeremy Lane performed particularly well in his absence. Lane has promise, but remains as raw as a rug burn. Pete Carroll has established a habit of making roster moves based on what other talent he has available on his roster. It says a lot about Thurmond's potential that Pete drafted him in the fourth round after a gruesome college injury and then hung onto him up until this point. He might still have a place on this team.<br />
<br />
The linebacking corps is not a glaring need nor necessarily demands a first-round move, as few 4-3 defenses are known for their linebackers. Also, only a churl would complain about the linebackers on the #1 scoring defense. But you could say that OLB is perhaps not "competition-proof". Perhaps we should just settle for a stud defensive tackle and see what Malcolm Smith and KJ Wright become.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The Seahawks have defied my expectations. A young team with a bunch of rookies and sophomores, especially at vital positions - I figured 10-6, but with my projected wins concentrated in very different parts of the schedule.<br />
<br />
Instead, the Seahawks have played tough, persevered through ups and downs and some undeserved criticism from fans and media alike. The result: the 3rd 11-win season of the franchise against incredibly touch competition, the #1 scoring defense, a rookie QB breaking records and vying for Offensive Rookie of the Year (who cares, go to the Super Bowl!), five Pro Bowlers and a gaggle of alternates including the best cornerback in the league, all the love that DVOA can muster, a playoff berth that was an agonizing Braylon Edwards drop away from being the #2 seed...<br />
<br />
...and most importantly, <i>validation</i>. The Rams handed this team a knuckle sandwich today, and they spun around and jumped right back into the fray. They are alive in January with the experience, credibility, and self-confidence to be considered a legitimate NFC title contender. Imagine them after this upcoming draft, rich in all the missing pieces this team needs.<br />
<br />
This could get really, really good.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-89110686464595712632012-12-26T18:29:00.001-08:002012-12-26T18:29:41.657-08:00You Were Here When the Butterfly Opened its Wings<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;">150 points in 3 games.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;">For comparison, the 1992 squad scored 140 points in that entire season. Now, 100 consecutive points at home with </span><span style="font-style: italic; line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">no answering score from the whoever the hell was forced to endure a trip to Seattle.</span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.4em;"> Annihilation, destruction, havoc and Jim Harbaugh's face left blank. It all adds up to the team nobody wants to play. Drop to your knees and thank the lord of schedule making, Indy, you get to keep living in your paper palace. Nobody knows what a fraud you are, because you don't have to face the Seahawks.</span></span><br />
<div class="postbody" style="line-height: 1.4em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This was not expected by even the devoted. Not this. Until we saw it with our own eyes, this offense was an exercise in potential. There was no proof it was even possible, with 30 points being the most we had scored in a single game all season.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What happened? I was pretty vocal about the playcalling up to and after the Miami game, and I felt validated about those criticisms when Pete acknowledged they could have thrown it a bit more. Our offense was multiple, but there was a governor on the throttle, and that governor was a call sheet and Motorola mic in the hands of Darell Bevell. But it wasn't really. Pete was afraid of turnovers, and he had to learn just like everybody else to put his faith in Russell Wilson. Pete was the governor on our throttle.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our offense has consisted of Run and Deep Shots, and if the safety is covering too, roll out and throw it away. We played that game for most of the season and 55 minutes in Chicago. Sure, there was the occasional changeup to the formula, but it felt like 55 minutes of dueling with wooden practice swords more than strategic playcalling. The governor was still in place, and a defense that had played great was looking like it would get the blame for giving up 14 measly points. Because we had 10. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And with Seattle's backs against the wall, Pete finally removed the governor. He finally allowed Russell to be the player the other team has to worry about. <span style="font-style: italic; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">He finally let the point guard decide when he drives and when he dishes.</span> </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When that warrior had secured the victory, we could have gone back to the old way of doing things, but Seattle's defense really did blow it this time.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-style: italic; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">And that was the best thing that could have happened to our team. Really.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes, allowing a team to drive the field in under 30 seconds and take a game to overtime was the best thing that could have happened to the Hawks, you heard me. Because Seattle kept the governor off the offense yet again, and yet again Russell proved he is to be trusted fully and completely to do the right thing.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The whole team needed those two drives. The explosion of takeaways that has resulted is from those drives. Our defense had slowly gone from aggressive to conservative in approach, knowing how much our game plan depended on them not making any mistakes. In every game, they had to choose to either attack or control the offense, and the result was a run defense that was not aggressive and what felt like a defense in slow decline because they had been carrying the rest of the team.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In all games since, Seattles offense has found points quickly in the first quarter, and the defense has responded with formerly repressed aggression. All three phases of the game are working together as a single unit for the first time all year. Because of two drives on the road in Chicago.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pete will always build around the run, so in a sense, that governor will always exist. But that is a very good thing; to attack through the air always is to sacrifice physicality for precision, and physicality has to be part of our identity. Physicality is play action, is the basis of run option, and is just plain vital to the attitude of our offensive line. The governor on the quarterback is gone though, and that is how the ugly little caterpillar has become something beautiful. Gone are notions of making the quarterback climb the pocket because the play calls for it. Gone are the notions that the West Coast Offense must have the quick slants that Russell will always struggle to complete. Gone are the notions of smoke screens as the best option to get the ball from quarterback to receiver.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pete trusts Wilson. Now this is the NFL, and stuff happens, and Wilson will make more mistakes, maybe even some mistakes that cost us games. But Pete knows he won't make them from bad habits, won't make them from trying to make the impossible happen, and won't make them because the overall pressure of the game has gotten to him. I was afraid that in the future we would have to deal with a coach who struggled to give up control to his ever growing quarterback, and those fears have evaporated. That speaks volumes about Pete. For a "defensive" coach to give up control isn't easy, and Pete's near phobia of turnovers can't make it easy to surrender control. Pete preaches humble, and he walks it too, at least to the extent you can in that profession. I would compare what Pete is doing to a music teacher who realizes he has this one truly special student, and one day he realizes this student just doesn't need sheet music anymore.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The bandwagon is going to fill up fast. More casual fans than you, the reader of this too-long article, will now begin to annoy you as they make it harder and more expensive to get tickets. This board is going to be gaining fans who are more fans of players than the laundry they wear, and who enjoy success more than the process. Fans who are fickle when we lose, and just as quick to let a little adversity make them complain as they are to let a little success go to their heads. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That's OK. <span style="font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">You were here when the butterfly opened its wings.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606055041796769662noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-3090522394100453772012-11-11T19:26:00.001-08:002012-11-11T19:34:04.314-08:0017 Things I Love About the Jets WinIn no particular order.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b>1. Darell Bevell getting quicker on the adjustment trigger.</b> It used to be that we wouldn't see any offensive adjustments until halftime. On Sunday, once it became clear that Russell Wilson was struggling with the defensive looks the Jets were throwing at him (for which no rookie should ever be condemned), Bevell moved immediately. He went back to the run to give Wilson some space, hoping to pull the Jets back up into the box. Then he started calling some screens to neutralize the pass rush. These proved to be effective moves, generated some momentum. Nimbleness on play-calling - definitely a big improvement.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Screens.</b> If I'd told you in September that the Seahawks would soon not only improve at screens but make them a centerpiece of the offense behind a consistent Golden Tate, you'd have laughed at me. (Of course, if I'd told you back then that I would actually write another blog post one day, you'd have laughe at me too.) Ironic - our offensive line was actually better at executing screens today than it was at ordinary pass protection.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Golden Tate's touchdown dance.</b> I'm sorry, but that little guy's exultation after his first-quarter touchdown just put a big grin on my face. Such a happy thing.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Richard Sherman.</b> This guy is changing games. If he doesn't make the Pro Bowl, there is no justice in the world.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Russell Wilson's deep-ball placement.</b> Another item on the long laundry list of things that Wilson has fixed in a hurry this year. The guy just puts that ball right where it needs to go. Sidney Rice is rewarding him for it, averaging 14 yards per reception on the year.<br />
<br />
<b>6. The Beast.</b> I'm not sure he's gotten the memo that his back is hurting. What are they putting in those Skittles? Congratulations on your second 1,000-yard rushing season in a row, Marshawn Lynch.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Russell Wilson's demeanor.</b> Part of it is that he's just not a hugely expressive guy - his face is a pretty set one, fairly reserved even when hollering into the phone at his draft party while his wife pulled a Mummy mouth next to him. But I'll bet the Seahawks' offense feels pretty safe under his direction on the field. One cool customer - unflappable and short memory.<br />
<br />
<b>8. Pete Carroll's QB grooming program.</b> If you examine Wilson's progress carefully, you see a very intentional pattern of playbook development and decision-making training for Wilson. It's borne fruit. The Seahawks have kept themselves in games by minimizing turnovers, at the expense of boring a few fans along the way, but are now finding identity, chemistry, and favorite plays on offense. This program has been drawn up and executed brilliantly.<br />
<br />
<b>9. Bobby Wagner.</b> With KJ Wright off the field today, Seattle's candidate for DROY was presumably handling all the defensive calls. Forget the 81 tackles stat - high tackle numbers could just mean that QB's aren't afraid to throw at you. What I like is his speed, reactions, and discipline. The tape backs him up even better than his stats do. Speaking of which...<br />
<br />
<b>10. LB coach Ken Norton.</b> This guy has done real magic with our linebacking corps, and it showed up today with our depth as Mike Morgan made some positive plays in relief of KJ Wright and never gave up anything big. Both he and Wagner could have picked a tougher opponent to prove themselves against, sure, but still.<br />
<br />
<b>11. Having a bye next week.</b> Was pleasantly surprised to see how many nicked-up players made it back onto the field this week, but this team has been wearing down and could use the week off. Lots of offensive experience to build on with the whiteboards at the VMAC.<br />
<br />
<b>12. That flea-flicker in the second quarter.</b> No, it didn't quite result in a touchdown. But given Seattle's expertise in running the ball, and how many resources our opponents are devoting to stop it, I'd have thought we'd be seeing flea-flickers sooner.<br />
<br />
<b>13. Skill-position chemistry.</b> Russell Wilson's receivers are really getting a feel for each other. Coordinating on scrambling drills, coming back for the ball, trusting Wilson's ball placement enough to stick with their routes. Great stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>14. The read option.</b> It's leading to some awesome Wilson scrambles for first downs. Very effective wrinkle.<br />
<br />
<b>15. NOT taking a knee in the final two minutes of the half.</b> Gosh I hate that.<br />
<br />
<b>16. Zach Miller catching five passes.</b> Much of that contract that has some fans wringing their hands is given to him for his run-blocking, which makes sense for a run-first team. But you love to see the guy Beastmoding his way to the first down marker and providing a security blanket down the seam.<br />
<br />
<b>17. Our playoff chances.</b> Detroit has been shoved further down the schedule, leaving only Tampa and Green Bay to duke it out for wild-card spots with us. Only two truly mammoth games remain on Seattle's schedule, one at home (SF). The rest are against floundering teams, starting with Miami, whose quarterback threw three picks against a bottom-five passing defense today. At home.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-14914686326427396212012-09-30T20:46:00.000-07:002012-10-01T10:10:21.533-07:00A positive outlook on the Rams loss<em><span style="color: red;">UPDATED to include third-down efficiency in the "Ugly" section. Completely escaped my mind when I wrote this.</span></em><br />
<br />
<br />
Seahawks fans were writing this team's loss narrative before the team even got on the plane to St. Louis. Short week. Trap game. Distraction from the Packers win. These are the things that will get labeled as the culprits for the loss, but it won't be accurate. The real reasons are the same ones that have been plaguing the team from Week 1: penalties, WR gaffes, red-zone struggles, Wilson's usual struggles...in a word, <span style="font-style: italic;">youth</span>.<br />
<br />
It's also important to acknowledge our assumptions that the Rams were still garbage and that Sam Bradford was still in his sophomore slump. That's the danger of carrying over assumptions from last year. It bites us all in the ass. The thinking was that we should have been sacking Bradford and picking his passes off all day, and that any failure to do so was an indictment of the Seahawks since, hey, Bradford's still a wreck. Instead, the Rams are good this year. Bradford is emerging, his chemistry with his receivers is showing up, and he finally has a veteran coach who gets him.<br />
<br />
With the 49ers lambasting the Jets on the road today, the verdict is out: the NFC West is a tough, experienced, competitive division this year and might be that way for a long time.<br />
<br />
All that said, this loss was the swallowable sort if we're looking purely at the game and not its playoff implications. We lost by six points and limited the Rams' touchdowns to a trick play. Those six points all came in a dome from a Rams kicker whose iron legs probably could have held up the Tacoma Narrows bridge. Against most teams, this game goes to overtime. <br />
<br />
I actually saw quite a few improvements today from the Seahawks, signs of progress. They didn't lead to a win, but neither is this team a "train wreck" that has Pete Carroll on coaches' death row. We saw Seattle stick to its identity, play the run and underrated defense against a good game plan by the Rams, and in the end, lose because we couldn't deliver the final play. We might see a lot of that until our offense clicks.<br />
<br />
Of course, I wasn't one of the ones thinking "Super Bowl Now", so my expectations - and thus my current state of mine - are different. If you wanted Seattle to contend this year, you might be frustrated. But this was a downer game for me too, because in all likelihood, Seattle lost the division today. It'll be hard to come back from a 0-2 division record.<br />
<br />
I'm really starting to like the "optimism" thing, so I'mma start with the ugly.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Ugly</span><br />
<br />
<em>Third-down efficiency:</em> Much of this goes on the plays being drawn up, but the Seahawks have regressed on third down efficiency almost to the point of being worse than Tarvaris Jackson. Against Arizona, Russell Wilson made a couple of awesome third-down plays, including the 3rd-and-9 touchdown to Sidney Rice, who was his third read on the play. We know he can do this, or at least we don't know that he's incapable of making it consistent. Seattle's offensive playbook, meanwhile, is still rudimentary.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Breno Giacomini</span>: I said this earlier in the year, but boy does that guy bug me. It was only a matter of time until his gangsta attitude showed up at the wrong time. Everyone knew we had penalty problems, but nobody really seemed to lay any of them on him. He was directly responsible for killing two crucial drives today (one was questionable). If I'm Pete today, I bench Giacomini (just to send a message, mind you) and either trust Paul "Cable Army Knife" McQuistan on the edge or just run left all day against Carolina. (We can do that now, which I'll address later). Impossible to ignore, and impossible to accept.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Mike Martz as announcer</span>: I'd rather be kicked in the nuts than listen to that Rams homer again. Trying to reclaim some lost self-esteem by bragging how "good" his former team looked. What an oaf.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Bad</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Third-down secondary</span>: This belongs in the "bad" category, not the "ugly", but it was bad. Those who think Seattle's defense is the worst in the league at getting off the field on third down, might be interested to know that they did it seven times. It's not their fault that the edge of Greg Zuerlein's field-goal range is Topeka. They also recorded five three-and-outs, allowed the Rams only two red-zone possessions, and recorded an interception from Richard "Short Memory" Sherman that mitigated the big reception he allowed to Chris Givens immediately before. <br />
<br />
I guarantee you that we wouldn't be all that jazzed about our offense if ours looked like that. Good test of our perception as fans: If you think your D was bad, ask yourself how you'd feel if you were fans of the other team.<br />
<br />
It looked like a bad day for the defense, and it was frustrating to see so many 3rd-down-and-Neptune conversions given up, but that's what a well-executed dink-and-dunk QB will do to you. St. Louis smartly kept Bradford within the quick-passing game that fits him best, neutralizes pass rush, and will make him a contender if anything ever does. He's promising real mastery in that strategy. That accounts for a lot of the pain today, not just Seattle's secondary laying eggs (although Sherman is definitely out of his element playing off coverage and the unit did take a step down from Green Bay). We're allowing 0.5 passing touchdowns per game this year against some incredible quarterbacks. I don't even want to know what that number was in 2009.<br />
<br />
A quick note: To be honest, you're likely to see a lot of dink-and-dunk this year as the league starts shifting towards efficient passing styles rather than deep-bomb games. Bradford looked lost last week because he was trying to play like Jay Cutler, not because he faced a worse pass rush today. EVERY team plays zone coverage during certain downs. Every team. The result today was that Bradford, like Romo, rose to the challenge and put together some drives. Credit him; don't bag on the Legion of Boom.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Red zone defense</span>: Yeah, our red-zone defense allowed ten points on both possessions. The trick play was especially painful. But our criticism here is inconsistent too. We're not satisfied with holding the other offense to field goals, but when OUR offense is the one settling for three, suddenly it's a good thing for THAT defense? Which is it, folks?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Pass rush</span>: I'm defending the defense a lot today. Our edge rush certainly vanished into thin air, and that's seriously frustrating against tackles like Wayne Hunter. That gave up several long completions. The Rams' quick-rhythm passing game helped take our edge rushers out of the play. The interior rush was there, and that's the more crucial component anyway. But Bruce Irvin does need to start showing up on the road. This was, sad to say, predictable.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">That onside kick to start the second half</span>: Big gamble that didn't pay off, but we'd be crowing about it otherwise and you all know it. Tough luck that it led to a 60-yard field goal.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Russell Wilson's overthrows</span>: Golden Tate was trying to be clutch in the final drive but had two important passes sail waaaay over his head. Cringeworthy.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Marshawn Lynch's block on Wilson's second pick</span>: Seemed to just give up on the protection. Or maybe he wasn't expecting Wilson to stay in the pocket. We sure weren't.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Doug Baldwin</span>: Showed up today in the BAD manner. Wilson's first interception went right through Baldwin's hands. What happened to this guy carving out holes in coverage?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Jon Ryan</span>: Left Seattle in poor field position a couple times.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Good</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">We didn't panic on offense:</span> True, we were never down by that much, but credit Pete and Bevell for not giving up on the run. It's the key to this offense's momentum right now, and today it supplied a lot of it on multiple drives (6.1 YPC). Very glad to see how Pete handles turnovers once they start happening; Kearly spoke well when he said that the running attack can also serve as damage control during losses. It was also encouraging to see Seattle call more running plays to the left after being somewhat unbalanced for a while, which leads me to...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">James Carpenter:</span> I thought he was an immediate upgrade to this offensive line. Better blocking on the left, also opened a couple of much-needed interior passing lanes for Wilson to find Zach Miller early on. That's going to be huge for Wilson's development. He looks so much more natural on the left, I'm surprised that Pete didn't just stick him there immediately upon drafting him. Maybe the right tackle position was just really hurting back then, too.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Seattle scored early:</span> This was huge. The opening drive was a thing of beauty - balanced, well-executed, and some good improvisation by Wilson. We need more of that in order to set the tone in games. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Wilson trying to stay home:</span> The Flynnsquawkers will see nothing but Wilson's three interceptions, but ironically enough, on all three picks he was staying in the pocket. Pretty microscopic pocket on the second one, hard to fault him for shifting left, but I'll leave the blame allocation to others on that one. It showed that at least Wilson's making an effort to stay home, and could have made two big completions had not Doug Baldwin and Anthony McCoy slipped up both times. He was back up to 6.4 YPA, had a 68% completion rate today, and still looks nothing like Tarvaris Jackson. Sorry haters.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Robert Turbin:</span> Had a great first game as a legitimate cog, gaining 45 yards on six hard-fought carries. That guy's speed is real. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to have TWO similarly roughnecked running backs. It will keep our rushing style intact if one goes down to injury, instead of losing one prong of a two-pronged attack.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Run defense:</span> Just another day for that brick wall. Daryl Richardson didn't have the breakout game some were looking for, and Steven Jackson...nope, still looking for that elusive 100-yard game against Seattle. He's running out of time to do it.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Leon Washington:</span> Finally, breaking off a big return. Been getting worried about that guy.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Russell Okung</span>: Poor Russell. Just like being a CIA agent, you get noticed only when you fail.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
As far as the Wilson question: I think we Seattle fans could take a lesson from Sam Bradford today. He's taken two full seasons and a lot of frustration to get where he is. And I'm sure during that time, a lot of Rams fans were curious where he would end up. This year, things are clicking, but it's taken some time.<br />
<br />
We could look elsewhere in the division, too. Alex Smith figured himself out. I'm starting to wonder whether Kevin Kolb might pull it out after all.<br />
<br />
Or look at Peyton Manning's first four NFL games. 3 TD, 11 INT, 55% completion rate, 0-4 start. If I'm a Colts fan back in 1998, I might be absolutely flipping out over that. At the very least, I wouldn't be all that confident that Manning will ever amount to much. He turned out all right.<br />
<br />
But it took time. Are we prepared for the long haul? Were we really expecting a Pro Bowl quarterback in the first season? I don't think it works like that. There should be stepping stones, but it might be a couple years before Wilson fully "gets it". Are we ready for that? Meanwhile, he's keeping games in hand (always a positive accomplishment, lest we forget 2009-2010's offense) against the #9, #7, #5, and #6 DVOA pass defenses, <a href="http://t.co/Lr14fNON">without a true #1 receiver or security blanket.</a> The defenses get markedly easier starting this week.<br />
<br />
Today's game screamed youth. Youth shows up in the red zone, it shows up in penalties, and it shows up in lack of discipline, inconsistency, execution. I wouldn't say the offense is set - a couple more years of roster - churning are due - but this was a youth game. The Rams are young, too, but they have the more developed quarterback and frankly they didn't look that much better today anyway. It also screamed Pete "Everything But Passing Offense" Carroll. Some have called this a "fluke" loss, but we're going to have a lot of fluke losses as long as we lack consistency in the passing game. We'll be riding a razor's edge every game, winning or losing on tough breaks and individual plays, until Wilson gets it. That's the nature of Pete's strategy.<br />
<br />
So yeah. This year might be quite the roller coaster. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-13669761465731279822012-09-26T17:22:00.000-07:002012-09-26T18:58:55.940-07:00The Hypocrisy of GoldengateHawkblogger <a href="http://www.hawkblogger.com/2012/09/podcast-with-softy-im-little-angry.html">spoke some immortal words today</a> during a podcast.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #ead1dc;">There is only one way out of this, and Seahawks fans better buckle up, because whether or not the Seahawks did anything wrong, we are public enemy #1. Every play that goes against us, (in the country's opinion) we deserve it. Every time we lose, we deserve it. The only way out of this hole is to win the Super Bowl. The last time that the nation laughed at us and pointed fingers and disrespected this franchise, we caused an earthquake. That is going to have to happen again for the rest of the season, every single game. Seahawks fans better bring it, Seahawks players better bring it, and we'd better bring it until we bring the championship home this year, next year, and the year after. Until they can talk all they want about that one play and it will be a distant memory.</span></blockquote>
I walked into work Tuesday morning having not been able to watch the Packers game. First thing before attacking my skyscraper of ungraded papers, I opened NFL.com and checked the score. My mouth dropped open in astonished delight at the exact moment as one of my Algebra 2 students, a pack of five others right behind him, yanked open my door, leaned in, and without any greeting or preamble, hollered "<em>Worst...call...ever.</em>" They know I'm a Twelve, and they wouldn't let go of the refrain all day: "<em>The Seahawks? Seriously?</em>" (Admittedly, this was mostly revenge from their being Cowboys fans.)<br />
<br />
Every Twelve knows in his heart the phenomenon that Hawkblogger and I are describing here. The Seahawks are not the darlings of the NFL. We are not one of the media-market teams that bring ratings to the league's showcase games. We are not the team that the league would hold up as their paragon of talent and hardnosed professionalism. Our team is the red-headed stepchildren, and we share its status amongst fan circles.<br />
<br />
For years, this status has taken passive voice as "Southern Alaska" as the team has wallowed in the muck of mediocrity with nobody feeling the need to pile on. Before that, it was "bullies of the basement" as we dominated the weak NFC West. It reached a passive-aggressive crescendo as the Seahawks trotted out to "Bittersweet Symphony" in Super Bowl XL and promptly got handed a yellow-colored, not-so-subtle memo as to which team's storylines the league thought more of. And once Pete Carroll the Rebel arrived, the laughter only increased.<br />
<br />
So now that Golden Tate, Brandon Browner, Kam Chancellor and associates have finally taken a stand against the willful ignorance and literally body-slammed their way into the national spotlight, will the Seahawks ever be known as anything other than "The Ones Who Kept the Packers From Starting 2-1"?<br />
<br />
I cannot believe the hypocrisy sweeping the nation over the Golden Tate touchdown. Forget the validity of the call for a moment. Where was this rending of garments and gnashing of teeth at the end of Super Bowl XL? I vividly remember the resounding snide dismissal from around the country: "If you wanted to win, there were plenty of dropped passes your team could have avoided. You deserved to lose. Deal with it." <br />
<br />
Yet Aaron Rodgers, one of the league's best pressure-defeating, laser-accurate passers, so skilled that Matt Flynn (according to some Seahawks fans) has absorbed all his blitz-defeating ability by osmosis without even having to start more than twice - Rodgers is not given the same tough-love treatment. He's painted as a victim.<br />
<br />
And <em>he actually has a Super Bowl ring.</em><br />
<br />
And you want me to believe that this is about the <em>integrity of the game</em>?<br />
<br />
Horse-hockey.<br />
<br />
This is about a tough loss to one of the nation's popular "identity" teams. This is about "blue-collar quarterback" Aaron Rodgers and one of the league's precious, ratings-grabbing, high-flying passing offenses getting clobbered by good, plain, old-fashioned <em>defense</em> (by the way, folks, the Seahawks are pretty good at that now). It's about one of the NFL's night-game regulars getting whalloped, offensively brought down to the level of the 2006 Browns in front of the whole country, by an underdog that pundits keep in a glass-enclosed case labeled "Break in Case of Need for Punchline".<br />
<br />
Where was all this indignation last year when the <em>real</em> referees blew a fourth-quarter call on a Leon Washington touchdown return? That call would have lifted the Seahawks to a victory over...oh, right. Cleveland. Nobody gives a damn about that team. Forget that it could have changed Seattle's season.<br />
<br />
Where would the New Yorker's hand-wringing have been had Aaron Rodgers been the one throwing that "game-winning interception"? Pretty sure it would be relegated almost purely to the 12th Man.<br />
<br />
Where would Herm Edwards' disgust towards Pete Carroll have been had Golden Gate scored against the <em>Rams</em>? Non-existent.<br />
<br />
Where was Clay Matthews all of Monday night? Same mysterious pocket universe that DeMarcus Ware and all my pencils and old socks went to, I'm guessing.<br />
<br />
Where were all the national media writers during their class on journalistic integrity? Asleep on their desks, as evidenced by their gall in subtly accusing the Seahawks of "robbing" millions of <em>willing gamblers</em> who were dumb enough to put down their money on a sports game that they have zero control over. That right there, like Hawkblogger said, is the giveaway. That betrays the bias for me. There's no backpedaling from that. The hand has been tipped. The media officially has zero perspective on the whole thing.<br />
<br />
So don't come to me mourning over the death of football's integrity, treating it like some whitewashed lamb led to the slaughter by some punk wide receiver <a href="http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2012/9/26/3414220/seahawks-nfl-packers-golden-tate">who merely did what every wide receiver does on a hail mary</a>. Or whatever such melodramatic crap you're trying to pull.<br />
<br />
Don't pretend that the touchdown was the only bad call that determined the game. <br />
<br />
Don't pretend this is the first time a team has been defeated by the zebras.<br />
<br />
Don't accuse the Seahawks of dishonest arrogance for not shuffling up to the microphone with lowered heads and admitting that they "cheated".<br />
<br />
Don't act as if Aaron Rodgers deserved to win after being reduced to panicky checkdowns and sent scrambling for his life for an entire half by <em>a fourth-round Eagles castoff </em>before hunkering down behind his running game just to survive the night. (Credit where due: he still made many excellent throws.)<br />
<br />
And this to the players and media especially: DON'T...DON'T...DON'T EVEN HINT that this is the first time you've noticed how bad the replacement referees are, or how much impact it has. Don't you dare. Nobody else needed this game to figure that out, you Dallas-loving pack of hypocrites. This isn't about the situation reaching "critical mass", highlighting the bad call to hasten Ed Hochuli's return. Your double standard is so transparent that birds fly right into it.<br />
<br />
You'll notice I haven't even addressed the call itself. I don't plan to. I don't need to. The intensity of the self-righteous outcry from the league, the media, and some of the players themselves...that's indication enough of what's really going on here. This isn't about football's honor. It's about the challenge to its reigning oligarchy. The Seahawks weren't "given a gift" when the referee threw up his hands in the "touchdown" motion. They played a hell of a game, walked up to the Packers and punched them in the mouth for the four quarters before that play, representing the numerous teams who are demonstrating to these elite quarterbacks that balance, defense, discipline, and toughness still matter in this league.<br />
<br />
In the end, though, all my words are naught. Football fans have never been a receptive bunch. Neither have mediots. The only thing Seattle can do to earn respect (albeit grudging) is win, and win lots. We've stepped over the line now, made a claim. And we all saw this tipping point coming last year once the Legion of Boom started throwing people around and crowing about it on Twitter. We knew people would notice. We quieted the critics for a while during the Beastquake, but last year it was taken to a whole new level. All it took was the proper platform to announce our arrival on the block. It's here now, and we'll have to back up our smack every week, every day, just like Richard Sherman.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure I agree with Hawkblogger that Seattle will be a contender this year. But I do agree with this: boy, are we going to catch hell if they aren't. Fair or not.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com70tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-76230237296377170342012-09-24T08:22:00.003-07:002012-09-24T08:22:51.457-07:00Packers Game a Test for the Entire Seahawks TeamMy Seahawks fandom doesn't require me to blindly predict wins. If any fan chooses to be realistic and call the game as he sees it, then that's his right, and nobody else has anything to say about it. <br />
<br />
So I'm going to step out and say that the Seahawks face an uphill battle on Monday when the Packers swing by for their round in the Clink. There is, in fact, potential for a Green Bay blowout. That would be far more heartbreaking than a close loss, an implication that we've overestimated the defense's growth so far and provided a get-well game for Green Bay's aerial attack.<br />
<br />
Then again, what point is there in being a fan if there's not at least a mustard seed of optimism in his heart? Some folks seem to enjoy going against the grain, worshiping "rationality" almost to the point that others are justified in wondering if they have a pulse. Appearances aside, I'm not one of those guys. Is not hope a component of fandom? And so it is that I can say the Seahawks are better-equipped and closer to the ability to stop a truly elite quarterback than they ever have before.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<strong>On Defense</strong><br />
<br />
Tony Romo was not quite an elite quarterback. In terms of patience, consistency, and mastery of the art of pocket quarterbacking, he falls short of the neighborhood of Aaron Rodgers. He is, however, still very good in his gutsy, improvisational way, and has come a long way from his 2006 "choker" days. Seattle's containment of him remains a compliment to them, especially since Dallas did not abandon the run immediately and leave Romo on an island. It was a significant step forward in the coming together of their individual talent.<br />
<br />
But the fact remains that the Seahawks have faced few elite quarterbacks under Pete Carroll, and have not fared well when they have (or even against many sub-elite guys). They failed utterly - twice - to stop Drew Brees by any measure. Their triumphant playoff victory had nothing to do with a defense that allowed 36 points, and everything to do with a monster swan song by Matt Hasselbeck and a groundshaking run by the Beast. <br />
<br />
The following September, Ben Roethlisberger skewered Seattle repeatedly with a speedy receiver or two, and Matt Ryan followed soon thereafter. Eli Manning, again, was defeated more by a rare hot day for Seattle's offense than anything else.<br />
<br />
Seattle's secondary has remained on an upward trajectory since then (in particular Brandon Browner). Their objective: overcome the Jekyll-and-Hyde-ish nature that defined that infuriating pretender, the Ruskell defense, that looked elite against terrible quarterbacks and then turned around and bit its fans in the ass by deflating against any quarterback who was worth a damn. It was a lesson in the impact of strength-of-opponent and a disheartening illusion that's given me post-traumatic stress when it comes to Seattle's defense. I'm still shaking off the habit of guessing wins or losses purely by the strength of the opposing QB.<br />
<br />
In their first two games of 2012, the Seahawks defense allowed several long, grinding, third-down-after-third-down possessions but were able to make just enough drive-killing plays to keep the score close. This "attrition" style of defense, while seemingly a nail-biting high-wire act, is still a valid strategy in the NFL and also goes by the name of "bend but don't break". It forces the opposing quarterback to make more plays and thus increases the probability of a turnover.<br />
<br />
Seattle's backfield has the physicality and talent to play the man coverage that will pressure Rodgers (Bradley's precious zone coverage will be a death wish for Seattle). Last week, they handled some solid but inconsistent receivers. The presence of the speedy Greg Jennings is what could turn this into last year's Pittsburgh game, in which Mike Wallace repeatedly left Brandon Browner in the dust with his speed. Expect Rodgers to pick on Browner with Jennings (if he plays). One double-move bite by Browner, one bad angle by Kam Chancellor, and Rodgers will have his six. (Newly-signed CB Danny Gorrer could be Pete Carroll's attempt to answer Jennings in the slot).<br />
<br />
Rodgers is not invincible. <a href="http://t.co/TsqrJ7l7">His deep production has dropped over his last few games</a>, and it turns out that <a href="http://www.hawkblogger.com/2012/09/great-defense-unfamiliar-to-green-bay.html">he didn't face a lot of sincere defenses in 2011</a>. He needs Greg Jennings; most of his other weapons are known for spells of inconsistency. All three of the NFL's precious premiere passing juggernauts have gotten off to a terrible start this year, partially because of all the defenses stacking against the pass with creatively disguised coverages. Pete Carroll has helped spearhead this movement with his "amoeba" and "Bandit" looks, and has only enhanced their talent this offseason. It's an encouraging trend that could help restore offensive balance to the league.<br />
<br />
But Rodgers will score. The defense will try to contain him, and will probably sack him thanks to home-field advantage and Rodgers' habit of holding the ball an extra tick. But he's been getting sacked for years and still keeps coming right back with a big play. He can also burn our front seven with his legs if they overpursue. Rodgers will score, and when he does, Seattle's offense will have to answer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>On Offense</strong><br />
<br />
I'm not the first to notice that Seattle is a "second-half" offense so far this year. In other words, they're slow to start. The Carroll Seahawks overall are 2-16 against teams that score at least 21 points. This statistic is easy to dismiss as a lack of competent quarterbacking, but that caveat is still in effect on this team. <br />
Russell Wilson is a rookie. Other teams' sportswriters and fans seem to take it for granted that pressuring a rookie QB will destroy him. Wilson needs to prove otherwise.<br />
<br />
Last week, Dallas surrendered three turnovers and ten points in the first nine minutes, without any appreciable contribution at all from Seattle's offense. This largely turned out to be irrelevant, as Seattle was unable to muster a commanding lead upon those turnovers and the game still came down to execution in the second half. But it bought Seattle's rushing attack some time to get in rhythm. <br />
<br />
Seattle won't often enjoy that many turnovers in a game, much less in the first quarter. Tonight, they face the quarterback with the lowest interception rate in NFL history.<br />
<br />
In many ways, Monday's contest is a collision of two teams built (at least partially) to play with the lead. Therefore, it's also a test of philosophies. Green Bay's defense is designed to rush the passer as he scrambles to keep up with Aaron Rodgers. Pete Carroll has built an offense predicated on the running game. This isn't the same as "a team built to play with the lead", and I doubt that's Pete's intention. But until Russell Wilson develops further, that's all that Pete has. The running game generally has no impact if the team is trailing. For the moment, Seattle needs leads or level scores to play within its identity.<br />
<br />
The Packers' defense can be run upon, but unless the defense is able to shut down Aaron Rodgers early, Russell Wilson will face pressure from the scoreboard. That will require him to pass more, putting him right in the crosshairs of Clay Matthews (6 sacks in two games). The league has seen what Wilson looks like when pressured from the inside (jittery and uncertain), and what he looks like when only occasionally blitzed (much better). The Packers will blitz Wilson until he punishes them for it. Jump balls aren't the solution this time, as the Packers have corners who can win jump-ball competitions with Sidney Rice and Braylon Edwards.<br />
<br />
Still, this isn't a perfect matchup for Green Bay. The Packers' back seven were designed to stop strong-armed, prolific, risky passers like Jay Cutler and Eli Manning, a profile Wilson has generally avoided with conservative decisions. He and his offense are showing signs of growing into their own, finding their strengths, chemistry, and hot hands. Darell Bevell has already noticed the resources that defenses are committing to Seattle's play-action; a couple of Wilson's big plays last week were not out of play-action. The Seahawks' eyes are definitely open offensively.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Prediction</strong><br />
<br />There is hope going into this contest, no doubt about it. There is a sense that Green Bay will be earning its win, rather than exposing a pretender defense. But this remains one of the toughest passing attacks in the league, with the ability to sidestep Seattle's physicality, and reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated when they're made after two games. Seattle's offense, on the other hand, is young (its third game) and needs to overcome its first-half sputtering.<br />
<br />
If the Packers do prevail, it won't be a judgment on the team; it'll be a reminder of its youth and its need for more time. A few people are biting their nails because they believed the Seahawks could contend this year and that Matt Flynn was the best option for that goal, but growth is badly needed throughout this offense, not just at quarterback. Carroll's choice to develop the quarterback along with his weapons is the agreeable choice to me. <br />
<br />
The Packers game is a must-win if Seattle is in the playoff hunt, but I'm not hanging disproportionately big hopes on this hat rack. Like many games this year, this is a gauge for Seattle's growth. It's not a completely laid-back, hey-we-just-started affair like 2010's San Diego contest. There is some urgency, some expectation from two years of development. But still, I contest this contest as more of a gauge for the team's growth than a stepping stone to a year of destiny. That's okay.<br />
<br />
Prediction (0-2 so far):<br />
<br />
Seahawks 20<br />
Packers 34<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-68515257389243457022012-09-16T17:11:00.002-07:002012-09-16T22:17:41.661-07:0017 Fistpumps: Seahawks Out-Team America's Team 27-7* With Arizona proving its defensive chops against Tom Brady and his offense today, their 20-16 victory over the Seahawks last week is open to reinterpretation. It now looks less like an offensive turd on Seattle's part and more like a young team looking for its footing against an outstanding defense whose strengths matched up perfectly against our weaknesses. Take note: the NFC West is quickly becoming a defensive division.<br />
<br />
* <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/74825/wrap-up-seahawks-vs-cowboys">As Mike Sando eloquently put</a>, this must-win victory game was stamped with Carroll's style. Physical running game, elite defense, special teams, efficient quarterbacking, turnovers from the opponent and only from them. Seattle's offense was listless until halftime, but the defense bucked up impressively on two long drives and outlasted Romo and an impressive array of receivers. Once Seattle finally re-committed to its running game, the ball started rolling and never stopped to give Romo more chances.<br />
<br />
* We're definitely starting to see a "Good Russell Wilson" and "Bad Russell Wilson" emerge. Starting with the last major drive of the second quarter, the good half clicked in, started pulling down his passes and showing some poise and progressions. It was quite a noticeable difference. His collected demeanor after his touchdown to McCoy, and on the sidelines during the cruise to victory, were also striking. The guy is one cool customer. Lots of stuff to build on here.<br />
<br />
* I hear some Cowboys fans weren't worried about the absence of NT Jay Ratliff, calling his replacement an upgrade. It didn't look like that today. Once the running game started coming online, Seattle's big boys were getting great push, including right guard JR Sweezy, last week's goat. John Moffitt, who rotated with Sweezy at RG, had a solid day as he
helped FB Mike Robinson clear a lane on Marshawn Lynch's 36-yard run,
then had a great pull block to seal the lane on his touchdown. I can't tell you how good it feels to see Seattle pushing D-lines back two yards again. Therapeutic after five long years of brick-wall impotence. <br />
<br />
* Marshawn Lynch, for his part, doesn't appear to have lost a step. Here's hoping that he can stay in the business longer than most feature backs seem to these days. Robert Turbin is stepping right up beside him and also had a couple of nice checkdown receptions. I love the fact that we have two tough runners; it'll keep the offense's job easy if one of them suffers injury.<br />
<br />
* It might have taken a little while, but TE Anthony McCoy is finally promising to join the long list of late-round picks that Seattle has turned into big contributors. The chemistry with Wilson is definitely there. Rob Staton at Seahawks Draft Blog was always calling McCoy a borderline first-round talent who dropped because of behavior concerns.<br />
<br />
* Also hinting at emergence is Golden Tate, finally. He came up with a couple key plays, a big jailbreak catch for 20 yards and a sandlot reception in the red zone to set up Lynch's game-sealing touchdown jaunt. He might be a good match with a smart improvisor (is this a word?) like Wilson.<br />
<br />
* Brandon Browner gave up a touchdown on his weekly whiff against a double-move. It's a frustrating tendency, but dang it, he just never stops coming up with interceptions to win us over again.<br />
<br />
* The pass rush deserves more credit that it's getting. Yeah, we gave up a lot of scrambling, fourth-read conversions on third down, but Tony Romo is like that. Slippery and a brilliant artist on the run. Our guys were still all over him much of the time and had several very-near sacks. Result: Dallas scores one touchdown on blown coverage and never reaches the red zone.<br />
<br />
* Seattle's coverage rarely surrendered easy receptions and often forced Romo to extend plays, giving our pass rush time. Yeah, Romo was up to the challenge and Jason Witten made a glaring easy drop late in the second, but that's Pete's defensive formula - coverage helping pass rush as well as vice versa. (Saw a Cowboys fan call Witten "the new TO". Tee hee.) To wit: Alan Branch, Bobby Wagner, Chris Clemons, Jason Jones, Bruce Irvin, and Chris Maragos combined for 6 QB hits. And between Clemons, KJ Wright (awesome day), Earl Thomas, Richard Sherman (almost his second pick), and Brandon Browner (his first pick), Seattle defensed seven passes (though they're probably closing in on the NFL record for dropped interceptions). Thanks to <a href="https://twitter.com/BlueOsprey">Adam Wright</a> for those bits.<br />
<br />
* Even so, a lot of these good things seem to wait until we blitz. Once Bradley backed off the aggression in the second quarter, Romo seemed happier, at least to a degree. Three-man rushes weren't a good answer for that strong a receiving group.<br />
<br />
* Replacement refs suck wastewater, no matter whom you're rooting for.<br />
<br />
* The offensive line remains very touchy with the penalties. Is this the sign of a young, raw team, or a byproduct of Cable's nasty physicality that will be hard to overcome?<br />
<br />
* I'm having a hard time shaking the feeling that this team is very slow to start. Pete preaches finishing well, but that's not always feasible in this league and certainly won't be in Green Bay. If Pete wants to keep the running game in his toolbox at all times, this team had better improve in the first half.<br />
<br />
* Props to Frank Omiyale. Didn't look like the pinball flag we expected against DeMarcus Ware. Maybe Tom Cable does know what he's doing!<br />
<br />
* Stifling a playmaker like DeMarco Murray is a big credit to our linebacking corps.<br />
<br />
* At this rate, by the time Pete Carroll is done as head coach, there will be enough .GIFs of devastating pancake-blocks by Seahawks on both sides of the ball to fill up the Internet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.cosbysweaters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/hit.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" hea="true" height="217" src="http://cdn.cosbysweaters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/hit.gif" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
On to Green Bay!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-45161011636231112102012-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:002012-09-14T07:13:57.009-07:00Alternative Theories to "Darell Bevell Is An Idiot"When it comes to football, there's usually more than one interpretation for almost everything. On Sunday against Arizona, Seahawks fans saw offensive struggles that are being popularly chalked up to poor planning. Offensive coordinator Darell Bevell is getting a lot of flak for this (and a generous sprinkling of insults), but that's pretty easy. Good game plans can look bad when executed poorly. Whether Bevell cooked up an inadequate game plan is difficult to tell, because the lurking factor is Seattle's roughshod execution in every facet of the offense except the running game.<br />
<br />
The general belief is that Seattle didn't do enough to counteract Arizona's pass rush, that Bevell failed to utilize common pressure-neutralizing plays like screens, slants, outlets, and more emphasis on the tight end. The conclusion is that Bevell was just clueless, despite the fact that we've seen such features from him before. <br />
<br />
The unspoken assumption that you might not have realized you're carrying: that all of Seattle's offensive players can handle those plays. That a bunch of rookies and new signings were perfectly trained, healthy, in sync, and ready to execute every facet of Seattle's playbook, just waiting on the sidelines for the call, while an oblivious Bevell merrily skipped along waving a gameplan that made the game as hard on Wilson and the interior line as possible.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<strong>Chemistry and Readiness</strong><br />
<br />
Well, it should be obvious why that assumption might be flawed. Throw in the fact that good offensive coordinators generally don't and shouldn't call plays that can't be confidently executed (a screen pass, for example, is just asking for a four-yard loss if it fails), and you have an alternative explanation for why Seattle's offense looked so limited on Sunday. It's Week 1, and the offense is young, raw, and gimpy.<br />
<br />
Think of it in terms of chemistry and readiness. Chips, screens, and outlets...are our blockers fully ready for that? You need more than just a pass-catcher for this stuff. Anthony McCoy only just now became the #2 TE. Evan Moore played for one snap. Our right guard is a rookie DL convert. Robert Turbin, a likely target on screens, is a rookie despite his promising preseason. These are crucial players. It's sometimes hard to distinguish a play design without hot routes and checkdowns from one where they're simply slow to develop. This gave Wilson fewer options and left him dependent on slower-developing long routes (and, by extension, pass protection). I also didn't see a lot of receivers staying in the play once Wilson did start scrambling. This is one area where keeping Kellen Winslow wouldn't have helped...he wasn't known for to-the-whistle tenacity or in-line blocking. <br />
<br />
Throw into this fire the fact that our two chief receivers, Sidney Rice and Doug Baldwin, barely practiced during the preseason (and are still limited). They had little time to develop rapport with Wilson, nor Matt Flynn, nor even any alternate-universe version of either QB who got all the preseason snaps to himself. Golden Tate was out. Ben Obomanu and Charly Martin aren't expected to change the game. The amount of the single coverage that these guys faced against Arizona, and failed to overcome, was pretty frustrating. That leaves one healthy starting receiver at 100%. Not good.<br />
<br />
Then we have to face the possibility that we underestimated the Cardinals defense. That front seven, containing premiere pocket-pushers like Darnell Dockett and Calais Campbell and backed by a physical linebacking corps, was one of the league's most underrated pass-rushing units <em>before</em> they were taken over by the former DC of the Pittsburgh Steelers. On Sunday, that unit faced JR Sweezy. And you were expecting 400 passing yards?<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Easing Them In</strong><br />
<br />
But this has all largely been covered by smarter minds than mine. There's another alternate explanation that occurred to me this week. It was triggered by Pete Carroll's earlier mention that they were "streamlining" the playbook for Wilson against the Cardinals. It's possible that Seattle really did run a simplified passing scheme vs Arizona, with a limited arsenal of plays for Wilson, and that they did so intentionally to let him wade more slowly into the game.<br />
<br />
Consider the following:<br />
<br />
* That "streamlining" mention was mostly interpreted as ordinary game-planning by us. Maybe. But if that were so, why would Pete specially bring it up? Ordinary game-planning happens every week without meriting a mention at pressers. It seemed to hint at a more deliberate limiting for Wilson.<br />
<br />
* Pete Carroll has always shown an element of "growing into the playbook" in his handling of Seattle quarterbacks. He reined in Matt Hasselbeck's playbook during the first half of 2010 - Hasselbeck, a savvy veteran with little difficulty assimilating a new offense. He did the same with Tarvaris Jackson until he could demonstrate ball security. If he was conservative there, he's certainly not likely to cut a rookie loose without restrictions.<br />
<br />
* Again, a number of offensive players (McCoy, Sweezy, Moore, Turbin, Braylon Edwards, Charly Martin) are new to their spots and still adjusting to the scheme. The full playbook would be overkill for them, too. It's not just Wilson that might call for easing in; it's the whole offense.<br />
<br />
* There are some things this offense will simply never see a lot of. Three-step drops...Russell Wilson's height makes those tough. Running backs heavily dedicated to blocking...Pete would rather not do this unless he has to, lest he severely hamper the running game his offense is built around. He fired Jeremy Bates for not sticking to it, and isn't likely to sacrifice it himself until he's three scores down. Seattle isn't just going to reach out and start grabbing plays from other teams and stuffing them into the playbook. They're going to stick with what fits philosophically.<br />
<br />
* Pete has a running game and defense that he trusts to win games, or at least keep them close. His core values are physicality, attitude, and playing to the whistle. It seems simplistic, but it's won us games before. He's clearly never wanted to put the game in the hands of the passing game anyway. This is why he would not view a watered-down passing scheme as "punting the game" for Wilson's sake.<br />
<br /><br />
Given all this, I find myself wondering if Carroll felt justified in handing the offense a limited set of plays to see how well they could execute (they didn't answer very well, including Wilson), and excised other things to save for later. Perhaps including Wilson's authority to audible - I'm not sure. This is all guesswork on my part, but it seems plausible given the circumstances.<br />
<br />
I don't think Bevell 's game was perfect - he didn't seem prepared for the purity and consistency of the interior pressure that Arizona threw at him. It was a brilliant tactic that exploited one offensive weakness (the interior O-line) and magnified all the others in the process. Nevertheless, there are several elements at work to account for Seattle's strikingly ineffective offense other than just calling the OC a moron. And this is encouraging, because it leaves room for Seattle to grow instead of serving as a damning indictment of their potential. The tough part is that it leaves Seattle a game down in the division race and puts them in the unenviable position of playing a difficult "must-win" conference game in Week 2.<br />
<br />
<br />
(If you're still on the "fire Bevell" bandwagon - and once again, I'll just say that bandwagons should be illegal before Week 4 and subject to $500 fines payable to myself - a good counterpoint would be <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DX4pdzSI-qA">Brock Huard's Chalk Talk this week</a> covering the final fourth-down play of the game. It shows Bevell answering Arizona's pressure with a "11" package to force single coverage, then mixing up the receivers to successfully create a big mismatch in the slot. The failure was partially Russell Wilson's for a high throw, partially Braylon Edwards' for letting the pass right through his hands - in other words, back to execution. Debate the distribution of blame as you wish, and no doubt some people will have an agenda whichever side they choose, but the video might at least change your mind toward Seattle's scheming competence.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-69486961143164324422012-09-11T06:00:00.000-07:002012-09-11T06:00:13.035-07:00Week 1 Reaction: No Apocalypse NowSomeone at Fieldgulls said it best:<br />
<br />
Week 1 Commandment #1:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #f4cccc;">Neither shalt thou get over-excited over a win or overly disappointed by a loss. Week 1 is the most anomaly filled day in all of sports. <i>(King James emphasis mine, because I can.)</i></span><br />
<br />
Today is a comedown day for Seahawks fans. I had almost forgotten just how nasty and vitriolic we football fans can be after a loss. And I'd forgotten it because the 12th Man just wasn't very nasty last year. Not like this. My memory of 2011 was of muted, resigned, relatively tranquil reactions when the Seahawks lost, not the sarcastic poo-flinging that we're seeing right now.<br />
<br />
Why the difference? My fellow bloggers have already nailed it - expectations. Your therapist will tell you that your emotions are dependent mostly on your goals. In 2011, people stopped hoping as soon as Tarvaris Jackson signed. Hence, muted reactions. It was a development season, a punted year.<br />
<br />
This year, Russell Wilson's preseason polish had folks thinking they could see the light at the end of the rebuild tunnel. He faced a talented starting Kansas City defense that did not play the degree of sandlot football that some claim, and showed far more veteran polish that the typical preseason-disaster-in-waiting who just stares from the pocket like a rock and sidearms to wide-open guys. There was some real promise there. So the Arizona game was supposed to be the beginning of the get-well process - I myself mistakenly dubbed it "Week 5 of the preseason".<br />
<br />
Here's what happened - Seattle started the season against a tougher defense than Kansas City, assured itself a heavy dose of blitzing by starting a rookie QB(!!!!!) against a well-respected NFL defensive coordinator, struggled in its very first game(!!!!!) on the road(!!!!!), and was still a Braylon Edwards drop(!!!!!) from winning.<br />
<br />
Yes, that's what happened. Go back and look at the score. It was 20-16, not 120-16. You wouldn't know that from the current meltdown. The exclamation marks indicate things that <i>aren't</i> supposed to shock you.<br />
<br />
Some will go "a loss is still a loss". Well, no, it's not. Not for this fan. I barely care about this season. I've never seen 2012 as a contention year, haven't since Pete Carroll arrived. Maybe I'll be surprised, but my expectations were limited from the outset. That puts me in the minority, but there it is. Championships take time to build. Pass rushes and star quarterbacks are the biggest examples of this, and we only just got those (maybe). And I'm not part of the camp that believes that teams can win Super Bowls with running and defense against a league dominated by Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees. In my opinion, this team's Super Bowl window absolutely does not open until 2013 at the very earliest.<br />
<br />
For me, the stakes on Sunday were still developmental. I wanted to see Russell Wilson play like a rookie Peyton Manning instead of a rookie David Greene (there's a difference); he did. He threw several winning touchdowns that got dropped, bought at least two first downs with his feet that I remember, and never once folded or lost composure. His ball placement was erratic but (FAINT PRAISE ALERT) remains a world improved from Tarvaris Jackson. Yeah, he "played like a rookie", but that current popular phrase could mean a million different things. Wilson looked nowhere near as primitive as that blunt instrument that's starting in Miami.<br />
<br />
And no, I'm not convinced that Matt Flynn would have done any better. Despite his reputation for handling blitzes well in Green Bay, Flynn looked slow with his reads and downright sack-prone in a full game's worth of preseason snaps. It's not hard to provide a reason why - adjustment to much worse receivers on a differently-called offense. My guess: Flynn would have been destroyed behind that O-line.<br />
<br />
I wanted to see our running game pick up from 2011 without missing a beat; it did. I wanted to see our defense blanket Larry Fitzgerald and stymie our QB into sacks; it did, when instructed to. I wanted to see our pass rush tearing out the interior of Arizona's line and burying John Skelton in three hundred pounds of sweaty man.<br />
<br />
Okay, so that last part blew chunks. That's really what worried me most. While everyone else was salivating and over-prognosticating Wilson's rookie season, I was excited about our defense growing into the ability to bring OTHER quarterbacks down to Wilson's level. I really hoped that this year's pass rush would find its way.<br />
<br />
That clearly hasn't happened yet. No surprise - Game 1. Irvin is getting no better results than a lighter Lawrence Jackson, and actually reminds me of said now-Lion in his reliance on an ineffective bullrush. Chris Clemons was not his usual self against an Arizona tackle situation that had deteriorated to Kyle Williams territory, although much of that was down to better pass scheming on Arizona's part. Alan Branch still isn't showing me the promise he apparently showed everyone else last season, and Jason Jones isn't yet an improvement.<br />
<br />
<i>But it's only Week 1.</i> I get the distinct feeling that despite our hopes, Pete Carroll was still treating Week 1 as a preseason game. There was a bit of an experimental feel to it, given the narrow play-calling and tendencies (either that, or Darell Bevell really is an oaf). I don't agree with the experimental approach, but Pete has always shown an element of "growing into the season" in Seattle. No doubt there are elements of this going on, whether we like it or not.<br />
<br />
We have a few players waiting in the wings, yet to emerge. John Moffitt will hopefully be back soon, and behind him, James Carpenter. Golden Tate will also return, to the delight of those who think another two-catches-a-game WR will change things. If the Jones experiment doesn't work out, we have another promising project in Jaye Howard. Doug Baldwin has yet to return to full strength.<br />
<br />
As far as Wilson, I'm going to take great comfort in the fact that he was one dropped pass from winning. Pete Carroll has never been ignorant of the risk of starting a rookie. Is he willing to trade a few losses for the sake of more quickly building the experience of the QB with more upside? Are fans willing to watch this?<br />
<br />
Besides, let's be honest: if Braylon Edwards makes that TD catch, the tone around here would be much different and we all know it. It'd be about how Wilson "did enough to win an ugly game", and you wouldn't see nearly the intensity of the criticism. The ultimate setter of tone, the emotional filter through which we critique, is always whether we win or lose. There'd be the few isolated worriers and naysayers, but they'd get drowned out.<br />
<br />
This reaction isn't about where the team is. It's about where we are. This is about losing. We don't like to lose. We shouldn't. But progress is happening, folks. It may not come on our schedule, but it is coming.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-35774974695026026522012-08-27T06:00:00.000-07:002012-08-27T18:05:47.440-07:00Russell Wilson: A Safe Choice for SeattleSo...who's NOT happy to have the competition over at last? Put your hand down, you in the back. You weren't enjoying this either.<br />
<br />
The mantle has just been handed to Russell Wilson. Pete Carroll has named QB Russell Wilson, a third-round rookie out of Wisconsin, as the Seahawks' starting quarterback for 2012. He will open Seattle's 2012 campaign against Arizona, a team in such disarray that they might as well be Week 5 of the preseason.<br />
<br />
This is interesting...it's being said in some corners that Pete Carroll had "no choice" but to start Wilson after his impressive preseason start against Kansas City. That's a cynical view of the situation and feels like an extension of the popular doubt that's followed the whole competition. Allow me to phrase this another way: Russell Wilson <em>forced the issue like a true starter should</em>. He made a statement, made himself stand out. As Mike Sando put it (in one of the strongest opinions I've ever seen from him), picking Wilson was the only logical way to end a true competition, because <em>he went with the guy who won the competition</em>. Did you want it any other way? <br />
<br />
Get it through your head, America: When Pete Carroll says "earn everything", it's not rah-rah.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Of course, most weren't expecting it to be Wilson. While he always had the look of a competitor, his rise in competence over the offseason has been almost meteoric, certainly unexpected. Against Kansas City, Wilson put on a show that was not only dynamic and exciting to watch, but technically sound and promising at the next level. This isn't the primitive scrambling QB that some made him out to be following the draft. In four months, I have yet to see any reason, <em>other than his height,</em> that he was never projected as the #2 pick in the draft. All the little things he does, the veteran moves he displays, are there for the educated eye to spot.<br />
<br />
Now, to actually project him.<br />
<br />
There is going to be concern about starting a rookie quarterback. These concerns aren't entirely unmerited. Hawkblogger has been purveying them a lot lately, recently pointing out that history generally doesn't favor QB's who start as rookies.<br />
<br />
This is probably for a variety of reasons. Since many rookie quarterbacks are drafted high and thrown into the fire by desperate, talent-starved teams, it's often assumed that they're destroyed by the lack of surrounding support. Another theory is that some rookies suffer from offensive coordinators who can't or won't adapt their offense to suit their new toy. We've seen this with Sam Bradford, and it's not for no reason that Jack Del Rio has his reputation as a "QB killer". Another, often underlooked theory is that some of these guys might have just bombed anyway. David Carr, often held up as a prime example of the tragic rookie QB, had talent of his issues of his own in Houston, who saw rapid improvement at the position once they jettisoned Carr even though the O-line hadn't improved much.<br />
<br />
Wilson deserves to be projected as a human being on a football field. That's hard to do at this point, and I'm certainly not the one to do it definitively. But trying to project him under some statistical category, or as "The Next So-and-so", is the kind of futile generalization that got Wilson overlooked in the first place. Russell Wilson may simply be the next Russell Wilson.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Forecasting a Rookie</strong><br />
<br />
To the worries over starting a rookie, my response is three-fold. First is the practical one: Seattle needs to start the more productive quarterback. It's as simple as that. This league just doesn't have patience for slow-burners. If you don't want your starting QB to be a rookie, then you need to have a stopgap who can outproduce said rookie while he learns, as Green Bay and Tennessee have. Pete made a quite satisfactory attempt to find one. Did Matt Flynn meet the challenge? Pete has evidently decided not. But for his troubles, we now have one of the league's best backups and a great safety net if Wilson does struggle. You feel bad for Flynn still not having broken into the starters' ranks, but judging by Flynn's talent and the rarity of competent QB's in this league, I have no doubt that he'll eventually make it somewhere. He could find a better system fit than Seattle anyway.<br />
<br />
My second response is that while history generally doesn't favor rookie QB's, history also doesn't have much to say on rookie QB's who are actually drafted by good teams, because they usually aren't. The Seahawks are a good team in many areas. They've got a defense that should lift this team to 7 or 8 wins and leave Wilson with less work to do. They've got a running game in a similar vein to what Wilson played behind at Wisconsin, the two-back power zone. We also have a special-teams with a knack for producing unexpected momentum shifts.<br />
<br />
Now, it's true that Seattle's offense is not entirely settled. There are questions in our WR corps and half our offensive line. I say questions, not grim proclamations of doom, because we do have some possible answers. Should Sidney Rice and Braylon Edwards stay healthy, they could be a dangerous pair of vertical threats, with Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate making noise underneath. Keeping Anthony McCoy, a crisp blocker at tight end, will help justify deploying Kellen Winslow and Zach Miller as receivers once in a while. And while the guard spots remain as murky as they have since Steve Hutchinson left (I'm convinced he cursed the position), Tom Cable is known for keeping the machine churning with second-string talent. <br />
<br />
Although the platform for Wilson is a little shaky, it's there. Wilson made plenty out of it against heavy blitzing from the Chiefs, and his mobility is an extra asset in overcoming pass pressure and blanketed receivers.<br />
<br />
That leads into my third response: Wilson himself. This is all quite intangible, but the guy certainly does not carry himself like someone who's about to crumble under pressure. His offseason trip from third-string "project" to starter has been underlined by quickness and determination to learn. He's been compared to Peyton Manning (I know, I know) in his preparedness and attention to detail. He's won over the locker room. And when Pete handed him an obvious no-scrambling mandate against Kansas City, Wilson was teachable and adaptable. And successful. In my judgment, he's shown what it takes to handle the viciousness of the league. He's exemplified John Schneider's cliches of "staring down the gun" and "tilting the field".<br />
<br />
All in preseason, yes, I know. There's still much for him to prove. But Kansas City's defense should not be entirely dismissed as a valid test, nor does it invalidate things like Wilson's hard count (the one that tripped up KC's coverage on his wide-open touchdown to Winslow), his ball placement to Edwards and Charly Martin alike, or his constant habit of looking off safeties. These things aren't diminished by the competition Wilson was playing against. They'll project to the next level. And Wilson did what he did without Marshawn Lynch or Doug Baldwin on the field. What happens when they come back? Giggle.<br />
<br />
There's also concern over Russell Wilson's perceived identity as a "running QB" like Michael Vick. The thinking is that running is a much safer and more profitable tactic for college QB's than for pro QB's due to the greater talent and bigger hits in the NFL, and this is true. Well-respected football analyst Greg Cosell has said many times that running plays don't happen consistently enough to carry an offense, and that every quarterback's game, no matter the scheme or mobility, must happen primarily in the pocket. This is also true.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, there's a difference between a "running back who sometimes passes" and a "quarterback who sometimes runs". Vick would be a good example of the former, and early in his career, he had nowhere near the passing ability that Wilson does. Once again, Seattle's new signal-caller knows the passing game and has repeatedly displayed the "little things" with first-round savvy. And while running can be treacherous to the QB, especially if made a habit, the risk can be managed if he's an <em>intelligent </em>scrambler. Wilson is this. Throughout his college career, he showed excellent sense of when to run and yet the presence of mind to slide or step out of bounds at the end, minimizing contact and thus injury, even at the expense of a few yards. That's good. And against Kansas City, he showed the self-awareness to stay home and sustain drives from the pocket. He knows exactly what will be expected, and needed, of him.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Forecasting 2012</strong><br />
<br />
In none of this do I see another "Mr. August" waiting to happen. Russell Wilson's story is unprecedented in so many ways; it's a clinic in our responsibility to examine each and every player closely, not just judge him by surface circumstances like height, rookieness, or draft position. Pete and John Schneider have built a team with this style of careful scrutiny. We should take a cue.<br />
<br />
Wilson may struggle. He probably won't be perfect. He's got plenty to learn. In two weeks, he'll be facing upgraded receiver packages and blitzing concepts that only Matt Flynn has any experience with. Eventually, other teams will know how to game-plan for him, requiring him to adapt and evolve further. But his work ethic, temperament, and his bevy of little quarterbacking skills, well, that's why I think he's up to the task. He's got a safety net in Flynn, the Beast, and the Legion of Boom (our defense's popular nickname). He won't face any strong pass defenses until Week 7. This isn't the usual story of your rushed-into-service, please-be-our-savior rookie QB. Despite the portentous pronouncements of national writers, Pete and John have actually handled the quarterback competition very well. Much better than if they'd listened to me and drafted Ryan Mallett.<br />
<br />
The real question is whether we fans can handle Russell Wilson's inevitable growing pains. Pete certainly seems to think that the tradeoff is worth it. I'm willing to wrench on my own helmet and grit it through. Pete's accomplishments in Seattle thus far have earned him the benefit of a doubt from us, as have Wilson's drive and professionalism.<br />
<br />
For today, I'm just relieved that Seattle's trippy, nerve-wracking, twist-filled quarterback competition is finally over. Wilson will start getting reps, the offense will start coming into focus, and the team might finally have the long-term direction at quarterback that it's lacked for five years. Might. There's no certainty. But despite whatever you hoped for, there was never going to be uncertainty this year. Eventually, Pete had to take a risk. And we had to jump in with him into the unknown.<br />
<br />
The time to jump has come.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-4856156197248295532012-08-06T06:00:00.000-07:002012-08-06T08:35:28.295-07:00Why Seattle's QB Competition is Really, Truly, Honestly, Completely OpenThis is a long one. Bring a lunch.<br />
<br />
What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of Pete Carroll's cranial cavity. I know, ewww, but it'd be nice to get some clarity amidst our bias and preconception. We've all got the quarterback candidates pigeonholed pretty well for ourselves by now. Tarvaris Jackson represents strength, toughness, experience, and incumbency. Matt Flynn represents the poise, mental acuity, technical skill, and the "Rodgers Factor" of developing over time. And Russell Wilson represents the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild. It's not surprising to see the fan base divided so sharply into camps depending on what they value.<br />
<br />
Problem is, Pete may actually mean it when he says he doesn't have any more clarity than we do. I don't think people want to believe that right now. Some are worried about the declining returns of dividing camp snaps, some honestly can't imagine Flynn NOT currently being the best of the bunch so why wait, and some people aren't reading for any words except "Tarvaris Jackson cut". There's an edge of worry that's starting to seep into our opinions the longer this goes on, especially now that T-Jack is still getting significant time with the first team in camp. This stymies some people, since it's popularly assumed that Jackson is the worst QB on the roster.<br />
<br />
This is forcing people into a tough quandary: Either Pete's full of it, or he knows something we don't. Most people assume the former, that Pete is just way too enamored with his "competition" mantra, needs to quit grandstanding and just hand the job to Flynn already. Because he won the job the moment he was signed, right? Problem is, this requires rationalization and speculation that's almost on the level of conspiracy theory. Pete's just pushing the QB's, he's trying to bump up Jackson's miniscule trade value, all his comments to the media are to be ignored, etc. And I don't want to go that route. I've learned to trust Pete. Isn't it possible that he's simply got different yardsticks for the competition than we do? And isn't it possible that Flynn might not be all that he was advertised?<br />
<br />
It's funny that Flynn is so often compared to Matt Hasselbeck, because I think a hint to better understanding this competition might lie in revisiting Hasselbeck's final seasons in Seattle (Hawkblogger's breakdowns of <a href="http://www.hawkblogger.com/2012/07/matt-flynns-path-to-starting.html">Matt Flynn</a> and <a href="http://www.hawkblogger.com/2012/07/breaking-down-russell-wilson.html">Russell Wilson</a> also demand a read).<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Different Kinds of 7-9</b><br />
<br />
In any comparison of Tarvaris Jackson and 2010 Matt Hasselbeck, Jackson obviously fails the eye test much more readily. His inaccuracy, lack of pocket presence, and struggles with quick progressions jump out to even a casual viewer. It took a more savvy watcher to recognize Hasselbeck's late-career issues, because he retained all the fundamentals of QB play - footwork, vision, progressions, defensive reads, throwing technique. He was a far, far, far more complete player than Jackson was, and very likely, ever will be. Therefore, it was far more reasonable to sit around waiting for that elusive Hasselbeck resurgence than to project growth for Jackson.<br />
<br />
Yet at the end of the day, 2010 Hasselbeck and Jackson produced near-identical records and strikingly similar stat lines. Poor pass protection and WR inconsistency were a factor both years and so can be set aside as quick explanations. What is the significance of two much, much, much stylistically different quarterbacks generating similar results? How is this possible when we know Hasselbeck to be the much stronger player? You would think that the more complete player would find SOME way to stand out.<br />
<br />
Truth is, there's more than one way for a quarterback to win. Or to suck. This reality is absolutely crucial to the QB discussion. It immediately hints that our quest to arrange and compare Jackson, Flynn, and Wilson might be a flawed approach. It's an apples-and-oranges deal; they're all very different kind of QB's and need to be evaluated differently. But how? <br />
<br />
I turn to another question that's being begged. Since Hasselbeck and Jackson were different QB's, they each produced a very different kind of 7-9 record. Some of us, pissy and impatient for W's, don't care about the route taken if the results are the same. But we're not the one making the decision. If Pete Carroll had to choose between the 7-9 of 2010 and the 7-9 of 2011, would he make a distinction? Would he prefer one type of losing season over another? <br />
<br />
I believe he would, and the reasons can be found in three years' worth of his comments to the Seattle media over what kind of team he envisions. Basically, he wants a TEAM, not a gaggle of bit guys surrounding an epic quarterback who throws forty times a game. He wants to involve every phase of the team in victory, give everyone a chance to make that game-changing play. He wants his team to finish every game strong. He wants the team to be hanging around by the fourth quarter, ready to win ugly.<br />
<br />
And for that, he needs ball security. <b><u><i>Turnovers</i></u></b>. It's about turnovers. We've all known that Pete is pretty phobic of those things, to the point of naming a day of the week after them in his practice program. But even though ball security is doubtless a big component of Pete's rubric, for some reason, I haven't seen it brought up much in fan discussion circles. I'd say it's a pretty big deal. (I suppose I might have missed something in the deluge of content that is Fieldgulls these days.)<br />
<br />
Once turnover concerns are brought into the picture, the QB race is open to different interpretation. Putting aside the playoff ticket handed to us by 2010's weak NFC West, I do think Pete would make a distinction between the 2010 7-9 and the 2011 7-9. Specifically, he'd prefer the 2011 version, and for one simple reason: in 2011, even during losses, the team was usually hanging around in the fourth quarter with the chance to win.<br />
<br />
2010 was nothing like that. Does anyone miss the double-digit blowouts and being down by three scores, essentially out of the game, by the third quarter? I don't. Those largely went away in 2011 (Pittsburgh being a painful exception), and I believe Pete sees that as progress. No, Tarvaris Jackson didn't have it in him to clinch those games in the fourth quarter. But at least he had the chance. Or at least the defensive backs had a chance to grab a game-winning pick-six. At least a lucky bounce had the power to change the outcome. At least the team was hanging around with the chance to win ugly, instead of just trudging through garbage time. At least SOMEBODY could have done something. And on a few occasions, they did.<br />
<br />
It's being commonly said that Tarvaris Jackson was "dragged" to 7-9 and played no real role in those wins. I beg to differ. I think it could have been much worse. In fact I think it's downright ironic that a Seahawks fan would disagree, because Seahawks fans SAW much worse with Matt Hasselbeck just two seasons ago. <br />
<br />
I'm sorry to dig up this dead horse, but I believe it applies here. There's no way the 2011 Seahawks would have been able to hang around in games with Matt Hasselbeck still at the helm. Easy for me to say, but you know what the Seahawks looked like after 2007. Every loss was a blowout, usually decided by early in the third quarter, and often because of turnovers. That exciting running game and defense that supposedly vaulted us past Jackson's incompetency to seven wins in 2011? They wouldn't have had a chance behind a QB averaging three turnovers a game. Run games are the first thing to get tossed aside when your team slips into a hole; Carroll was forced to surrender it quite a bit in 2010. Defenses, while still very relevant, don't score points. They cannot be expected to start in their own territory five extra times and still save the game, such as in the second San Francisco game of 2010. There would have been no winning ugly. With turnovers, you're out of the game before it's even halfway over. "Staying out of the way" is not at the bottom of the QB quality scale. "Holding the team back with turnovers" is.<br />
<br />
This is what Pete was getting at earlier this year when he expressed a desire for a "game manager" QB. I remember panicking inside when I read that, naively thinking he simply shared some fans' desire to settle for a Trent Dilfer rather than risk drafting a first-round QB. But it's really about turnovers, about Pete wanting to keep his entire team in the game for four quarters. QB turnovers take a team OUT of the equation faster than anything, put the burden of catching up on the shoulders of the QB who threw the pick in the first place. THAT's what Pete is trying to avoid - not necessarily an emphasis on the pass, but the loss of balance and control. He sounds for all the world like he'd rather have a QB who throws 1 TD and 0 INT than one who throws 2 TD and 2 IN. <br />
<br />
My stab at Pete's thinking felt like guesswork as I wrote it, I'll admit. But I think it fits. It fits with the history of comments from Pete and John, with the manner in which the team and coaching staff have been built, and with the way the QB competition has been handled thus far. <br />
<br />
Unless, of course, you're one of those annoying conspiracy theorists who refuse to take Pete at his word, instead insisting that Flynn has already been given the starting (wink-nudge-)nod and that no blurbs to the contrary should be taken at face value. After all, Pete Carroll is a competito-psychological mad scientist and has no greater priority than getting rid of Tarvaris Jackson, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Tarvaris Jackson</b><br />
<br />
When I watch Jackson on my television, I'll admit that I'm not inspired. Hunt for crumbs of hope amongst the stats and game contexts all you want - I know what a limited QB looks like when I look at my screen. Most of us do.<br />
<br />
BUT...perspective. Jackson was not a 0-16 QB, which you could assume from reading some people's "I won't watch if he starts!" whining. As limited as he is, his career line reveals a very dead-even QB. .500 record as a starter, score-to-turnover ratio of about 1-1, and that improved last year behind the running of the Beast. He's relatively safe and is seemingly becoming safer. It's true that his late-season efficiency came against an easy schedule and was accompanied by a suspicious increase in fumbles, but in general, Tarvaris is not the most turnover-prone QB to ever exist.<br />
<br />
He also has far, far more gameday experience and primary reps than anyone else on the roster. That's an intangible but valuable commodity. I've always been skeptical that Seattle would jettison any veteran experience from the roster in favor of Josh Portis, a long-shot project who showed a few preseason flashes against San Diego's third-stringers and promptly became the next Charlie Whitehurst. Yes, some people sniff at Jackson's "experience", but again - he wasn't 0-16 last year, folks. He was 7-8. It's amazing how many people are incapable of appreciating that. It's actually a pretty good baseline for a backup. No, he didn't get there in pretty fashion, but numbers are numbers. Some amongst the 12th Man need some perspective - go spend some time being fans of a team who would kill for a .500 starter. Arizona and Miami spring to mind.<br />
<br />
I'm fully aware that Jackson is unlikely to improve...much. If he had Green Bay' wide receivers, Seattle's 2005 offensive line, the 49ers' defense and special teams (and health), and 2007's slate of opponents, he'd probably look just dandy. But that's unlikely to happen to any QB. Sitting around waiting for a struggling QB to get the perfect team is a long wait for nothing. Heck, in these parts, just asking for health is asking too much. But it's still worth noting that if the running game stays on its upward trajectory (teeheehee BEASTURBIN!!!), the O-line and Jackson's pecs hold together - and Golden Tate's hand, and the small Doug Baldwin, and Sidney Rice's whatever-it-is-this-week, Jackson's play could sneak upwards a bit. He was 7-8 without all those things.<br />
<br />
Even assuming that Jackson will not improve, he still represents ball security, scheme fit, and continuity to Pete Carroll. Those are no small things to him. They're probably much higher on his list of priorities than they are on ours. This might help explain the apparent gap between what he sees and what we see. If you're willing to take Pete's actions at face value, it becomes clear that T-Jack still has a place in the discussion as the team's "safe" option, and Pete's priorities give him some real durability there.<br />
<br />
But the question remains...how could Matt Flynn possibly be worse? <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Matt Flynn</b><br />
<br />
Flynn's positives have already been enumerated by an eager fan base who latched onto the first glimmer of hope to arrive this year, so I won't repeat them. I hope you won't see that as a dismissal or a determination to see the negative - I just don't see the need to retread ground. (What I like most about Flynn is that he'll win a lot of downs before the snap and knows how to use his tight ends.) <br />
<br />
It's understandable for the back of people's minds to tell them that Flynn is the inevitable winner. His acquisition just FEELS that way to some. He's being paid more - not enough to automatically land him in the starting spot or hurt Seattle should he be cut, but more nevertheless. He belongs to a very familiar QB model. He had the stamp of approval from the NFL hype machine. He put up numbers against Detroit that look spectacular at first glance.<br />
<br />
But if you're willing to step outside of this for a moment, take a gander at a list of what Flynn has NOT done:<br />
<br />
- Played more than four total NFL games<br />
- Played with anything but the best receiving corps in the NFL<br />
- Played with anything but the best offensive coaching staff in the NFL<br />
- Played against anything but the worst secondaries in the NFL<br />
- Played for a team that he hadn't already been practicing with for four years<br />
- Played with the pressure of earning and keeping a starting job<br />
- Played with the pressure of a full season<br />
- Played full games back-to-back<br />
- Played long enough for other teams to accumulate his tape and analyze his traits<br />
- Played long enough to develop documentable traits in the first place<br />
- Played in a run-first offense<br />
- Played with significant snaps from under center<br />
<br />
That's a considerable list. Given that many changes, it's hard to expect Flynn to automatically translate his Green Bay excellence to Seattle. He is no doubt headed for some kind of dropoff, and that dropoff could be anything from mild-but-recoverable to downright precipitous. That degree is the real question - not whether there WILL be a dropoff. There will be. I would like to examine it for a moment.<br />
<br />
You have to remember that a backup like Matt Flynn could not ask for a more comfortable berth from which to advertise himself than sitting behind Aaron Rodgers. There, he enjoyed an offense that substituted the short pass (his strength) for the running game and thus let him play mostly from the gun. He enjoyed a WR corps chosen for their precise separation and ability to sweep away massive windows in coverage. His playbook dealt in frequent 4-WR sets and flood concepts that had defenses playing from back on their heels.<br />
<br />
Flynn will have none of that in Seattle. Here, he'll be a play-action QB throwing out of "22", "21", and "13" personnel sets along with frequent bootlegs and rollouts. It's easy to assume that changing to a run-first offense would protect Flynn more than expose him - "fewer pass attempts to screw up" is usually what we think. But it's not that simple. A run-first offense won't put Flynn in the shotgun as much as the Packers' offense, where play action was not a prominent feature (Flynn played almost entirely from the shotgun during that famous Detroit game). He'll have to develop consistency in faking handoffs and then turning around to re-establish reads downfield after the fake. This isn't something Green Bay ever required him to develop, and it shows in that he's markedly more ponderous in his decision-making in play action. I can't say that this is an area he's already nailed down. Can he? Sure. But there will be an adjustment. <br />
<br />
You may think me harsh and unfalsifiable in treating pressure and temperament as a variable, but anyone who's ever watched Matt Hasselbeck knows that temperament is very much a factor. Hasselbeck was capable of great efficiency at his peak, but when things weren't going right, it became clear that he did not have the temperament of a game manager. Flynn hasn't even had the chance to develop a temperament yet, much less have it tested, and Seattle is very much looking for a specific kind of composure in their QB. This is another variable.<br />
<br />
And this is all without even addressing the inherent turnover risk that comes with mediocre arm strength and mobility. We've all seen some wobbly passes, but it's more than that. As Hawkblogger recently documented, Flynn's completion percentage drops off sharply when he's passing further than ten yards. He has a nice deep-ball percentage, but that stems partially from terrific WR's winning jump balls and enjoying numerous blown coverages from the Detroit game. That's another issue with the switch to a run-first offense - a QB's first read after play-action is often a deep one. Flynn's strength is the short pass, which the Packers utilized to open up other opportunities downfield. Nothing about Pete's choices on offense suggest that he's happy with a passing game of less than ten yards. He's been said to be running the West Coast Offense, but even if you believe that "WCO = short passes" (it's more complicated than that), Seattle still has a clear propensity to become a vertical team. That desire is written all over our playbook and our player acquisitions. Flynn doesn't easily fit this. Nor does he easily fit the "tilt the field" thing, because he's an anticipation thrower who relies on the separation abilities of his receivers. A strong-armed guy can throw WR's open, fit balls into tighter windows more safely, and make more things happen on his own.<br />
<br />
Combine all this with the dramatically smaller separation windows that Flynn will get from Seattle's current stable of receivers, and you see why I want to quantify his floor. Much of the discussion so far has focused on his ceiling. We really have no idea what he could be. I agree that Flynn could be quite good, but I also think he could be fairly bad. The math is simple: new team + inexperience + mediocre arm + lack of plus mobility + well-documented blind spot for safeties down the middle + WR's not known for separation + limited experience under center = very real turnover risk. That's probably how we'd be judging Flynn were he on any other team. The Rams, for instance.<br />
<br />
Oh, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not concerned with his crazy stats from the Detroit game. In fact, it means less to me every time someone cites it. Flynn deserves credit for what he did, but he did it in Week 17 against a terrible, banged-up secondary that had already made the playoffs, using the league's best separation receivers. Three of his TD's were a 2-yard dumpoff with crazy YAC, a 8-yard crossing pattern with crazy YAC, and a swing pass where the WR stiff-armed his one defender into oblivion. Since when does the QB get any credit for that kind of stuff? I find his station-to-station performance against New England far more informative.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying Flynn WILL be bad; I'm saying his mental excellence may not necessarily preclude him from being so, as many have assumed. I'm not saying Flynn can't adjust to Pete's offense, nor vice versa; I'm simply saying there will BE an adjustment. People like his decisivness and willingness to take risks, but nobody liked those qualities when it was Matt Hasselbeck and the result was interceptions (we called it "recklessness" instead). Flynn is often compared to the 2003 model of Hasselbeck, but imagine
that model NOT throwing behind an all-star offensive line to
system-correct timing receivers like Bobby Engram. Nor will Flynn now be
throwing to Mike Williams, whose presence was a plus for Flynn for many
people.<br />
<br />
Then there's the fact that Seattle never treated Flynn like a destined starter at any time. They didn't even
pursue him until he became cheap. He went all the way to Miami and back
before settling with Seattle. His contract is easy to escape and screams "better stopgap". They went
out and drafted Russell Wilson AFTER signing him. Pete knows the
locker-room value of requiring the starter to EARN the job. Seattle has
built an offense around play-action, moving QB's, and deep downfield
plays, something that Flynn fits worse than the other two QB's. And they already have a "safe option" in Tarvaris Jackson.<br />
<br />
Nothing in any of this suggests that Flynn's starting gig is
secure. The competition is much closer than people have given it credit for. To what degree is the documented Matt Flynn defined by the Green Bay
Packers? We are still, in many ways, dealing with an unknown QB here, with quite a few things to prove. Flynn will have to earn the job. Maybe he will. It also depends on...<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Russell Wilson</b><br />
<br />
Once again, I know that appealing to physical potential is a pretty low baseline for the QB search. I'll also admit that it's perfectly possible for Russell Wilson's height to create schematic holes for the offense the same as Flynn's arm. I do not think the guy is a slam dunk. But he is, in my eyes, the most exciting QB Seattle has on the roster, with the highest ceiling. (Insert tired height pun here.)<br />
<br />
Many have dismissed Wilson because they don't trust short QB's and they don't trust third-round QB's. Since Wilson is both, he must be hosed. But if you want to bring up the higher bust rate of third-round QB's, you're preaching to the choir. I was all about that last year. First-round QB's are the least risky of a very risky set of options.<br />
<br />
But WHY was Wilson a third-rounder? From everything I've read, purely because of his height. I haven't been able to find another reason for his draft-day fall. John Schneider almost took him in the second round. Without the height bugaboo, we're looking at an impressive talent with a lot of first-round earmarks. He is not a member of the typical "not-first-round" subset.<br />
<br />
Because Wilson is only 5'10", Seattle will probably have to scheme Wilson very specifically - as Tony Softli recently pointed out, they'll have to deploy him like Wisconsin did. The thing is, Seattle is already deploying their quarterbacks that way. Play-action, deep drops, downfield strikes, rollouts and moving pockets. We're already there. Wilson is the first quarterback Seattle has obtained that fits what Seattle wants to do offensively and actually has the mental prowess to go with it. Far from being an automatic disqualifier, Wilson's height may actually play right into his hands when it comes to his chances in Seattle.<br />
<br />
As for being barred from seeing over his offensive linemen, there is evidence that Wilson will not be hamstrung by this. Or perhaps more appropriately, there is a striking <i>lack</i> of the evidence that you'd expect to see if Wilson were hamstrung. A QB who can't see over his line would be throwing a high number of interceptions and batted balls. Yet in his senior season at Wisconsin, those picks and bats were not there. Boy, were they not there. He threw only four picks and something like four batted balls in an entire season against 33 TD's a completion percentage of 73%. That stat line would take any college QB and make him a prospect. With Wilson's height, behind one of college football's tallest O-lines, to uremarkable receivers, against some of its strongest competitors? The statement Wilson makes with those numbers could be precedent-breaking. <br />
<br />
Yes, history says that short QB's don't succeed. But history doesn't have much to say on guys with Wilson's production. And it doesn't differentiate between the NFL's failure to enable such QB's and their failure to give such guys a chance. (Maybe the reason few short QB's succeed is because few are drafted to begin with?) And if you're looking for reasons that might explain Wilson's ability to defy his height, there are plenty to choose from. Reliance on throwing lanes being an underrated factor, Wilson's very high release point (higher than Brock Osweiler's), his mobility and talent in throwing on the run, the offense's emphasis on getting him outside the pocket (again, something we see in Seattle a lot). <br />
<br />
Some people absolutely refuse to believe that a short QB can succeed. The "can't see over the line" justification feels right on the surface, and the number of short QB busts seems to bear it out. But that's not any kind of deep analysis; it leaves out way too much. Beyond the stuff I've already listed, what if lack of height was only an extra problem for all those busted smurfs, added to a host of other stuff? Last I checked, it's just plain hard for any college QB to hack it in the pros. Those who do are part of an incredibly small group. If you want to explain away busts like Troy Smith or Seneca Wallace, you don't have to use height to do it. There are any number of other explaining factors. <br />
<br />
And NONE of them are shared by Russell Wilson. He's not a "project" as the word is commonly used. His polish has been largely ignored. He's a passer. When I look at Wilson, I see a bevy of the "little things" elite quarterbacks do that set them apart. Making progressions, looking off safeties, using arm motions to draw and fake DB's, selling play-action absolutely brilliantly, throwing on the run with pinpoint accuracy, sliding at the end of runs, pocket awareness, professional-grade footwork and throwing motion. I see NFL mechanics and the presence of mind that people are grinding their teeth over NOT seeing in Tarvaris Jackson. It's been said for good reason that if Wilson were 6'3", he'd have been drafted ahead of Robert Griffin III.<br />
<br />
Training camp has backed all this up. Wilson has been shaky, but only rookie-shaky and not short-shaky. From all accounts, Wilson has been making all the plays you'd expect a dynamic rookie to make. Height has not been an issue. He's improving from the pocket and learning to run only when the opportunity presents itself (and as a QB who usually knows when to slide, he should be able to make a good side living off of that).<br />
<br />
Now throw in a few more facts:<br />
<br />
* Wilson attempted 1,489 passes in college. Flynn attempted 437. That's four seasons's worth to one. Could this somewhat equalize Flynn's perceived "experience" advantage?<br />
<br />
* Wilson's very worst situational passer rating in college, on 3rd-and-long, was not terrible. The rest were the very epitome of efficiency - a key word in Carroll's offensive vision.<br />
<br />
* Wilson displays a remarkably consistent completion percentage from EVERY part of the field and performs well even when his team is behind or tied - another item from the "not T-Jack" shelf.<br />
<br />
Wilson's camp performance is a hodgepodge of confidence, promise, and rookie mistakes. He may very well not be ready to start yet. That's fine. He doesn't have to, not with both Jackson and Flynn around. But Wilson is a dynamic, multi-dimensional talent who can stretch the field with both his arms and his legs, and still flashes Flynn's analytical skills and confidence. He might very well be the one guy who fell into the third round without a good reason. And you know Pete and John are just the kind of guys to spot that diamond in the rough. For me, honestly, it's Wilson who FEELS like the big acquisition here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
Tarvaris Jackson is not the complete package, but he's the "safe" option that the team clearly feels they can muddle through with. Matt Flynn is not the
complete package - could hold the reins, also shows signs of being a turnover machine. Russell Wilson is the
complete package minus a few inches of height and fits Seattle's parameters to a tee. <br />
<br />
When the Carroll mindset is analyzed, it seems to me that Russell Wilson has by far the best chance of becoming Seattle's long-term starter...eventually. He started fast in the competition but slowed down a bit as his rookie nature got exposed. Carroll is one who carefully deploys his QB, is slow to change, and gives the impression of not trusting rookies. Barring a downright explosive statement from Wilson in the preseason, and especially considering Flynn's presence, I doubt Wilson wins.<br />
<br />
In fact, until yesterday when Jackson resurfaced with more camp reps, I would have guessed that Flynn would indeed win the competition. He does look promising. I still give him the greatest probability. But now, no combination of the three would really surprise me, not even Jackson starting. If that happened, the likely explanation would be concern over Flynn's turnover-proneness and Wilson's rookieness. And since we know Pete is committed to simply fielding the best QB, a Jackson victory would carry the implication that Flynn would have done no better. Flynn has a number of heretofore-unappreciated hurdles to clear, primarily shifting to a philosophically different and less talented offense and assuring Pete of his ability to protect the ball. Because of this, I believe that Flynn's margin of victory over the other QB's will need to be considerable. Being only slightly better than Tarvaris Jackson may not be enough to offset the increased risk of turnovers that inherently comes with a physically limited QB. He'll need to make a <i>strong</i> statement, and he hasn't yet.<br />
<br />
I hate to be the one to say this, but we should brace for the possibility that Seattle has not significantly improved its QB situation for 2012 at all. Between Jackson's static nature, Flynn's riskiness, and Wilson's learning curve, it's a possibility. I do think we have hope for 2013 for sure, between Russell Wilson and a draft that seems to offer several promising quarterbacks (though not much else). Flynn might provide an upgraded stopgap, but playoff-caliber QB play in the rising NFC West? Not sure we're out of the woods in the short term.<br />
<br />
Basically, I've just written over five thousand words to tell you that I don't know what will happen. But it took some doing, and deserved the doing, because many people have already decided that they can see the future. My opinion: between the limited value of camp performances as a measuring device, Flynn's only modest
separation from the other guys, the declining WR situation (upon which
Flynn is most dependent as an anticipation thrower), and the fact that he doesn't perfectly fit the Seahawks' offensive vision anyway, he'll find it a little harder to dislodge T-Jack from his "safe option"
entrenchment that some people think. It won't be <i>difficult</i>, exactly - Jackson's struggles with the hot read and the third down obviously make him very vulnerable.<br />
<br />
But the competition is still wide open, just as Pete said, because he places ball security very high on his list. Every QB on this roster has an adjustment to make. As <a href="http://seattle.sbnation.com/seattle-seahawks/2012/8/6/3222474/one-on-one-with-nfl-networks-daniel-jeremiah">NFL Network's Daniel Jeremiah</a> said recently,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #f4cccc;">
"I've seen Russell Wilson at Wisconsin, I've seen Matt Flynn in college, I've
seen Matt Flynn in Green Bay, but I have not seen either one of them
with the Seahawks. Once I see them in the preseason, I think it will be a
little easier to make a guess on that. Going through training camp you still don't know what you have in either one of these guys."</blockquote>
Yes, this means we may need to dig in for another season of Tarvaris Jackson's "win ugly" style. But Pete's earned our trust by now. The team's still in flux, still building. Let's sit back and see where preseason takes us.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-32914234266017580902012-07-13T16:03:00.002-07:002012-07-13T17:10:22.740-07:0017 Sentences on Whether Chris Clemons is Really UnderratedPro Football Weekly <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPeV3EmMIZM">saluted Seattle DE Chris Clemons as the NFL's most underrated player</a> today, continuing a trend of grudging but increasing respect from the national media as they slowly realize that Pete Carroll is NOT, in fact, just signing every USC alumi he can find.<br />
<br />
I'm usually one of those annoying posers who dismisses production that doesn't appear to be sustainable, and indeed the Clemons' label as "NFL's most underrated" has a few people cocking their heads. Clemons gets a lot of his sacks on blitzes and on specific but seemingly random third downs (and against the Rams), gets shut down a lot on double teams, and has a rather limited toolbox (quick first step, great closing speed amongst them) that doesn't remind one of a complete DE. He also rarely does anything besides rush the passer, which might lead to inflated results and the question of whether Clemons is a true talent <a href="http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/2/4/1975471/chris-clemons-and-blitz-sacks">or merely benefiting from Seattle's defensive scheme</a>.<br />
<br />
But this is where I keep ending up with that question: who cares? At some point, arguing with results becomes churlish. Clemons has produced 11 sacks for each of the last two seasons since being traded from Philly for peanuts. He's accomplished this as the team's sole dedicated pass rusher. The horrifying gash people predicted in our run defense's left side due to Clemons' middling weight, has never really materialized. Getting double teamed isn't a failure for a DE - it's a success that opens up blitzing lanes and opportunities for the interior rushers. He's either talented enough to overcome his limits and create value, or he's being enabled by the one-on-one matchups the scheme affords him, which isn't necessarily a red alert.<br />
<br />
Now, insert another dedicated pass rusher in Bruce Irvin (and some grease for the wheels of Clemons' new contract) and see what happens.<br />
<br />
If you want a vote for most OVERRATED player on the Seahawks, I'd have to go with Ricardo Lockette. It says great things about this team that its most overrated player is only a backup WR, but it's mind-boggling the goodwill that Lockette has gotten by catching 2 passes on go routes. Most UDFA fliers could probably do that in two NFL games, and what it says about that WR is not significantly different from nothing. Add that Hawk Blogger has hinted that he's still dropping too many passes to assure a roster spot, and I'm astonished that people are (already) projecting him as an NFL starter. John Schneider must be pretty confident with someone in this group.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-45934488002738723132012-07-13T11:29:00.002-07:002012-07-13T16:40:26.929-07:00Six Possible QB Depth ChartsRecently, a "math" friend and I have been playing with probability questions that go against intuition. Probably the most famous is the Monty Hall Problem, based on the Let's Make a Deal TV show with doors numbered one, two, and three...<br />
<br />
Let's say one of the three doors is a winner and the other two are "zonks". You pick a door at random, say door number three. Now the host reveals that one of the unpicked doors, say door number one, is a zonk and he offers you the chance to switch to the remaining door, door number two. Should you switch?<br />
<br />
Most people feel that the odds are the same, or even better, sticking with door number three. Bzzt. Wrong answer. The odds when you picked door number three were 1 in 3. That doesn't change when the host reveals that door number one is a zonk. That means that the odds of door number two having the winner is now 2 in 3, given that a closed set of probabilities always add up to 1. So given the choice, always switch!<br />
<br />
It doesn't make intuitive sense, but the math proves it out. They even tested it on Myth Busters, and practice matches theory. Hey, if Myth Busters proved it, it has to be true!<br />
<br />
So that brings us to the Seahawk's quarterback situation. Who is behind doors number one, two, and three? More importantly, what does the organization do after they announce the starter?<br />
<br />
So... there are six possible combinations. Using "F" as shorthand for Flynn, "J" for Jackson, and "W" for Wilson, we have FJW, FWJ, JFW, JWF, WFJ, and WJF. We can guess that FJW is the most likely: Flynn makes the most money and has experience behind the league's best QB, Jackson has the most experience but a limited ceiling, and Wilson doesn't just lack height; he lacks experience too. But the fact of the matter is that we fans have no idea. We haven't seen all three in meeting rooms, on the practice field, or in game situations with this offense. It's virtually even-steven, so I'm not going to put odds on who starts.<br />
<br />
The more interesting thing is to look at who ends up in third place. That's what will determine the organizational moves.<br />
<br />
Let's say it's FJW or JFW. Wilson is in last place. The (unbiased) odds are 1 in 3. If so, Flynn/Jackson end up as the starter and backup combo. According to Schneider, Wilson was a "must get" in the draft. That leaves Portis as the odd man out. He's either cut or put on the practice squad from which he will likely get snatched up by another team. Wilson is kept on the 53 man roster to keep him from being lost and to develop as a future starter/backup.<br />
<br />
So far, Portis has a 1 in 3 chance of not being a Seahawk.<br />
<br />
Next, lets assume that Jackson ends up in last place with FWJ or WFJ. If that happens, TJack gets cut. He would have no future. Portis is put on the 53 to protect him, since Portis would have more future upside than dead-end Jackson.<br />
<br />
Now we can add a 1 in 3 chance that Jackson is gone.<br />
<br />
Finally, we have Flynn tanking with JWF or WJF. This is a tough call. The team must either cut Flynn or lose Portis. With Portis as the #4 and all that guaranteed money to Flynn, I think Portis is gone and Flynn stays on the 53 as we try to improve his game. If Flynn doesn't improve, he could get cut the next year. If Flynn is on the bottom of the totem pole this year, I say there's a 50/50 chance he gets cut the following year.<br />
<br />
So, given unbiased odds, I've got a 2 of 3 chance that Portis walks, and a 1 in 3 chance that Jackson is gone this year. We also have something like a 1 in 6 chance that Flynn is cut the following year.<br />
<br />
The interesting thing is that I don't have any scenario where Wilson is cut in the near future. He's the only guy with job security. Portis, on the other hand, shouldn't buy a new house in Seattle and might think about a pre-move yard sale. His only chance to stay is if TJack fails.<br />
<br />
The thing is, when Carroll announces the starter, he will be mum on who "placed" and who "showed." The way we will figure out the order of the number two and three spots will be based on contract moves from Schneider's office.<br />
<br />
If there's a moral to the story, it's this: When you want to be the prize on Let's Make a Deal, don't stand behind door number four. Also, when you have the most experience, don't dare come in third place.Jon Fairhursthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16589287703042509824noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-21147294932038604132012-04-26T20:18:00.001-07:002012-04-26T20:48:30.522-07:00Defending the Bruce Irvin Pick<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibn_v6mMtiO17dNisPUSAQG5XS32eichdG-pUwLQ5ddTu7MGpAT0VqkAmxRb9fgmgV8etIJoS8EpFgjFVDqmVgtCbi7qLHfN7fQ_VfpchsBHsEaT54uyCghFjqDV44REfz62xVztnh9Qg/s1600/bruce.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" oda="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibn_v6mMtiO17dNisPUSAQG5XS32eichdG-pUwLQ5ddTu7MGpAT0VqkAmxRb9fgmgV8etIJoS8EpFgjFVDqmVgtCbi7qLHfN7fQ_VfpchsBHsEaT54uyCghFjqDV44REfz62xVztnh9Qg/s320/bruce.jpg" width="320" /></a>After coolly trading down to snatch up extra late-round picks (a mid-4th and a mid-6th), the Seattle Seahawks have sent the league into an incredulous tizzy by selecting DE Bruce Irvin out of West Virginia - a guy that, in defiance of the talking-head community, was <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/26/at-least-seve-teams-had-bruce-irvin-in-top-15/">projected as a Top 15 pick by at least seven teams, according to a PFT source</a>.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Though I haven't done any scouting of the guy myself (although <a href="http://seahawksdraftblog.com/draft-spotlight-bruce-irvin-deolb-west-virginia">Kip Earlywine has</a>, even if he didn't anticipate first-round interest - but who did?), I've been as able as anyone to pick up on the basic motifs of why people think this is an enormous reach:</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
1. He's not Melvin Ingram.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
2. He's a pure pass rusher, and won't play three downs.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
3. He's not Quinton Coples.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
4. His production dropped off last year.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
5. He's not Courtney Upshaw.<br />
<br />
6. He's got off-the-field issues.<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
If your response is an odd number, please slap yourself in the face with a large trout. Fair discussion involves Irvin on his own merit, not why you didn't get your guy.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The most sensical worry for me is #2. Some have called Bruce Irvin "the best pure pass rusher in the draft", and that title carries both excitement and doubt. The paradigm for the first round is to look for complete players, guys who can rush the passer without sacrificing rush stoutness. Bruce Irvin is not such a three-down player. Pete has already tagged him a Leo. His role is to bring down quarterbacks, plain and simple.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
However, if you're calling this a reach because Irvin is a pure pass rusher, you're ignoring recent draft history. Paradigms change and the NFL has become a pass-happy glut of passing passfests, with unprepared QB's going in the top 12 picks and pass rushers gaining more and more value. Jason Pierre-Paul and Aldon Smith, both guys that relied on athleticism and were tagged as pure pass rushers (or sure busts), also went higher than draftniks expected. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Neither team is regretting their picks right now. Their teams schemed them into success, found ways to get them into the backfield. The result has been double-digit sacks and a balancing of power in their respective divisions. A move like Irvin is surprising, but not without recent precedent. As the league shifts toward the pass, expect defensive priorities to shift with it.</div>
<br />
Another team that's shown savvy with scheming pass rushers is the Seahawks, who in 2010 traded a more complete defensive end in Darryl Tapp in order to pick up Chris Clemons. The latter has been immensely productive for Seattle over two years despite being the line's only major source of pass rush. He has not compromised the defense by being terrible against the run, nor has he struggled by being somewhat underweight (both red flags against Irvin, who produced in college despite similar size). That speaks to Seattle's scheming on the defensive line.<br />
<br />
Now, if Seattle can coax around 20 sacks from a late-20s defensive end without elite speed, what could they coax from a rookie who ran a 4.4 at the Combine?<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Pete and John are throwing around some pretty distinguished names in comparison to Irvin. They've talked about his uniqueness, compared his speed to Jevon Kearse, evoked the burst of Von Miller, and announced a desire to deploy Irvin like Clay Matthews. Those are easy things to say from a podium, but they give us a framework and a hint of (surprise, surprise) an evil plan. They also don't have the same definitions for "3-down player" that you or I do, and for good reason. With defense rapidly becoming a mental game of chess against quarterbacks, pre-snap motion and confusing looks are becoming the name of the game. Mike Mayock rightly called our defense an "amoeba", similar to how Rex Ryan twists his defense. Count on Pete to find ways to get Irvin involved in all phases of the defense, including 1st and 2nd down. And with Clemons getting up there in age and likely to leave the lineup sooner rather than later, Irvin will find his playing time.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Irvin also deserves recognition for his upside. For those pointing out his lack of 2011 production, from what I've read, his relatively quiet 2011 has been placed on the shoulders of his coaching and scheming. Like Brandon Mebane or Jason Jones, Irvin was used last year in ways that don't fit his gifts, such as 3-4 defensive end. He hasn't been infused with a wide variety of pass-rush moves, and that's something that can be improved at the pro level. I've seen it argued that his coaches treated him as an instinctive player who would end up thinking too much if his game got too complicated - maybe. I don't know. But I certainly don't see a polished, finished product with only two years of decent football ahead of him, a la Tim Ruskell's picks.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
It sounds for all the world like Bruce Irvin perfectly fits Seattle's vision for pass rush, and would very likely be at least a second-rounder if not for the off-the-field red flags. Pete Carroll coveted him for USC, knows him well, and we know he's not dogmatically put off by off-the-field concerns (therefore dealing with motif #6). Also, frankly, I'm relieved to see him NOT wringing his hands over run defense for once - plenty of talent in that area already on this defense. We didn't need our first-round pick to be complete; we needed our defense to be complete. Irvin might do that. The NFL is becoming a specialist's game, and in his singular role, Irvin could excel.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
For those who were fine with taking Irvin in a later round - you have to remember that we aren't privy to teams' big boards. Michael Lombardi of the NFL Network has said that Irvin wasn't going to get past San Francisco's first round pick, and they know a thing or two about defense. There was the PFT source saying that at least seven teams were expecting Irvin to go in the Top 15. Teams rate players differently than draftniks - James Carpenter was bound to be taken within three picks of where Seattle got him - and that's a big factor in how teams decide their picks. Seattle got their guy when he was available, and even had the cool-headedness to slip down the board a bit and pile on the late-round picks while waiting.</div>
<br />
And once again, in this day and age of football, being able to consistently get to the QB has a tendency to boost your draft stock almost automatically, regardless of what else you can do. This pick has to be viewed through that filter.<br />
<br />
Besides...if this front office can coax Pro Bowlers out of 5th rounders and CFL imports, is anyone really THAT worried?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-36484125260826311562012-03-21T07:25:00.013-07:002012-03-22T07:34:19.785-07:00Class, Competition, and the Change That Might Not Be: Part 1So, we've signed a starting quarterback with two starts under his belt who doesn't fit Pete's "mobile point guard" profile all that well, and NOW it's a good offseason? <br />
<br />
Okay.<br />
<br />
It's nice when your thoughts organize themselves into convenient categories. My reaction to Seattle's signing of Matt Flynn is threefold. In brief: He's far from a bust-in-waiting. Still, it's a little surprising...and a little revealing...how much excitement has been generated in Seattle by a 7th-round QB who has flashed success in very limited starting experience in the NFL's most efficient offense. Harsh way to put it? Sure. But not untrue, and not irrelevant. <br />
<br />
I'll elaborate on Flynn later. First I want to talk about how his arrival affects our incumbent quarterback, Tarvaris Jackson. <br />
<br />
I'm the last person to suggest that our QB situation last year was ideal. I know exactly what we have in Tarvaris Jackson: a "bridge QB" with glaring holes in his game who will probably never survive in the playoffs. And towards the end of the year as Jackson experienced a solid stretch as a "game manager", a lot of folks seemed content with that and gave Jackson credit for what he had accomplished. It's a rebuild, we said. We'll get there.<br />
<br />
Then free agency came around, and the scent of new possibilities seemed to trigger all kinds of panting amongst the fan base. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Suddenly, people were poking their head into every musty, cobwebbed quarterback cupboard they could possibly think of. And not just Flynn or The Peyton. I was seeing names like Kyle Orton, Alex Smith(?), Donovan McNabb(?!), Chad Henne(?!?), David Garrard(?!?!), Matt Leinart(?!?!?!?!!!!), Brady Quinn(!!!!!!!!!!!!11!11), and John Skelton(*implode*). If you wanted to know how many QB's there were on the market, skip your usual habit of Googling "2012 free agent QBs"...you could just trip on over to any Seahawks fan forum and you'll find a thread pushing each one. Easy list for ya.<br />
<br />
And don't forget the long trail of <i>potentially maybe eventually released quarterbacks</i> that the Peyton Manning odyssey left in its wake. C'mon back, Matt Hasselbeck! Try again, Kevin Kolb! Welcome to secular Seattle, Tim Tebow! I half expected to see some rumor of Peyton dislodging his own brother into the free-agent winds. And <i>every </i>one of them was suggested for a Seahawks uniform by one of my 12th Man brethren. <br />
<br />
This reeked of desperation to me. It certainly ran deeper than just a desire for "competition". Some folks were honest enough to admit why their QB search was so intense. They didn't really care whether the newly signed QB is no better, they just couldn't stand another minute of Tarvaris Jackson. It was pretty much assumed at that point - and still is - that it can't get any worse than Tarvaris, and that even a cursory attempt to bring in new blood must therefore be an automatic positive step.<br />
<br />
I'm very glad that this sentiment was NOT one of the reasons that John Schneider signed Flynn. Change for the sake of change (let's call it what it is) doesn't sound like professional thinking, does it? I'd be pretty unsettled if the front office was throwing dollars around for lateral moves designed purely to keep our attitudes hopeful and our butts in the seats. This signing had better mean one of two things: a) Seattle expects Flynn to be significantly better than Tarvaris, or b) they expect Tarvaris to do significantly better in the presence of heated-up competition.<br />
<br />
There will be a competition to ensure that one of those two things happens. Fine and good. But what bugs me is the near-automatic assumption that Jackson will lose said competition. People really do believe that it couldn't be worse than Tarvaris. That's not only bad analysis and bad perspective, it's a slap in the face to both Tarvaris and the front office who signed him. Suggesting that we bring in <i>Matt Leinart</i> to compete? That's almost as insulting as the childish nicknames going around ("T-Joke", T-Suck"). You'd really rather have an 8-10 starter with a piss-poor attitude and an inability to get a team behind him, than a 17-16 starter who's an established leader and warrior on the field?<br />
<br />
But indeed, some folks were not only scrambling to find alternatives, they were pretty much taking it for granted that said alternatives would win the starting job from Jackson.<br />
<br />
It's illogical. It's impatient. It's shortsighted. It's based on gaping assumptions. It's bad scouting. It's bad business. It's thinly disguised free agency boredom. It's not good reasoning. Tarvaris Jackson is NOT the worst starting quarterback in the league and may very well end up under center in August.<br />
<br />
I AM NOT SAYING TARVARIS IS THE FUTURE OR THAT I EXPECT HIM TO BECOME A STARTING-CALIBER QB. Intangibles do not produce stardom and T-Jack is limited. I get it. I'm simply suspecting that some of you have never seen the play of Max Hall or Chad Henne or Colt McCoy. Some of these guys would love to have T-Jack's starting record. Most of the alternatives people have been pushing are no more experienced or accomplished than T-Jack. Some can't even earn the respect of a locker room. Donovan McNabb played for Minnesota without a hint of a spark. Nobody from Arizona is going to improve on 7-9.<br />
<br />
Or would you <i>really</i> would prefer Caleb Hanie's 3 TD's to 9 INT's?<br />
<br />
Or paying two second rounders for Kevin Kolb instead of a <i>relatively paltry</i> $4 million a year?<br />
<br />
Or that "clown" Ryan Mallett, whose mere <i>rumors</i> of immaturity turned some of you off?<br />
<br />
Or how about this...we could not only be starting the 6-15 Colt McCoy, but sitting here fearful that the front office <i>might actually believe in him as a QBOTF.</i><br />
<br />
We don't need to be satisfied with Jackson as a starter, and we should continue looking for an upgrade. But saying stuff like "Even the CFL has better starters than Jackson"? No, I'm not on board with that. This calls for some perspective. We could have it a LOT worse than we do. <br />
<br />
Far from being useless, T-Jack is one of the best backups in the league. He is a leader, hard worker, tough sportsman, focused professional, and role model and mentor for younger players. He has avoided any number of embarrassing pitfalls - griping about his small contract, taking public potshots at uneven teammates, being glimpsed flailing his arms and losing his temper on the sidelines. Not a whiff of that. He hunkered down and played the man, made the best of what he had. Before the press, on the field, and in the locker room, he has commanded the players' respect and exhibited all the poise, humility, determination, self-accountability, forward thinking, and physical self-sacrifice of Matt Hasselbeck. <br />
<br />
Coming from a Seahawks fan, I think that's high praise indeed. And all that while <i>knowing</i> that he was just a band-aid in the team's eyes.<br />
<br />
Tarvaris Jackson deserves more respect than "Nah, let's bring in Brady Quinn". Enough with the nicknames, the insulting mis-analysis, and the smug calls to cut him now that we've signed Matt Flynn. Cut a backup who can manage his way to 7 wins? Do you have any idea how many teams would kill for such a backup? This is me calling out the 12th Man and asking for some <i>class</i> in Seattle. Some of you sound like Philly fans. (That's not a compliment.) It's bad enough that every ESPN talking head was labeling every free agent QB a "fit" in Seattle just because they were a QB. You actually know Pete Carroll, know his philosophy, know his reasoning and his vision. You should know better. <br />
<br />
If you'd simply rather have someone, anyone other than Tarvaris, I submit that you don't know what true suck looks like. Perhaps you can find a Miami fan to enlighten you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com52tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-12739821341260487712012-03-13T18:05:00.013-07:002012-03-13T19:30:15.230-07:00Lukewarm on the Red Bryant Re-SigningDE Red Bryant is a favorite son of Seahawks fans. He's an exciting comeback story, an opportunistic playmaker in the mold of Carroll's perpetually overachieving "dirty defense", and certainly has a role in Seattle's lopsided scheme.<br />
<br />
Today he finally signed an offer Seattle had on the table for a while, 5 years for $35 million. That was bigger than I was expecting. It was 40% bigger than Brandon Mebane's contract last year. I feel a bit like a stormtrooper in the midst of the celebration over Emperor Palpatine's death, but I have a few nagging reservations about this.<br />
<br />
<br />
- First, it complicates efforts to sign DE Mario Williams. But this doesn't qualify as the foremost reason, because Williams to Seattle was never a certainty and perhaps never even a likelihood. I don't recall reading anything that <em>really </em>convinces me of drooling interest on Seattle's part. (While I was typing, <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/60843/seahawks-got-market-right-on-red-bryant">Mike Sando confirmed this.</a>) Outbidding four other teams to give him the largest DE contract in NFL history wouldn't exactly fit Carroll/Schneider's style. I'd qualify that by saying that Carroll/Schneider's style is to win at the end of the day, and Mario Williams would certainly service that. He'd have been a young, scheme-fitting, all-around superstar at a position of desperate need. But disappointment with Bryant over a free-agent signing that may never even have happened wouldn't be fair to our favorite relative of Jacob Green. <br />
<br />
<br />
- Secondly, it takes the "Bryant experiment" and turns it into a long-term fixture. Red has a reputation of making life complicated for opponents' run games, but after two years I'm still not convinced that his impact is all that. What he did in 2010 was too circumstantial to trust, lambasting bad running teams in his first six games and happening to get hurt (along with the rest of the line) right as Seattle reached the worst part of its schedule. He stayed healthy in 2011, but Seattle's run defense didn't. It was declining towards the latter half of the season as speedier backs like Demarco Murray and Roy Helu found traction against them.<br />
<br />
Something else that continues to decline is our pass rush. Everyone agrees that this is an issue, and while Bryant isn't an active part of the problem, he doesn't do much to help (and isn't intended to). He's a big guy with unusual quickness, but not enough agility or closing speed to harass quarterbacks, especially scrambling ones. This leaves our front pass rush up to one individual, which weakens it right away, as one of the elements of a successful pass rush is unpredictable origin. Carroll seemingly has plans to compensate with one hell of a blitzing linebacker corps, but that's not a catch-all...it requires blitzing lanes and still leaves coverage holes. <br />
<br />
With due respect to wrinkles, if there are four players on the line when the ball is snapped, it's a 4-3, and a 4-3 mandates pressure from the 4. That isn't going to be Red, and any pass-rush specialist that spells him to get it will have to be cheap. That, even more than the cap hit, means no Mario - or anyone expensive, for that matter. You don't spend $22+ million annually on one position being shared by two players. Mario couldn't even displace Chris Clemons, because that would preserve the original problem - front QB pressure coming from only one place, a strategic disadvantage. To really blow this thing open, pass-rush reinforcements would need to go right where Red has just been entrenched, and not just on third down. "Hey look, Red's coming off the field, they must be gunning for Brady!"<br />
<br />
Bryant's contract, however, signals Carroll's approval of a system that overemphasizes run-stopping ability in a passing league, keeps what pass rush we have constricted to LDE, and also tends to telegraph our intentions at the line by whomever appears at RDE. Reading similar complaints from me a year ago makes me cringe as to how simplistic they were, but Pete's habit last year of swapping Red out with pass-rush specialist(ishs) on 3rd down makes me think he agrees. Which leads me thirdly to...<br />
<br />
<br />
- ...the statement that Red is worth $10 million more than Brandon Mebane. A lot of folks already disagree with this. 5Y/$35M is not insane for a DE, but it's awkward to justify for one who usually plays two downs, generates no QB pressure, doesn't take well to kicking inside, and should rightfully be playing in a 3-4. It's being said that Bryant's influence in the locker room explains the added value, as does the market - New England was supposed to be interested at one point, and possibly drove the price up.<br />
.<br />
<br />
This certainly isn't a fatal signing or anywhere near a dangerous one. There are plenty of options, as some have theorized - an enterprising schemesmith like Carroll is no doubt still at his whiteboard right now. We are looking at pass-rushing linebacker types in the draft, as well as Jason Jones in free agency (a 3-tech at last! Yay!)<br />
<br />
Let's call this what it is - <em>somewhat</em> overpaying for a one-dimensional specialist who's crucial to the team identity but whose usage paints the pass rush into a corner and potentially blocks any big draft investment in defensive end. It's silly to conclude that this front office is financially naive - they were willing to let this heavily valued player test the market rather than eat up (har har) the franchise tag - but some heads around Seattle are cocked. <br />
<br />
I suppose we'll see where this goes. I do look forward to blocked field goals all year long. And while I wouldn't expect any pricey defensive ends to appear on Seattle's roster in the near future, money has never been an obstacle to Carroll finding talent. After all we've seen so far, Pete gets the benefit of a doubt from this blogger.<br />
<br />
As if the title "blogger" made me any sort of authority on this stuff. Haha.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012469417215497172.post-82194933626114293922012-02-13T06:00:00.000-08:002012-02-13T06:00:06.046-08:00The Forward Pass Can Bite MeI have reached a new phase of fandom, one that concerns me greatly, and makes me wish bad juju on anyone who talks about quarterbacks right now*. I am a thirsty man, parched to the extreme as I trundle the Quarterback Desert, and everybody is talking about water. Cool, refreshing water, the kind that condenses on the outside of a beer bottle on a hot humid day, then runs down the arm of curvaceous bikini bomb as she holds her beverage high,<i> and y'all are making me hate water</i>! I don't want to hate water.<br />
<br />
<u><b><i>*I'm not talking about quarterbacks.</i></b></u><br />
<br />
<u><b><i> I'm talking about not talking about quarterbacks. </i></b></u><br />
<br />
<u><b><i>More commonly known as bitching.</i></b></u><br />
<br />
<br />
I went to the gym on Super Bowl Sunday when the Hype Machine was churning out ol' number Forty Six, and not because I knew the place would be empty and I wouldn't have to wipe down a single piece of equipment. (It wasn't. It was full of football widows, and having one myself I know the pure power of their dirty looks, so I did clean up. They are awful friendly this time of year to fellas they think don't like football. Judge if you want to.) I put the game to the minion that is my DVR, and kept my buds in my ears just so I could get home without knowing the score. <br />
<br />
All so I could fast forward, not through the commercials, but the between-snap commentary. The sound of lips being planted on the respective Brady/Manning posteriors was just too much for my blue and green desert-burnt ears. I spent the whole two weeks avoiding all news football like it was a case of the clap, and I wasn't going to be subjected to more slurping sounds from the NBC crew.<br />
<br />
I know most of you are right about the team's need for a franchise tosser. I just didn't need to hear Al Michaels talk about Ely Mandy's inseam to know you are right. Amazingly, the nimble-lipped trifecta NBC had calling the game were adept enough to keep their lips planted on the elite duo's glutei maximi <i>even during plays</i>. (My English teacher just cried a little.) "Effusive in their praise" doesn't even begin to cover the collective drool pool that just had to be humidifying the broadcast booth. <br />
<br />
It isn't NBC's fault. They are just doing what Hype Machines do, churning out what the inmates chow on. I found myself cringing every time I mistimed the play button, lest I hear the bobble heads talk tirelessly. And you know what? <i>It was nice</i>. Not as nice as if Super Bowls were played by 19th century rules, but nice nonetheless. The final score was downright Seahawkish, not at all reflective of the more than 10,000 yards of regular season passing on the field. I found myself smiling at the thought that Vegas was going to clean up on all the people who think franchise quarterbacks equal copious touchdowns. Take that, you now penniless paupers!<br />
<br />
I am just so sick of hearing about how much the Seahawks need one of these guys. Even though it is pretty much true. Add to that the feeling I am getting that Seattle will not be real players at the QB position on draft day or in free agency, and you begin to understand what a hopeless haze I am in right now.<br />
<br />
I'm lost in the desert, peoples. I'm in a bad place. Try to point me to some water, and I'll sit down and mutter<i> mirage</i>. Try to recommend some rookie you fancy, and I will watch him make one simple mistake, hiss out "<i>he reminds me of Tarvaris Jackson</i>", and then my inside voice will chime in with "<i>he is a guaranteed Hall of Famer if he goes anywhere but here</i>." The desert sucks.<br />
<br />
I don't want to be this way, folks. I don't want to feel like if my team is behind with 5 minutes left, I might as well get an early jump on kicking the kittens. I don't like wondering if my front office is staffed by idiot savants whose one gift is building teams at 21 starting positions but don't seem to be aware that current rules have made getting very good quarterbacks a vital part of sustained success. I know, deep down that they have not made any huge mistakes at that position, but that knowledge isn't making the desert any wetter.<br />
<br />
Help me Pete. Give me some water.Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606055041796769662noreply@blogger.com4