17 Things I Love About the Jets Win

In no particular order.


1. Darell Bevell getting quicker on the adjustment trigger. 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.

2. Screens. 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.

3. Golden Tate's touchdown dance. 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.

4. Richard Sherman. This guy is changing games. If he doesn't make the Pro Bowl, there is no justice in the world.

5. Russell Wilson's deep-ball placement. 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.

6. The Beast. 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.

7. Russell Wilson's demeanor. 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.

8. Pete Carroll's QB grooming program. 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.

9. Bobby Wagner. 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...

10. LB coach Ken Norton. 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.

11. Having a bye next week. 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.

12. That flea-flicker in the second quarter. 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.

13. Skill-position chemistry. 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.

14. The read option. It's leading to some awesome Wilson scrambles for first downs. Very effective wrinkle.

15. NOT taking a knee in the final two minutes of the half. Gosh I hate that.

16. Zach Miller catching five passes. 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.

17. Our playoff chances. 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.

The Hypocrisy of Goldengate

Hawkblogger spoke some immortal words today during a podcast.

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.

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 "Worst...call...ever." They know I'm a Twelve, and they wouldn't let go of the refrain all day: "The Seahawks? Seriously?" (Admittedly, this was mostly revenge from their being Cowboys fans.)

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.

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.

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"?

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."

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.

And he actually has a Super Bowl ring.

And you want me to believe that this is about the integrity of the game?

Horse-hockey.

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 defense (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".

Where was all this indignation last year when the real 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.

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.

Where would Herm Edwards' disgust towards Pete Carroll have been had Golden Gate scored against the Rams? Non-existent.

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.

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 willing gamblers 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.

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 who merely did what every wide receiver does on a hail mary. Or whatever such melodramatic crap you're trying to pull.

Don't pretend that the touchdown was the only bad call that determined the game.

Don't pretend this is the first time a team has been defeated by the zebras.

Don't accuse the Seahawks of dishonest arrogance for not shuffling up to the microphone with lowered heads and admitting that they "cheated".

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 a fourth-round Eagles castoff before hunkering down behind his running game just to survive the night. (Credit where due: he still made many excellent throws.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Defending the Bruce Irvin Pick

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 projected as a Top 15 pick by at least seven teams, according to a PFT source.

Though I haven't done any scouting of the guy myself (although Kip Earlywine has, 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:

1. He's not Melvin Ingram.

2. He's a pure pass rusher, and won't play three downs.

3. He's not Quinton Coples.

4. His production dropped off last year.

5. He's not Courtney Upshaw.

6. He's got off-the-field issues.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Besides...if this front office can coax Pro Bowlers out of 5th rounders and CFL imports, is anyone really THAT worried?

Lukewarm on the Red Bryant Re-Signing

DE 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.

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.


- 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 really convinces me of drooling interest on Seattle's part. (While I was typing, Mike Sando confirmed this.) 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.


- 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.

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.

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!"

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...


- ...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.
.

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!)

Let's call this what it is - somewhat 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.

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.

As if the title "blogger" made me any sort of authority on this stuff. Haha.

17 Blurbs on Peyton Manning and the Seahawks

Jason La Canfora of NFL.com has recently opined that the Seattle Seahawks are probably on the short list of suitors for Peyton Manning's post-Colts services.

Imagine this...at the VMAC.

Amongst La Canfora's arguments:

- The regime change in Indianapolis ensures a quarterback change as surely as it did in Carolina a year ago. The availability of Andrew Luck makes it easy for the Colts to move on, and Manning's recent comments, his medical condition, and the team's cap issues only seem to strengthen this likelihood.

- Manning's pay-me-or-cut-me roster bonus is due for a decision before the official start of free agency, effectively eliminating Indy's ability to trade him.

- Peyton has "earned the right to be picky" and will probably be looking for a quieter, lower-pressure division and a young, rising, team with a stable locker room and enough talent to where he won't have to pull his usual elevating-an-entire-team act. That narrows the list of candidates considerably, with Seattle and Arizona standing out.


17 quick blurbs from me on this possibility:


17.     La Canfora's article is mere speculation. Sensible, articulate, and exciting speculation, but nonetheless there's no element of Manning's actual intentions in there. For all we know, the anonymous "general managers and executives" that La Canfora cites could refer to Tim Ruskell and Dan Snyder.

Why 2011 Isn't Over for the Seahawks...and Why We Might Cheer for the 49ers

If you're a fan of the Seattle Seahawks, you should be deeply engrossed in this year's playoffs. The 'Hawks themselves may not be in contention anymore, but the contests between the remaining teams have a lot to say about the current state of the NFL and the vision that Pete Carroll has for this team. Even if the Seahawks aren't auditioning for a Lombardi, the model upon which Carroll is building them is.

So the 12th Man should be paying attention.

More specifically, that blueprint is auditioning in the body of teams that share it, like San Francisco and Baltimore. These are teams built around rock-solid defense, smashmouth running games, and a limited quarterback, much like the direction Seattle is heading. There's obviously talent here; the question is how it's deployed, to what goals. And, of course, whether those teams have the ability to stop or out-race the juggernaut passing offenses of the reigning Super Bowl kings: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady.

In a way, the NFL playoffs is a showdown, not just between teams, but between team-building philosophies.

Is Matt Flynn An Upgrade?

The short answer is, it all depends on what you want out of a QB.

That was my attempt at being mysterious.  I am all about the longer answer anyway, so here goes.

There is some buzz right now that Seattle is interested in Mr. Matt Flynn.  Why wouldn't they be?  To a front office committed to turning over every rock, and committed to always getting more picks, the idea of getting a free agent QB from Green Bay who upgrades the team has to be attractive.  This is one rock that definitely will be turned over.

First off, Flynn should be free to sign as a free agent.  The Packers have free agents to retain this year who could absorb the franchise tag, primarily Finley. The new CBA supposedly has some rules to prevent teams from tagging players they don't actually intend to retain, a la Matt Cassel, and the Packers, while not against the cap, are not way below it either.  That doesn't mean that Ted Thompson won't test those rules. If Finley is signed during the team's exclusive negotiating window, it would leave Flynn free for that.

Flynn will be a hot commodity.  His last performance is still echoing around the league; when you set a team record for touchdown passes in a game, there will be echoes.  A closer examination of his passing in that game shows that three of those passes for touchdowns were pretty much all YAC, but the passes that set them up were decent.  Watch every pass in that game and it is hard to think of all 480 yards as having been earned the hard way, as Detroit's secondary looked almost disinterested in tackling or covering, but it was accomplished in wind and light snow, which is a scouting consideration.  Potentially, Seattle could play critical future playoff games in places like Green Bay, Chicago, and New York, and a quarterback who doesn't shrivel in the winter is important.

Flynn is a fit Seattle's offense in most respects.  He fits the bill as a point guard quarterback.  Athletic enough and mobile enough, Flynn did an above average job against Detroit of identifying and then exploiting match ups.  He is not a laser armed surgeon, and expecting him to dissect a defense by fitting the ball into tight spaces 30 yards down field would be a disaster, but Seattle's offense does not do that much anyway.  In fact, in watching Flynn against Detroit, a lot of the playcalls were eerily similar to Seattle OC Darell Bevell's - everything just looked better.  Maybe because his targets are better players. 

Here are some of the things Flynn does better than Tarvaris Jackson:

Indiana Carroll and the Quarterback Crusade

For a while, the Seahawks' 2011 campaign was just one long draft discussion. Who are we getting at QB next year - that's all we cared about. Then the running game and defense suddenly emerged and started making a regular season out of it. That was fun, and hugely heartening. 2011 proved more informative and promising than we had expected.

But now, with the 49ers loss, we're swinging back into the holding pattern despite having a little football still left to play. And with that reversion, some shelved concerns are coming back with a vengeance.

A lot of us don't trust Pete Carroll to get our future quarterback right. I confess I don't.

And this despite Pete Carroll and GM John Schneider having done what most of us would have considered impossible: not only dump an entire roster whose financial footprint made it nigh undumpable, but replace most of that roster with talented high-ceiling starters - within two offseasons.

Wait...lockout...one and a half offseasons!

The rational sliver of my mind says, "What more do these guys need to prove to you?" They've validated themselves at virtually every position, spectacularly in some cases (Kam Chancellor! Doug Baldwin! ZOMG RICHARD SHERMAN!!!!!!!1!11). But when it comes to the cornerstone of quarterback, we're tetchy. Anxiously rehashing the debates. Wringing out the talking points without mercy. Flooding Rob Staton with page hits. All the signs of someone who needs a lot more reassurance.

State of the Seahawks; Forecast, Clear Vision

At the time of Mr. Carroll's hire, the words "Clear Vision" were thrown around with sustained conviction by Pete and John, met with derision by the media, and met with skepticism by fans inured to front office promises.  The cheerleader from USC says anything, because he is so pumped and jacked, said the college coaches never make it in the NFL crowd.  He doesn't really want to coach in Seattle, he is just running from the Reggie Bush scandal, sniveled the pundits.  Pros do not buy into Rah Rah coaching at this level, said every damn talking head.  Seattle was accused of almost racism in the hiring process for a near violation of the Rooney rule, Pete was releasing a poorly timed book that touted his philosophy, and every player who ever played at USC was linked to the Hawks future by every reporter and blogger with a hunch.

Vision is a funny word that must confuse the hell out of people just learning English.  Rhymes with fission, while breaking phonetic rules.  I have good vision.  Awesome.  My vision needs correction.  Coke bottle correction, or contacts?  I just had a vision.  Kook.  Pete and John share a vision.  Bull.

Those were dark days for many Hawk fans. Foggy days.  Rainy days with low visibility.  Pete's vision was only clear to a few people.  His corrective lenses were of a prescription available to few of us.  Binocular in one eye, Telescope in the other.

I freely admit to not having a clue about Seattle's direction after Pete was hired.  I knew I was glad the Keystone Cops, aka Ruskell and Mora, were gone, but hope is not vision.  Sometimes, hope is less transparent than pure misery.

Fast forward to Week 16, 2011.  Seattle still could finish with a losing record.  Seattle is assured of at least the same record as last year, and if they do finish that way, the superficial will have their say.  Pete will be a .500 career coach in their eyes.

Do you care, or will statements like that just be your new filter for separating the ignorant from the informed?

The Ignored Seahawks

What gesture is he really making?

Alright, this is just getting ridiculous.

I've never been a huge fan of FOXSports' Adam Schein, and this week he has joined the chorus of national writers who are incapable of interpreting a Seahawks' win (over the Eagles, in this case) as anything but the opposition throwing the game:

I took the time to do a video rant on Cosmic SCHEIN this week on FOXSports.com to explain why the Eagles shouldn’t fire Reid. And then his team travels cross country and loses to the Seattle Seahawks. Actually, they didn’t lose. They got manhandled for three quarters by a relative bunch of clowns. Forget the 31-14 score. The effort and execution were pathetic all game.

That's the way this cookie always crumbles for the national media. The Seahawks never win, the other team just loses. No Seahawks victory contains any element of the Seahawks doing anything to actually earn or deserve it. It's always the fault of whatever team went into a Seahawks game cocky and came out clocked. To the national media, the Seahawks are an inert, faceless element with no sentient qualities or nameworthy players except their sucky QB, which other teams just seem to trip over because they weren't looking.

I'm usually one to try and put the shoe on the other foot. I try to see all sides and not let my fandom color things, and sometimes it makes others question that fandom. Let's get the perspective out of the way: The Eagles really did play like they didn't want it. They played like the Seahawks did for Charlie Whitehurst. They were missing three crucial starters, five once Mike Williams was done falling on people's heads, and were playing on the road (big-time) after a short week. Vince Young is just not an NFL quarterback, and three of his four interceptions came on awful throws/decisions. Their LB corps sucks in almost every facet. All things being equal, the Eagles really did make enough independent mistakes to lose the game.

If only things were equal to the pundits. Enough is enough.

Five Things Pete Carroll Still Needs to Prove

Youth is catching up to the Seahawks. Last year's early success, memorable mostly for its improbable defeat of the Chargers and Bears, is not being repeated. The players are visibly upset, Pete Carroll looks mellower each week, and people are starting to wonder just how legitimate last year's underdog excellence was.

A tougher starting schedule is partly responsible for all this. Last year's opening six weeks were downright cotton-candy aside from the Chargers. This year we've faced two quality offenses, the 49ers defense, and two perennial laughingstock teams from Ohio who are actually showing hints of significance(???!?!?!?!).

But although there's enough promise on the team to seriously believe in a bright future, and the gutsy road win over the Giants was delicious, these struggles are on Pete Carroll - and not in a bad way. The lack of discipline, the rawness and inexperience...what we're really seeing here is the short-term penalty of Pete Carroll's early approach with the team. The immediate and almost reckless roster turnover, the concentration of all our youth and inexperience into the offensive line, so many new and unfamiliar players integrating at once...

This is what was always going to happen. The mistakes, frustration, and venting combined with the high-octane style of this coaching staff creating a weird mix of aggressive football and sloppy football. It's the flipside of high turnover, the downside of getting younger. This is exactly what a lot of folks wanted - misguided ideas from the Tim Ruskell era about veteran signings being bad, continuity being mistaken for stagnation, impatient demands for a fresh start. (Ruskell was fired deservedly, but gets a lot of criticism for the wrong reasons.)

Now, after two games of historically inept offense (and refereeing), Pete Carroll is drawing flak. Much of it, including a lively piece from the normally level-headed Mike Sando, revolves around Carroll's QB decisions (specifically not drafting Andy Dalton, which I'll deal with in a moment). I don't have a problem with flak. I think the coaches (and the fans) need to see it after all the un-earned goodwill floating around from last year's fluke, unrepeatable playoff run. But it has to be the right kind of flak.

Earlier this season I quantified what I thought were Carroll's successes as Seahawks head coach. Thus far, he's an effective motivator who gets high effort out of his players; a decent coaching recruiter; a committed developer of players; a financially savvy, future-minded decision-maker; and a never-say-die competitor who was enough of a believer to lead his team to an unforgettable playoff upset of the defending Super Bowl champions. All good things.

But not a single one of them automatically translates to a dynasty. The pessimist points out that in no other division in the history of the NFL would Carroll even have gotten a shot to beat the Saints, that last year's cinderella story was born of lucky bounces and bad competition, and that Carroll has yet to answer a stiff challenge from top-level opponents in the playoffs. Had the Rams finished one game better, would we all still be this gracious to this coaching staff?

This front office's strengths need to be tested in the fire of consistency before they will lead this team to contender status. The good management philosophies and player acquisition strategies need to turn into production and identity on the field. Here are five things I feel that Pete Carroll still needs to prove.

Seahawks Bye-Week Report Card: The Palmer Ship Has Sailed and Other QB Thoughts

Previously: The Bye-Week Report Card on the Defense

NFL.com, indulging in a small-time shock tactic that's eyebrow-raising just the same, posted an interesting picture yesterday in order to attract clicks to their newest feature article suggesting possible last-minute trades. It was originally a well-known picture of Pete Carroll welcoming Matt Hasselbeck to the sidelines after a presumed touchdown, but the back of the jersey is now (rather obviously) photoshopped to show the number "9" and the name "Palmer".

Had you shown me that a couple weeks ago, I might have gotten excited. Earlier this year, 17 Power was one of a couple of Seattle blogs passing on low-level rumors that the Seahawks were pursuing Palmer in trade. A couple people were insisting that a certain price has been named; others quoted only an intangible interest. Nothing ever materialized, but the interest wasn't disproven either. Palmer, though modestly aged and beset by injuries, is nonetheless a potential short-term franchise quarterback with the skills to produce. He isn't doing anything in his non-retirement in Cincinnati, and the Bengals can only stand to benefit from trading him. It was a needed and potentially exciting prospect for a team struggling at the most important position, and I was hopeful it would happen.

Now...mehh. Not so much.

Further Thoughts on the Giants Victory

The more I think about Sunday's win against the Giants, the more it feels like an illustration of how defense and QB play fit together in this league. The Seahawks' defense didn't win the game for them. The game-sealing interception was a lucky bounce that lies more on Eli Manning's shoulders than any Seattle DB's, another of several bad decisions by a QB that couldn't push his luck forever.

No, in this instance, the Seahawks won because their QB play was able to keep pace with New York's. Shocker this, but the combination of Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst exceeded 300 yards and won the turnover battle. This left the Seahawks hanging around in the fourth quarter, well in position to capitalize on a lucky bounce.

Does this mean the Giants gave the game away? Yes and no. Manning had a horribly inconsistent day, but how many Seahawks teams of late have been able to run away with lucky breaks? Very few. Now we're seeing one. It says a lot about the spirit and tenacity of this team that they were still around mentally and physically when Eli Manning threw that fateful pass too wide of Victor Cruz. The Seahawks were playing sixty minutes of football, making plays when it counted. And they forced a few of their own.


Offense

Some consider the Tarvaris Jackson debate blown wide open again. I was under no impression that he was capable of playing franchise QB in the NFL, but Pete Carroll's system seems set up to maximize Jackson's abilities. Jackson led sustained drives against the Giants defense, rather than just a couple good ones. His newfound point-guarding is opening up the offense and affording them more red-zone opportunities. He's surprised me.

It certainly helps to have the weapons he does. Good QB's elevate bad WR's much more than the other way around, but there is an effect both ways, and the latter effect is near full strength right now. Doug Baldwin is out there doing his thing. He's fluid, instinctive, aware, and has experience with a similar system from Stanford from what I hear. It gives him an "it" factor that Golden Tate just plain lacks. Ben Obomanu and Marshawn Lynch acquitted themselves well in the short passing game, and Lynch showed good things Sunday pounding the rock. It was steady production, not just one long run. It wouldn't surprise me if they're all benefiting from Sidney Rice drawing a bit of coverage downfield.

Charlie Whitehurst made some eyebrow-raising deep throws to keep Seattle in the game late. He also had some bad throws and continues to obsess over his first read. He's not as much of an improv QB as Jackson is, which is both good and bad. If a solid month of starting could do Jackson some good, it might help Whitehurst as well, but it might not. Depends on Carroll's system.

Speaking of which, kudos to Darell Bevell for the gutsy decision to switch to an up-tempo offense. It keeps the defense off-balance and seemed to favor both Jackson and Whitehurst. It has downside, in particular an increased turnover risk and the opposite of a grinding offense (i.e. leaving the other offense with more time instead of less). But it's funny how an offensive coordinators' play-calling looks so much better when the offense is in sync, whereas from behind the plays tend to look dumber.

Also credit the offensive line, particularly the rapidly improving James Carpenter, and the fearlessness of Seattle's sack-laden QB's as well. Jackson did a great job not getting rattled, as did Whitehurst in relief (without a lot of first-team practice).


Defense

The Seattle defense has all the signs of a collection of playmakers being exposed too often by a lack of consistent interior pass rush. The defensive ends are notching pressures and hits, the corners are getting some good jams and defenses, the safeties are flying around, and yet good QB's are still racking up yards, yards, yards with or without much help from the run game. At first glance, this is a paradox, with most people's first instinct to look to the secondary for someone to blame.

Kip pointed out a number of contributing factors to Manning's success on Sunday. Seattle's good offensive play and tenacity, their reliance on an up-tempo offense, and the lack of a run game were all relevant. They forced Manning to keep up the pace and inflated his stats to some degree, as did Leon Washington's kickoff returns against Philip Rivers last year. Manning's own bumbles are also on that list. He was lucky to be in the game as long as he was, with Seattle defenders getting their hands on several footballs. It was a poorly placed throw to Cruz that did him in, although I'm not sure whether he or Cruz is more responsible there.

Another factor is revealed by Victor Cruz' "magical" 68-yard touchdown completion. I've seen a number of attempts to affix blame for this catch-and-run to a Seahawk defensive back, but I don't buy it. Kam Chancellor shouldn't get blamed for merely tipping the ball instead of intercepting it, while Richard Sherman didn't have the reaction time to close. It looks like hard luck on them. But I can think of someone who could have stopped the pass - the defensive line, at the source. Eli Manning had four seconds to literally dance around in the pocket before he released that pass. The more time the QB has in the pocket, the more lucky things he's going to make happen.

And not even lucky things so much as perfectly placed throws. For two weeks now, we've had front-row seats as Seattle defensive backs (this week, Walter Thurmond; last week, Brandon Browner) played excellent coverage, only to get burned by the kind of beautifully placed pinpoint throw that one-on-one sideline coverage just can't really defend against.  It's a matter of inches, and franchise QB's like Manning and Matt Ryan are defined partly by their ability to complete such passes on a regular basis. On Thurmond's play in particular, even the pass rush couldn't help. Manning was flushed out and still made the play, helped by the great hands of Cruz.

Our defense are still giving up some big plays, but they're also showing promise. I can't help but wonder if our secondary's life would be made easier by interior pressure on the QB himself. But even great pass rush can only limit a QB's opportunities. Aaron Rodgers went up against the NFL's very best defense in last year's Super Bowl, and still his accuracy and improvisation prevailed. Pittsburgh needed its offense to seal the deal, and Ben Roethlisberger's turnovers doomed the operation.

Which leads me back to my belief about the power structure of the NFL. Defense isn't enough on its own, and in the last two weeks we've been shown a clinic as to why. Kudos to Browner for keeping his head in the play, but his winning interception return was a crazy ricochet off an inaccurate throw from Manning and was thus a factor of offense, not defense. Ordinarily, Seattle's struggle to produce offensively would have put Seattle 3 touchdowns behind at the time of Browner's pick-six.


Conclusion

But as Kip eloquently put it, good offensive play is an equalizer. On Sunday, Seattle had it. The victory was due in no small part to Seattle's ability to score early. A similar effect is visible in our unlikely wins against San Diego and Chicago last year - the Seahawks put up points, exerting pressure on the opponent to score, and then kept the pressure in place with good field position (let no one ignore Leon Washington's contributions to the win). Usually when the Seahawks lose, it's to a runaway scoring pile-on in the first half. This Sunday, much like our 2005 team (dare I make even tangential comparisons to that?), early points equalized the game and gave our defense greater influence.


Context

I always look at the quality of the defeated opponent to gauge the quality of a win. Are the Giants a bad football team, thus reducing the significance of Seattle's victory? I find that hard to swallow. On one hand, they opened the season by losing to the Redskins and scraping past the awful Cardinals, so that doesn't speak to their stature. Injuries have certainly backed the team up, and their offensive line was surprisingly soft. But this team carries a lot of talent, plays in a tough division, boasts a fearsome pass rush that got to our QB's multiple times, and knows how to win. Even at his worst, Eli Manning is a good quarterback and made a lot of great plays against Seattle in between his bad ones.

So it's tough to say.

What we do know, like we knew before, is that the Seahawks have a few tricks up their sleeve when it comes to keeping games in hand. Pete Carroll's obsession over turnovers is a big part of that, and who knows how much better our 2010 season could have looked without Matt Hasselbeck's multiple four-turnover fiascos? We've got Leon Washington, we've got a fierce pair of playmaker safeties who seem to come up big every time we succeed, and we've got a great receiver tandem. Should these elements create room for some balance, we have running and short-passing to add to the fire. We have passion and determination from the players that certainly wasn't around when Mora was coach. And, of course, there's the awesome equalizer of the 12th Man crowd at CenturyLink Field.

What does this say about the rest of our season? The rest of our schedule features QB's mostly of the "respectable but highly inconsistent" category, and the only intimidating defense I see on that schedule is Baltimore. The toughest stretch could well be behind us already.

This is wonderfully encouraging stuff. I can't say that I consider the QB situation resolved, but it's a complement to Carroll's coaching and offseason acquisitions that the Seahawks can keep games close enough to where a big play or two will swing fortune our way. That really does seem to be Carroll's mantra, his big answer to the big-time playground of elite quarterbacks and smashmouth defenses. I hope it becomes a pattern. Last year's 3-7 finish of blowout losses still stands as the mean of Seattle's quality in a vacuum, and it will take some consistent performance against good teams to change my mind about that.

But we're certainly on our way.

Seahawks Defeat NY Giants on the Road, 36-25

The title alone is a stunner. Not something I was expecting to see this year.

This game was a back-and-forth, messy, opportunistic contest with poor fundamental football interspersed with big plays - for both teams. It was a firefight of turnovers. It was a slew of injuries toughed out. It was a showcase for wide receiver depth. It was a clinic on how to rebound from mistakes. It was another chance for Charlie Whitehurst. It was a head-shaker for linebackers. It was a hailstorm of penalties. It was a highlight reel-filler of lucky bounces, an agonizing march of almost-big-plays, finally decided by the luck of one team running out while the other team still had the endurance and spirit to capitalize.

For once, the latter team was the Seahawks, now 2-3. Once again, we are reminded of the masterful motivation of Pete Carroll and the power it sometimes offers to an otherwise struggling team.

This game could mark a tremendous shift in the Seahawks' season, or at least, as tremendous as it can be as the 49ers(!) run away with the division. Pending further news on Tarvaris Jackson's injury, Charlie Whitehurst could be looking at yet another chance, probably his final one, to cement himself as a starting quarterback.

His weapons are well on their way to establishing themselves. Don't look now, but an undrafted wide receiver just broke 100 receiving yards for the Seahawks, leads the team's receivers, and in five weeks has gone from roster long-shot to security blanket in the slot. Brandon Stokley in miniature. I shudder to think what he could do with a real QB throwing to him, and to think what we would have missed out on had Seattle followed my advice and cut him last month.

I don't know what to make of our cornerback depth. Brandon Browner in particular is an enigma, a bigger, stronger Kelly Jennings who scatters small victories in between big plays and costly penalties. Nobody else is much better. But we've also seen great things in spurts. Would their job be easier with any real pass rush? QB's would have a lot less time to make perfectly placed passes and other lucky things happen. I feel the need to withhold judgment there.

So much to say about this team right now, so little time. I look forward to Kip Earlywine's piece later today.

The Red Bryant Illusion And Why I'm So Hard On Our Defense

It's an exciting time for the Seahawks defense. It's coming into its own. Young future cornerstones like Brandon Mebane, Earl Thomas, and Kam Chancellor are flying around and delivering huge, shuddering hits. Wily veterans like Marcus Trufant, Leroy Hill, Chris Clemons and Raheem Brock are enjoying a high-impact resurgence. And other hopefuls like Walter Thurmond and KJ Wright are lurking around hinting promise. The speed is there, the physicality is there, and we're finally starting to see some of the instincts and discipline we've been lacking. There's no denying the talent on tape.

There's one guy on this defense who doesn't quite seem to fit into any of those categories, though. At first glance, the stats seem to support a top-notch performance from any 'Hawks lineup containing DE Red Bryant. As Hawk Blogger recently pointed out, opponents are converting only 32% of their third downs in the Bryant defense's nine games, 29% so far this season - lofty numbers indeed, worthy of top 5 in the NFL.

My response, as the token wet blanket of the Seahawks blogging network, is that you have to put this into context. I've written before about how the Bryant defense faced mostly mediocre-to-terrible rushing teams in 2010 and completely folded against the only two strong passing games it's faced (Denver and Pittsburgh) even when they could stop the run.

Which suggests two possibilities: that the success of the run-focused Bryant D is either irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, or that it's still relatively untested against better opponents - the real yardstick of NFL success. Maybe some of both.

Why Rumors of Carroll-Schneider's Demise are Probably Greatly Exaggerated

We pre-empt your regularly scheduled viewing of "Five Things Pete Carroll Still Needs to Prove" to bring you this breaking news bulletin: Pro Football Weekly is jumping to conclusions Evil Knievel-style. Again.

Hub Arkush and Eric Edholm of PFW reported yesterday morning that the collaborative relationship between VPFO/head coach Pete Carroll and GM John Schneider "could be on rocky ground". The spate of offensive injuries and the subpar performance of the offensive line are reported to be a source of tension between the two, with each supposedly making personnel moves the other is displeased with.

This piece of substantiation is offered:

"I talked to one agent who had one of his free-agent clients shipped into Seattle, and when he got there, Pete Carroll said, 'What is he doing here? We don't need him for a football team.' That's just one example of personnel not matching up to what the coach wants to put on the field."

Some reasons why this report doesn't make sense:

1. That agent story is the only item of supporting information that's present in this whole thing. It's one piece, smacking of sensationalism to be quite honest, and the conclusions leaped to from that one exhibit are massive. This doesn't pass the basic strength-of-evidence test.

2. It doesn't offer a motive. Why would Pete Carroll, John Schneider, or anyone in their right mind be annoyed over the acquisition of Sidney Rice, Robert Gallery, or Zach Miller? Tarvaris Jackson I can see, but the other three are proven NFL veterans. We know Pete loves to niggle over his scheme, but that's not mentioned in enough detail here to provide any credibility.

3. It ignores the collaborative relationship in the VMAC. Carroll and Schneider, from all vantage points and by the claim of evey respectable journalist who's seen the process up close, are making decisions together. The PFW piece seems to operate under the assumption that the two are holed up in separate rooms doing their own thing.

4. It doesn't account for the participation of the coaching staff. Doug Farrar mentions that Carroll and Schneider chose to mine the past player connections of OC Darell Bevell and O-line coach Tom Cable in order to find some continuity to help the team after the lockout. Ergo, most of Seattle's offseason acquisitions on offense. James Carpenter and John Moffitt were also Cable picks. We can still debate the wisdom of those moves, but still, it's an easy alternative explanation to "Carroll and Schneider are just on different pages."

5. It's not as if Carroll and Schneider have always agreed on everything anyway. Charlie Whitehurst was largely Schneider's guy, having been on his radar for years before. Carroll supported the move all the way, but reading between the lines, one could easily conclude that it wasn't Carroll's idea. Which speaks to the strength of the collaboration, compromise, and united front that they're trying to build - all good signs of a strong relationship.

6. It doesn't jive with Carroll's history. It's implied that Carroll is upset over the injuries suffered by Sidney Rice and Robert Gallery. First of all, it would be pretty irrational of Pete to get frustrated over something as unpredictable as injuries, unless you think that Rice's torn labrum has something to do with the gimpy hip that sidelined him in Minnesota. They're kind of in different parts of the body. Second of all, even if there was injury history to point to, Carroll is hardly injury-shy. During the 2010 draft, he traded with the Jets for major player Leon Washington, sidelined by injury, shortly after drafting CB Walter Thurmond - a second-round talent knocked down a few rounds by injury - and pretty much cordoning off a starting spot for him, to the point of being willing to trade away the incumbent Josh Wilson. Both Washington and Thurmond had truly gruesome leg fractures to recover from, and Thurmond still isn't back. So Carroll doesn't exactly look afraid to gamble against injury, although it's true that Thurmond and Washington didn't cost that much either.

7. Too many other alternative explanations. This could be a frustrated Pete Carroll making frustrated comments that are being blown out of context. It could be a frustrated agent trying to dish on a front office who didn't sign his guy. It could be a couple of bored writers trying to dish on the worst team in the NFL. Teams like the Seahawks are always targets of rumor-mongering. Are these cynical and unsupported possibilities? Yes. But they're also consistent with the day-to-day NFL, and they prevent the "rocky ground" theory from sounding definitive.


In less fancy words, this sounds like bullcrap being made out of nothing. Near-pure speculation based on very little falsifiable information. Of course, that's certainly our hope, because the destruction of Carroll and Schneider's working relationship is hardly a good thing for an already-struggling franchise. So let's be aware of are bias. But still, I haven't seen anything that serves as a respectable red flag. The leap is just too big. So let's get back to our pasta. Nothing to see here.

Five Things Pete Carroll Has Proven

So someone named UltimateSeahawk included 17 Power in a recent poll for Top 5 independent Seahawks blogs. How my incoherent vomit wound up in the same company as Seahawks Draft Blog and Fieldgulls I don't know, but one thing caught my attention: amongst the guy's criteria is that good blogs should be neither overly optimistic or excessively negative. "I want something to look forward to," he wrote. "There is enough negativity directed towards the Seahawks in the national media. I don’t need that from a blog."

Between that and a recent poster at Seahawks.net (the source of much of my patronage) who said, "nobody both informs and depresses me about the Seahawk's current situation as well as Mr. Brandon Adams," I'm thinking it's high time for some positivity around here. What sports fan wants to wallow in pessimism all the time, however rational?

So, some good things about Pete Carroll. He's far from a sure thing in Seattle thus far, but it's not as if he's an unknown quantity or an abject failure yet either. There are things he's shown, encouraging things. Some of the credit here also belongs to GM John Schneider, but considering how prominent Pete is in the organization, you can't avoid crediting him as well.

State of the Seahawks: The Pete Carroll Wake-Up Call

Today's 24-0 loss to the Steelers was painful, but it may have been the healthiest thing for Seahawks fans to see. It's kind of like the cocky 16-year-old with the new drivers' license, who totals his new car while speeding down farm roads and walks away, but is shaken to learn that he's not indestructible. No lasting harm, but his eyes are opened to the reality of life and how lucky he's been so far. That kind of healthy.

Because we need to be reminded of what Pete Carroll's legacy actually is in Seattle. We saw it today: getting shellacked and completely dominated in every phase of the game by healthy contenders. His legacy is not last year's San Diego win, which people think was won by grit and tenacity. It's not the Bears win, which some hailed as the breaking of some vaguely defined "road curse". It's not the Rams win, which fans attribute to Carroll's savvy choice of Charlie Whitehurst. And it's not the playoff win against the Saints, which belongs to Matt Hasselbeck having an improbably good day against an injury-depleted Saints secondary.

So far, Carroll's only real accomplishment in Seattle - when all lucky bounces, useless stats, and misinterpreted contexts are swept aside - is winning a historically weak division by the margin of a pair of lucky Leon Washington kick returns against an awful San Diego special-teams unit and a series of easy dropped passes by Rams receivers who would be #4's on most teams. His legacy is the nine blowout losses that occurred between those tough wins and exposed them as unsustainable exceptions, fatal in any normal division.

That's his legacy so far. Why he's getting so much unquestioning goodwill from this fan base is beyond me.

The Retreat of Scheme and the Return of the Matchup

Philosophy is a word thrown around in the VMAC with a regularity never before seen. It has come at the expense of a word fans still throw around, but coaches in Seattle rarely do any more: Scheme.

And both words carry such different connotations that accurately portray the people promoting them. A philosophy expresses personal thought, belief, and independence. What you think about my philosophy matters nought to me if I believe enough. Maybe that is why Pete Carroll has lately begun to look like a cult leader in his attire. Is there a hemp shirt in the Seahawks Pro Shop?



Scheme, that is a very different idea. It is me fooling you, conning you, planting one thing in your head and doing another. It is schematic, indicating very specific parts for a very specific machine.

Now that is a very real part of football. It always has been, and always will be. But certain teams rely on scheme more than others, for a variety of reasons, both fiscal and personnel related, with varying degrees of success. Indy, for instance, gets away with a poor offensive line built around Peyton Manning's quick release, and a smaller, quicker 4-3 defense built around the fact that they expect that offense to secure an early lead. Think about that for a second. How much more scheme-specific can you get than a defense built around the quarterback?

But there is a problem with schemes. As a central doctrine in football, they can be exposed by a solitary enemy: the matchup.

On Tarvaris Jackson, Part 4

Part 1: Low expectations for Tarvaris Jackson.

Part 2: Why he was still Seattle's optimal choice at QB.

Part 3: Some numbers that hint at Tarvaris Jackson's growth trajectory.


 
Coaches don't just hand their quarterbacks a playbook and set them loose. Handling of a QB by their head coach defines the QB, not entirely, but to a pertinent degree.

We Twelves are aware of this. Notorious are the stories of Mike Holmgren's temper and how it kept Matt Hasselbeck disciplined and accountable on the field. Seneca Wallace usually played with a watered-down playbook and a tight leash held by Holmgren. Read up on almost any successful team, and you'll find that the relationship between coaches and QB's is well-defined.

One of the knocks on Tarvaris Jackson is that he wasn't handled well by his old head coach in Minnesota, Brad Childress, who has a tyrant's reputation and fueled his training camps with bile and profanity. People say his development was hampered by his early pulling in 2008 and the arrival of Brett Favre. Pete Carroll and John Schneider have publicly agreed. Rather colorfully, I might add.

Fair enough. Jackson may have had a poor environment with the Vikings. Whether a better environment will magically improve Jackson's accuracy and field vision, I don't know. But it could happen.

Pete Carroll is used to deliberate QB handling. He and former OC Jeremy Bates were quite open about how they handled Matt Hasselbeck and Charlie Whitehurst. It's about degrees of decision-making freedom and generosity with the playbook.