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.
Showing posts with label Charlie Whitehurst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Whitehurst. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Analysis on SEA @ CLE - Watershed for Seahawks Defense?
Ten thoughts on Seattle visiting Cleveland as they exit the bye week:
1. Use the word "unproven" on most QB's, and most people will dismiss him. Use it on Charlie Whitehurst, and it means that he might be good. I don't get it.
Anyway, Whitehurst finally gets his long-expected 2011 debut this week against the Browns. It's time that he starts flashing some real promise, for he's been here too long to be a complete unknown. He's seen action in six regular-season games for Seattle, and the fact that he's only started two of them is less relevant than it's being made out to be. Lack of first-string practice snaps doesn't excuse poor fundamentals like staring down receivers and overthrowing them by twenty feet. He's created a visible profile now, and needs to hone it.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Seahawks vs. Vikings Pushback: The QB's
Comparing Tarvaris Jackson and Charlie Whitehurst is like comparing circles of hell. You're hosed either way. Seattle's QB competition is not about finding a franchise QB, because barring some sudden development of skill within the next month, the current competition is not likely to magically create a franchise QB. It's about finding a game manager. Pete Carroll knows the limitations of this QB lineup and is merely seeking someone who can steward the Seahawks through 2011 without turning the ball over, keeping games salvageable by a few lucky plays.
(Hopefully, that policy is just a temporary thing while Seattle searches for their QBOTF, and not a long-range strategy.)
I'm not a fan of either QB. To be honest, I'd dismissed Charlie Whitehurst within a week of Seattle signing him. The optimism surrounding him felt strained and unrealistic. I felt no impetus to justify a brand-new front office or the third-rounder spent on Whitehurst, so I went with the simplest explanation: Whitehurst was a third-stringer on San Diego's roster for good reason, and Seattle had overpaid. I met Jackson with similar skepticism: despite Minnesota's treatment of him, it was always quite possible and far more reasonable that Minnesota simply knew what they had - a backup - and treated him accordingly.
Whitehurst is getting a lot of support from folks after his performance against Minnesota. He's getting the Dilfer calls while Jackson is dismissed largely over his stat line. I don't make excuses for QB's, but that's a piss-poor evaluation of Jackson. It's mind-boggling to me that professional news outlets make this kind of shallow judgment. Watch the damn game. Get a clue on how to spot and judge fundamentals of play. I'm not falling over myself to defend anyone, but I saw encouraging things from Jackson Saturday night and feel they need to be enumerated.
(Hopefully, that policy is just a temporary thing while Seattle searches for their QBOTF, and not a long-range strategy.)
I'm not a fan of either QB. To be honest, I'd dismissed Charlie Whitehurst within a week of Seattle signing him. The optimism surrounding him felt strained and unrealistic. I felt no impetus to justify a brand-new front office or the third-rounder spent on Whitehurst, so I went with the simplest explanation: Whitehurst was a third-stringer on San Diego's roster for good reason, and Seattle had overpaid. I met Jackson with similar skepticism: despite Minnesota's treatment of him, it was always quite possible and far more reasonable that Minnesota simply knew what they had - a backup - and treated him accordingly.
Whitehurst is getting a lot of support from folks after his performance against Minnesota. He's getting the Dilfer calls while Jackson is dismissed largely over his stat line. I don't make excuses for QB's, but that's a piss-poor evaluation of Jackson. It's mind-boggling to me that professional news outlets make this kind of shallow judgment. Watch the damn game. Get a clue on how to spot and judge fundamentals of play. I'm not falling over myself to defend anyone, but I saw encouraging things from Jackson Saturday night and feel they need to be enumerated.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Grading Seattle's Free Agency: Offense
Signing the former Minnesota backup isn't exactly a coup in and of itself. Despite his tools, starting experience, and spotty handling by Brad Childress, the fact is that Jackson struggled in Minnesota despite being protected by an awesome offense. He's a popular example of how a good team doesn't necessarily elevate a bad QB.
But the signing looks better when you compare it against the other options. Seattle could have overpaid for Kevin Kolb, risked Vince Young, courted the Carroll-misfit Kyle Orton, or become the next victim of Donovan McNabb. Instead, they went for the best combination of value, experience, cost, and system familiarity in Tarvaris Jackson. His 2-year, $8 million contract leaves Seattle free to keep looking without settling for Derek Anderson-type ineptitude in the present. Jackson should be a little better than that.
I am a little surprised that Carroll just up and handed Jackson the starting spot based on system familiarity. But it's not as if Charlie Whitehurst was likely to pick up the new system with such a short time to practice. Call it "lockout fallout". Hee hee.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Matt Hasselbeck Also Not Expected to Return
Adam Schefter on NFL Live doesn't expect QB Matt Hasselbeck to return to the Seahawks, according to a tweet by Evan Silva.
I'm not sure what's changed since Seattle's favorite football leak shared that Matt Hasselbeck is still a target of interest for the Seahawks. The team's negotiations with him stalled right before the lockout after Hasselbeck turned down the team's offer, apparently over the issue of guaranteed money. OC Darrell Bevell is said to have "reached out" to Hasselbeck during the brief break in the lockout last month, assuring the veteran QB that Seattle still wants him back.
Still, this makes sense. The draft didn't kill the market for veteran quarterbacks so much as just reshuffle the possible landing spots. Washington's evil plan to draft Jake Locker was foiled by Tennessee, leaving them hurting at the position. Arizona might call, despite their alleged interest in Marc Bulger. Hass's old mentor is still lurking around Cleveland, no doubt red-faced as he suppresses his desire to fire Pat Shurmur and rush back down to coach. It's doubtful that Tennessee or Minnesota will be interested now, having committed Top-12 money (chortle) to their new QB's, but there are still candidates for his services.
I am not a Hasselbeck hater, but his hanging around is a messy and divisive situation. His good reputation is at risk. That we've allowed optimism for Hasselbeck's future to creep back into our opinions shows how long it's been since we watched him play. Statistically and fundamentally, he was one of the worst starting QB's we've ever seen in 2010. It's far more logical to expect a San Francisco meltdown from him than a New Orleans comeback in 2011. I'm not saying Charlie Whitehurst will be any better, but there are still other options besides him.
With the lockout embalming teams in their current offensive schemes, Hasselbeck has retained value to the Seahawks by way of his familiarity with Seattle's system and personnel. Should he stick around, the team will at least have continuity. But he looks for all the world like a guy who still believes in himself, still wants to play and win, and wants a contract that reflects those goals. Seattle's front office has been a bit stingy in that regard, both with its own guys and other teams' free agents. The two sides just don't seem to share a vision.
I think it's for the best for both parties if Seattle cuts the cord and moves on. Seattle denied any intent to seriously contend in 2011 by failing to draft a QB, so Charlie Whitehurst might as well get a shot and try to justify that third-round pick he cost (which was used, in case you're wondering, on a small corner from USC).
I'm not sure what's changed since Seattle's favorite football leak shared that Matt Hasselbeck is still a target of interest for the Seahawks. The team's negotiations with him stalled right before the lockout after Hasselbeck turned down the team's offer, apparently over the issue of guaranteed money. OC Darrell Bevell is said to have "reached out" to Hasselbeck during the brief break in the lockout last month, assuring the veteran QB that Seattle still wants him back.
Still, this makes sense. The draft didn't kill the market for veteran quarterbacks so much as just reshuffle the possible landing spots. Washington's evil plan to draft Jake Locker was foiled by Tennessee, leaving them hurting at the position. Arizona might call, despite their alleged interest in Marc Bulger. Hass's old mentor is still lurking around Cleveland, no doubt red-faced as he suppresses his desire to fire Pat Shurmur and rush back down to coach. It's doubtful that Tennessee or Minnesota will be interested now, having committed Top-12 money (chortle) to their new QB's, but there are still candidates for his services.
I am not a Hasselbeck hater, but his hanging around is a messy and divisive situation. His good reputation is at risk. That we've allowed optimism for Hasselbeck's future to creep back into our opinions shows how long it's been since we watched him play. Statistically and fundamentally, he was one of the worst starting QB's we've ever seen in 2010. It's far more logical to expect a San Francisco meltdown from him than a New Orleans comeback in 2011. I'm not saying Charlie Whitehurst will be any better, but there are still other options besides him.
With the lockout embalming teams in their current offensive schemes, Hasselbeck has retained value to the Seahawks by way of his familiarity with Seattle's system and personnel. Should he stick around, the team will at least have continuity. But he looks for all the world like a guy who still believes in himself, still wants to play and win, and wants a contract that reflects those goals. Seattle's front office has been a bit stingy in that regard, both with its own guys and other teams' free agents. The two sides just don't seem to share a vision.
I think it's for the best for both parties if Seattle cuts the cord and moves on. Seattle denied any intent to seriously contend in 2011 by failing to draft a QB, so Charlie Whitehurst might as well get a shot and try to justify that third-round pick he cost (which was used, in case you're wondering, on a small corner from USC).
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Mallett Ultimatum, Part 3: Scheme Fit?
I don't have any idea what kind of offense Pete Carroll will be running in 2011.You don't have any idea what kind of offense Pete Carroll will be running in 2011.
The media doesn't have any idea what kind of offense Pete Carroll will be running in 2011.
Truth be told, I don't even think Pete Carroll has any idea what kind of offense Pete Carroll will be running in 2011.
Why? Because Pete Carroll doesn't know who his quarterback will be yet. This is a quarterback-driven league whose successful offenses are built around the QB, not the other way around. Draft a good QB, construct the offense around his skill set, and you can start your rebuild any time. Wait for a QB who perfectly fits your abstract playbook, and you're at the mercy of the whims of the draft. You might be waiting years, and GM's don't have years to turn teams around.
It would be foolish for Seattle to rigidly adhere to an offensive philosophy instead of a quarterback. I personally don't see any proof that Carroll is even going to be that rigid. We know what he has said to the cameras, which means nothing. We know whom he has pursued in free agency, which means more. We know what he's done on the field, which is also valuable. And we know what works in the NFL, which might be the most important consideration of all.
Let's use that stuff when it comes to guessing Seattle's draft next week. Yes, this has to do with Ryan Mallett, because arguing in favor of flexibility allows us to envision Mallett as a Seahawk next week. Bias? Maybe, but I don't think it's a deadly one. Judge for yourselves.
A question to ponder: if Carroll is so excited about arm strength and mobility, then why did he trade away Seneca Wallace?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Report: Seahawks Pursued Trent Edwards Last Spring
 |
| "I know, I know, build through the draft!" |
Specifically, the Seahawks made Edwards their #2 target after being turned down by the Philadelphia Eagles in a trade attempt for Kevin Kolb. Charlie Whitehurst, currently Seattle's backup QB, was the guy they courted after Edwards, who was also never traded.
It's not explained why the Edwards trade never went through. It's never really been explained clearly why the Kolb trade didn't go through, either. Philadelphia evidently never wanted to trade Kolb, but did they communicate that by slapping him with a price of two first-round picks, or did they communicate that by saying "No, thanks" and hanging up the phone? The answer could give us insight on just how much Seattle was willing to pony up for a franchise prospect.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Decoding John Schneider
Seahawks GM John Schneider graciously dropped us a few small bones today as he spoke to reporters at the Combine. In these days of CBA limbo, we're desperate for any scraps that fall from the table, are we not?
I wanted to take what we heard and turn it over a little bit in my mind. Not that I have any idea what Schneider is really thinking, but hey, we're all doing this, right?
On Matt Hasselbeck:
I wanted to take what we heard and turn it over a little bit in my mind. Not that I have any idea what Schneider is really thinking, but hey, we're all doing this, right?
On Matt Hasselbeck:
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Looking Back on 2010, Part 4: Competition
Continuing a series of posts re-capturing the moods, debates, and plot twists of Pete Carroll's first year in Seattle. You can find Part 3 here.
The 12th Man's winter was short and soon ended by the "spring" of training camp. As always, we were debilitated from the endless circular discussions and desperate to see some resolution and answers to the ongoing storylines. Where was the QB situation headed? Who would emerge at wide receiver? Was Pete Carroll's vaunted "competition" really going to make something out of a scrum pool of camp-body defensive ends? We were tired of talking about it. We had to know.
The annual worry over signing our draft picks arrived as surely as spring flowers do, only to be silenced within a week once they all signed unremarkably - as surely as spring flowers do. Also signing was Chester Pitts, another well-reputed, scheme-fitting O-lineman recovering from an injury. Pitts was another attempt to compensate for the Sims trade and had more football ahead of him than Ben Hamilton, but was Carroll starting to push his luck with all the injury gambling? It was immediately clear that Pitts would be a while in returning to full form.
Toward the end of June, Seattle had named Scot McCloughan a senior personnel executive. Many merely peg him as "the guy who brought us Kentwan Balmer" a couple of weeks later. Balmer, a first-round almost-bust who publicly grumped his way off the 49ers, has had little impact in Seattle, therefore casting apathy upon McCloughan for some reason. But McCloughan was a respected figure in San Francisco whose role in Seattle's personnel decisions and scouting may be underrated, and probably has yet to have its biggest impact. San Francisco is certainly not lacking talent because of him. Keep him on your radar.
Training camp finally launched, sending swarms of informed reporters and uninformed unlookers upon the VMAC to watch Kelly Jennings' usual strong camp. I was looking forward to the gossip and breakdowns as much as anyone, but cynical nonetheless. Why do these affairs always seem to be little more than bullet lists of WR catches, as if that sums up the work being done? There's always so little about the linemen, the running backs, the mechanics. Or perhaps...observers are just kind of ignoring the things that aren't looking so good.
The 12th Man's winter was short and soon ended by the "spring" of training camp. As always, we were debilitated from the endless circular discussions and desperate to see some resolution and answers to the ongoing storylines. Where was the QB situation headed? Who would emerge at wide receiver? Was Pete Carroll's vaunted "competition" really going to make something out of a scrum pool of camp-body defensive ends? We were tired of talking about it. We had to know.
The annual worry over signing our draft picks arrived as surely as spring flowers do, only to be silenced within a week once they all signed unremarkably - as surely as spring flowers do. Also signing was Chester Pitts, another well-reputed, scheme-fitting O-lineman recovering from an injury. Pitts was another attempt to compensate for the Sims trade and had more football ahead of him than Ben Hamilton, but was Carroll starting to push his luck with all the injury gambling? It was immediately clear that Pitts would be a while in returning to full form.
Toward the end of June, Seattle had named Scot McCloughan a senior personnel executive. Many merely peg him as "the guy who brought us Kentwan Balmer" a couple of weeks later. Balmer, a first-round almost-bust who publicly grumped his way off the 49ers, has had little impact in Seattle, therefore casting apathy upon McCloughan for some reason. But McCloughan was a respected figure in San Francisco whose role in Seattle's personnel decisions and scouting may be underrated, and probably has yet to have its biggest impact. San Francisco is certainly not lacking talent because of him. Keep him on your radar.
Training camp finally launched, sending swarms of informed reporters and uninformed unlookers upon the VMAC to watch Kelly Jennings' usual strong camp. I was looking forward to the gossip and breakdowns as much as anyone, but cynical nonetheless. Why do these affairs always seem to be little more than bullet lists of WR catches, as if that sums up the work being done? There's always so little about the linemen, the running backs, the mechanics. Or perhaps...observers are just kind of ignoring the things that aren't looking so good.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Looking Back on 2010, Part 1: The First Three Months
This is the first in a series of posts re-capturing the moods, debates, and plot twists of Pete Carroll's first year in Seattle.
I can't speak for all Seahawks fans, but I know many who expected almost nothing from 2010.
At the time Pete Carroll appeared in Seattle, the 'Hawks were coming off one of the most embarrassing seasons in almost twenty years. The 2009 season read like a Greek tragedy, presenting the continued decline of Matt Hasselbeck, blowouts at the hands of 3-13 teams, and the players quitting on an ungracious head coach who had neither grace under fire nor answers for the team's struggles. The defense was exposed against the toughest lineup of QB's it had seen that decade. The high-profile signings of T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Colin Cole did little to change the core problems. The draft of 2009 had returned almost nil on investment.
Worst of all, the 2009 campaign was an indictment on previous years as well, a painful wake-up call for those of us who fervently believed that the injury-ravaged 2008 season was just a fluke and that the 2007 defense would soon return. The "tired" Mike Holmgren made his exit, and the necessary health finally arrived mid-season, but no improvements came with them. Instead, it gradually became clear that years of Tim Ruskell's drafting had left the team without playmakers. Big contracts attached to underperforming players were staggering the team. Perennial fan favorites were losing their impact. Reeling from blowout after blowout, Seattle staggered to a 5-11 record and posted the second worst points differential (-172) in franchise history. By neglecting key positions and relying on expensive free agents to plug holes, the team had failed to out-race its own aging and attrition, and the team's problems were now deep in its foundation.
I remember the fan base expecting, on average, a 6-10 season. Many of those who threw in a playoff win prediction were just trying to be funny about the sad-sack NFC West. There would be no one-year turnaround, no sudden renaissance for the Seahawks, and everyone knew it. This was a rebuild.
Enter Pete Carroll.
I can't speak for all Seahawks fans, but I know many who expected almost nothing from 2010.
At the time Pete Carroll appeared in Seattle, the 'Hawks were coming off one of the most embarrassing seasons in almost twenty years. The 2009 season read like a Greek tragedy, presenting the continued decline of Matt Hasselbeck, blowouts at the hands of 3-13 teams, and the players quitting on an ungracious head coach who had neither grace under fire nor answers for the team's struggles. The defense was exposed against the toughest lineup of QB's it had seen that decade. The high-profile signings of T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Colin Cole did little to change the core problems. The draft of 2009 had returned almost nil on investment.
Worst of all, the 2009 campaign was an indictment on previous years as well, a painful wake-up call for those of us who fervently believed that the injury-ravaged 2008 season was just a fluke and that the 2007 defense would soon return. The "tired" Mike Holmgren made his exit, and the necessary health finally arrived mid-season, but no improvements came with them. Instead, it gradually became clear that years of Tim Ruskell's drafting had left the team without playmakers. Big contracts attached to underperforming players were staggering the team. Perennial fan favorites were losing their impact. Reeling from blowout after blowout, Seattle staggered to a 5-11 record and posted the second worst points differential (-172) in franchise history. By neglecting key positions and relying on expensive free agents to plug holes, the team had failed to out-race its own aging and attrition, and the team's problems were now deep in its foundation.
I remember the fan base expecting, on average, a 6-10 season. Many of those who threw in a playoff win prediction were just trying to be funny about the sad-sack NFC West. There would be no one-year turnaround, no sudden renaissance for the Seahawks, and everyone knew it. This was a rebuild.
Enter Pete Carroll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)