Ten Quick Thoughts on ARI vs. SEA

1. Tarvaris Jackson has reportedly been getting urged to throw more trustingly, rather than waiting for 15-yard separation from a WR. Arizona's soft pass defense is ripe for a beating, so this game may make Jackson look better. Careful about being sucked in by one game against a bad defense.

2. The same goes for our run defense. The trend from last year - rolling along with inflated stats against bad rushing offenses and favorable game situations - is still there. The 94 yards and 2 TD's Seattle surrendered on 19 first-half Pittsburgh carries is probably a better picture of its true ability. Hate to be the bucket of cold water on that, but what are we more concerned about - its performance against the muck of the NFC West, or its performance against good teams of the kind we would face on the playoffs?

3. Chris Clemons is one to watch today. Cardinals LT Levi Brown had trouble with Clemons' quick first step last year, surrendering sacks even when whatever scrub Arizona was fielding at QB didn't hold onto the ball for the entire quarter. QB Kevin Kolb can neutralize this by getting the ball out quickly, which by all reports he'd been pretty solid at.

4. Have we gotten the obligatory "revenge factor" piece about Alan Branch playing against his former team yet? It'll probably be more like Colin Cole's "revenge" game against Green Bay, where he mentioned the motivation that "revenge" should give him and then went out and got crushed on the field. Alan Branch has been a non-factor on the Seahawks D-line so far but may get some action against Arizona's questionable O-line, like he did last year against Seattle. And then sink back into obscurity next week, which he did last year too. How many snaps did Clinton McDonald get in Pittsburgh?

5. Does anyone really expect Brandon Browner to accomplish anything against Larry Fitzgerald? Larry Fitzgerald? Come on. This won't be like last year, where Walter Thurmond looked good against him because he had Max Hall throwing the football.

6. Patrick Peterson could have his breakout day today.

7. Anyone else nervous about Sidney Rice trying to play through a torn labrum? One solid collision across the middle...

8. Zach Miller (and Seattle's microscopic passing game in general) could have a big day against gimpy Arizona linebackers Joey Porter and Daryl Washington.

9. Official prediction: Seattle scrapes by at home 26-20, prompting hope for Jackson and blowing the debate wide open again.

10. This game is a powder keg for Seattle's fan base. Should we lose, the fans will quickly distill into two extremist groups: the panic-depressive and the secretly relieved "Suck for Luck" crowd. The war will be long and arduous.

Lockout Hangover: Defensive Line

Seattle's 2011 defensive line is impossible to predict. It could be a force to be reckoned with. There's also the potential for it to be the biggest surprise disappointment on the team.

The common perception is that Seattle's defensive line was top-caliber for the first six weeks of 2010. The context for that, which too many are ignoring, is that during that span Seattle faced some of the feeblest offenses in the league and crumbled against Kyle Orton. The collapse of our defense coincides with the injuries of most of the starting line (Red Bryant, Colin Cole, and Brandon Mebane, in order of perceived importance but not necessarily actual importance), so many people understandably blame that. But it also coincides with the point at which Seattle hit the respectable part of its schedule (i.e. the last 10 games). That rise in respectability was pretty steep.

So it's hard to say how good Seattle's D-line truly was last year. The evidence is circumstantial and could swing either way. The Denver game serves as a disturbing hint that the line may have been tremendously overrated; the starters were all on the field and provided zero pass disruption. Stopping a bottom-five rushing attack isn't that impressive. At no time anywhere in the season did the defense stop a strong passing attack or even come close, starters healthy or not.

Why Isn't Chris Clemons Helping?

Admit it, you've been wondering about this. In 2010, Chris Clemons and Raheem Brock notched twenty regular-season sacks between them and three more in the postseason, yet Seattle's overall pass defense remained flat-out abysmal. There's a disconnect there somewhere, and it's been the elephant in the room for a while now.

John Morgan of Fieldgulls broached the issue Friday in a piece that questions the value of Clemons and of the Leo position that Clemons plays. (The Leo, or stand-up defensive end, needs to be able to play from several positions and has gotten some criticism for being vulnerable against the run - offering pass defense at the expense of run defense.)

Well, for a defense already built by former GM Tim Ruskell to defend the run at the expense of allowing the pass, I normally wouldn't complain about this. What this team needs is pass rush. But despite the production from Clemons and Brock, Seattle's pass defense was ranked 27th in YPG allowed, 29th in TD's allowed (33), 31st in 20+ yard completions allowed (60), and only 25th in interceptions, as well as 29th in DVOA pass defense.

Somehow, despite Seattle's best production at defensive end since 2007, the overall pass defense isn't improving. Where does Clemons fit into that?

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.

The Brandon Mebane Conundrum

Hey, Kip here. You might remember me from Seahawks Draft Blog. I'm really tight on time this year, so I can't contribute terribly often either here or at SDB, but this is a topic I've had on my chest for a few weeks and since Brandon (Adams) asked me to contribute, I figured this would be a good place to start this topic.

When Pete Carroll brought his "Leo" defense to Seattle in 2010, it didn't officially change Seattle from a 4-3 to a 3-4 team, but in some ways, it was a step in that direction. Seattle's previous 4-3 defenses featured two pass rushing defensive ends who could perform reasonably well against the run, a pass rushing defensive tackle (known as the 3 tech), and a single gap run stuffing defensive tackle (known as the 1 tech).

Though technically still a 4-3, the "Leo" concept is a bit more unbalanced. The strong side (usually left) defensive end needs to be death to the run while also collapsing the pocket, but isn't expected to be a consistent pass rusher who generates sacks. The strong side defensive tackle, who manned the 3 tech in the previous defense, becomes a two gap player, something that is generally only found in 3-4 defenses. A two gap player does not shoot a gap, but instead directly engages a lineman and protects the gaps on both sides of him. The 3 tech role still exists, but was moved from the strong side to the weakside. Finally, you have the Leo position off the weak side end, and this is where almost all of the pass rush is generated from.

As with any scheme change, you will have players who benefit and others who suffer.