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.

Lockout Hangover: Safety

When Roman Harper was named as a Pro Bowl fill-in instead of fellow alternate Earl Thomas, I was confused. It was the free safety position (not the strong safety, Harper's position) that had been vacated, so I figured Thomas should have been next in line. Plus, Thomas wasn't the one to lay a massive egg in Qwest Field last January.

But then I remembered that the NFL doesn't distinguish between free safeties and strong safeties. Only certain teams, like those that run Tampa 2 defenses, make that distinction. So Harper got it. Oh well. Thomas' day isn't far off.

But about the distinction: free safeties are the purer coverage guys, the roaming, rangy, instinctive QB duelers. Strong safeties are usually bigger, heavier, and slower because they're intended more as run support. Seattle's safeties are divided pretty cleanly into these two groups, so don't be alarmed if a deficiency is mentioned. It's about scheme.

8/17 Tidbits: Danny O'Neill Chat

Yesterday's live chat with Danny O'Neill of the Seattle Times provided a few valuable nabobs, as usual. I love the smell of nabobs in the morning!


* CB Kelly Jennings chose the Seahawks over other teams offering multi-year deals. That speaks to his confidence in making this roster. I've tried to give Kelly Jennings a fair shot (and so has this guy), but eurgh. (But Danny makes a good point: wherever he ends up on the depth chart, his presence assures better depth than Nate Ness.)

* Tanking a season for a franchise QB is philosophically counter-productive, not guaranteed to succeed, and historically unnecessary anyway. Trifecta.

* Tarvaris Jackson defenders citing his minimal practice time and lack of receivers, can add this to their repertoire: he was facing a pass-rush-happy San Diego team that Seattle had not specifically game-planned for.

* Danny doesn't see John Carlson fetching more than a 6th or 7th-rounder in trade, a return probably be outweighed by his potential one-year production alongside Zach Miller. I agree, though I suspect Schneider is more addicted to draft picks than Danny allows.

* Baffled by the fact that CB Brandon Browner hasn't been noticed by the league. Skepticism suggests there's probably a reason. But after consistent praise from camp watchers whose analysis I respect, I'll reserve judgment.

* Likes S Jeron Johnson, whose roster chances are probably doomed by the newly signed Atari Bigby.

* Suggested Kam Chancellor might blitz more.

* Red Bryant is trying to slim down a bit.

* Four words: Screen passes to Leon. (Two more: Yes, please.)

* Pass protection might be an issue.

* Justin Forsett missed the San Diego game because of neck stiffness. Reassuring.

Decoding John Schneider: Beating the Late-Round Odds

Everybody wants something for nothing. Coupon shoppers clip, Internet ads beckon with "$5,000 a month from home", and every NFL general manager would love to find quality starters with cheap picks from the fourth to seventh rounds of the draft.

The common misconception is that there's always a huge reserve of hidden talent just sitting untouched in the late rounds, missed by dimwitted general managers or stubborn coaches clinging tightly to a different scheme. Every once in a while, a Tom Brady or T.J. Houshmandzadeh emerges and gets fixated upon, seeming to prove that theory but really just distracting from the 50 players drafted before and after him who neither see nor deserve an NFL start. Exceptions always get more attention than the rule.

Is it really sensible to look at a player who drops into the fifth round, and assume that the combined research and intelligence of thirty-one other NFL teams' scouting departments all got it wrong? Much less four times over? Teams don't struggle to find late talent because they're blind, mis-prioritizing, or risk-averse; they struggle to find late talent because it usually isn't there. The real talent gets snatched up in the first hundred picks, and the pool is left mostly dry. Even the Patriots' late-round performance has been controlled by this dynamic; it's kinda out of their hands. There just aren't a lot of diamonds to be found in the rough of the draft's third day, because everyone else is also looking for them. Any true diamonds often find themselves permanently benched behind incumbents by their teams. Traffic shortcuts and fishing spots are only lucrative as long as nobody else knows about them, right?

But I know this general manager who is trying very hard to beat these very odds. He comes from an NFL management lineage that's proven this draft prowess, and he might even be close to actually pulling it off in his new job. His name is John Schneider.

I Guess I'll Talk About the Safety Position Too

Right on the football.

The usual offseason flurry of "personnel review" articles is underway on various blogs, and this week a few of them seem to have converged on Seattle's needs at strong safety.

This article from Dan Kelly of the Seehock Blog ought to make you a fan of sophomore strong safety Kam Chancellor. It goes over some of Kam's early scouting reports and breaks down a few highlight plays, noting his developing instincts and the power and intensity of his tackles. I'd like to see some lowlights to balance this out, but it's good stuff nonetheless.

Fieldgulls chimes in with concerns about the durability of Lawyer Milloy. The veteran safety really seemed to hit his "age wall" in the midst of 2010, losing a huge chunk of his speed and thus his impact. His most notorious failing was the Greg Olsen TD in the playoffs, which I still maintain is less Milloy's fault that the overall defense's, but still Milloy's lost burst remains a problem waiting to be exploited.

A thread at Seahawks.net tosses around some worthwhile bits, including the comparison of Chancellor's size (6'4" and 240 pounds) to that of a linebacker. It's a fair comparison, considering Pete Carroll appears to favor linebacker hybrids (see: Chris Clemons, Dexter Davis) for his "Bandit" defense that relies on masked intentions.


The general impression is that Kam Chancellor improved as the season went on. There's a wrinkle in that impression, revealed by the snaps breakdowns in Brian McIntyre's personnel review (amazing the mileage one can get out of that simple tool): not only did Kam Chancellor play only 12% of the Seahawks' defensive snaps in 2010, but almost all of them were in the "Bandit" defense. He got virtually no time in base defense prior to Week 14 except in relief of Earl Thomas against the Giants. This means that Chancellor has hardly been tested as a starting strong safety at all.

Projected to go in the third round (and as high as the second by some) in the 2010 draft, and selected by a GM who has voiced an intention to start his mid-round picks, Kam Chancellor should be viewed as the future starter at the strong safety position. His limited starting experience seems a factor of an overall policy of easing new picks into the lineup (CB Walter Thurmond was deployed in similar fashion), not necessarily concern about his abilities. Playoff contention is no time to test your rookies; you put your best guys on the field, especially when your defense is already struggling.

Make no mistake, Chancellor isn't a burner or a perfect cover safety. He'll struggle at times with the deep play, though his instincts may develop enough to offset this. Fortunately, neither Carroll's defensive history nor Seattle's current Tampa 2 configuration require Kam to be anything but exactly what he is: an in-the-box run stopper and strong tackler, with decent zone ability, potential as a blitzer, and special-teams prowess tossed in. We can argue about the value of this role until the cows come home (and continue while they chew their cud), but Chancellor does fit Seattle's scheme like a glove.

I'm happy to start Chancellor in 2010 and see what he's made of. He's gotten almost no chance to strut his stuff as it is. It would be nice to see Chancellor evolve into a solid value pick who actually grows into the game and peaks in the midst of a long career, rather than in his rookie season like many of Ruskell's greatest hits. We need football players whose best games are ahead of them, not behind, and although Kam is untested, he has enticing potential. Start him; Lawyer Milloy's tired tendons will be grateful, and they've earned their retirement.

Looking Back on 2010, Part 2: Daft Drafting

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 1 here.


On draft day of 2010, Seattle fans turned on their televisions without any real idea of what to expect.

New head coach Pete Carroll had dashed onto the scene and made it clear at once that Seattle was moving into a new mentality, and that nobody's job was safe. He had followed his words with action by mowing a blazing personnel path through the tall dead grass that made up the Seattle Seahawks. Nate Burleson, Seneca Wallace, Darryl Tapp, Deon Grant, and Rob Sims were all gone. None of these were significantly responsible for Seattle's decline, but neither had they done much to stem that decline. Fans saw the radical changes in different ways - some called it moving forward and being willing to take risks, others saw a confidence in Carroll's plan, others called it "change for the sake of change" and observed that Seattle had obtained only mediocre free agents in return.