If you're not psyched about this Sunday's game, you're not a Seahawks diehard.
Every serious fan feels disappointed about how this season has gone for Seattle. It is understandable to feel betrayed by the bad personnel decisions, the poor coaching, and the lack of effort on the field that has led the team to its anemic 6-9 record.
We all wish the season had gone better.
However, the fact remains:
On Sunday night, the Seahawks get to play a home game in prime time for the division title.
Some faint-hearted fans are not on board.
Incredibly, a Seattle Times poll found that a majority of readers want the Seahawks to lose this game. Evidently, a majority of Times poll respondents are gutless losers.
Yes, there is some shame in being the first team in NFL history to win a division with a losing record.
But there is more shame in letting St. Louis complete a season sweep of the Seahawks.
There is even more shame in allowing our most hated division rivals to beat us in our own house in front of a prime time national audience.
There is still more shame in permitting a rookie quarterback to lead the Rams to the NFC West title at our expense.
Yes, if we lose, we will move down into a more favorable draft position. So what?
First of all, only losers even think about throwing a game, for any reason.
Second, high draft picks aren't really an advantage. The only thing you get from picking early is the right to overpay overrated players like Aaron Curry. That sounds flippant, but it is in fact borne out by academic research. According to rigorous economic analysis, late-round picks yield the best value. Check it out: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/05/the-loser-apos-s-curse/4795/
Third, even if we have a great draft in 2011, most of the players on our team will be holdovers from this year's Seahawks squad. (I don't see Carroll and Schneider turning over half the roster again. It's one thing to dump leftovers from the Holmgren and Mora era. It's quite another to discard players you recruited.)
This raises a question: Do we want next year's Seahawks roster to be dominated by players who learned how to quit, who refused to seize their last chance, whose only victory after October came against Carolina, the one-win whipping boys of the NFL?
Or do we want the core of next year's team to be veterans of a squad that rallied from adversity and got it together when it really mattered?
There is a huge difference between 7-9 and 6-10.
A 6-10 record means we could fall to third place in the division, if San Francisco dispatches Arizona. 6-10 is a wasted year. 6-10 means our season is over.
On the other hand, 7-9 means we refused to throw a home game. 7-9 would show that when our backs were against the wall, we decided to man up and take the division title. 7-9 means the Seahawks stay alive, that our season continues into the playoffs. Anything can happen in the postseason.
Best of all, 7-9 means we can hoist a division championship banner to the rafters of Seahawks Stadium, where it would hang in perpetuity.
Seattle spent 25 years in the AFC West, and won only two division titles, in 1988 and 1999. That's an 8% rate of success.
This season marks our tenth year in the NFC West. Recently, we won four consecutive titles (2004-2007). If we win on Sunday, we will have compiled a 50% success rate in the division. To me, that's worth something.
Good teams make the playoffs routinely. We have a chance to win our fifth division title in seven years. Let's do it.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Knox & Largent make the cut
I've written before about the guilty pleasure of watching the various list programs produced by NFL Films. Taking a cue from VH1 and other cable channels, the NFL Network has discovered that nostalgia shows provide a cheap and inexhaustible source of irresistable programming.
The formula is simple:
1) Poll some unnamed experts (i.e., NFL Network employees) to compile the list;
2) Dig up some familiar footage from the NFL Films archives; and
3) Film some interviews with retired players and coaches, and with sports media personalities, wherein they sound off about the list. It is neither necessary nor desirable that these "authorities" know what they're talking about, only that they be provocative or entertaining when they speak.
Of course, the formula works like a charm. Resistance is futile. I can't stop DVRing these shows. Even my indifferent-to-football fiancee finds watching NFL Top Ten preferable to viewing an actual game. Or Psych. Or The Colbert Report.
In earlier posts, I've complained about Seahawks getting snubbed on these list shows. Specifically, I protested Dave Krieg's exclusion from "Top 10 Backup Quarterbacks," and the failure by NFL Films to include any Seahawks on The Top 100: The NFL's Greatest Players.
I've also acknowledged NFL Top Ten when they have given appropriate recognition to Seattle players, like when Jim Zorn ranked among "Top Ten Lefty Quarterbacks," and when Krieg made the list of "Top Ten Quarterbacks of the '80s."
Today, I want to discuss two more Seahawks who made the cut on two other installments of NFL Top Ten.
Incidentally, this is far from breaking news. Although I only saw these episodes recently, both originally
aired in July 2009.
The great Chuck Knox ranked among the "Top Ten Coaches Who Never Won a Championship." Here's the list:
10. Jim Mora (the elder)
9. Jeff Fisher
8. Don Coryell
7. Andy Reid
6. Chuck Knox
5. Dan Reeves
4. Mary Schottenheimer
3. George Allen
2. Marv Levy
1. Bud Grant
The program gave Knox props for turning around the Los Angeles Rams, the Buffalo Bills, and the Seattle Seahawks. Predictably, the talking heads knock him for "Ground Chuck" conservatism, without acknowledging his bombs away Air Knox offense of 1984, nor the groundbreaking courage that led him to defy Los Angeles fans and make James Harris the modern NFL's first black starting quarterback in 1974. Knox liked to run the ball, but he was no gutless mossback.
Similarly, the commentators criticize Knox for his teams' many playoff meltdowns. However, Knox twice took formerly losing teams to the playoffs in his first year as head coach. Under those conditions, just getting there is an achievement.
Knox might have coached Seattle to a Super Bowl if the front office had not made such poor personnel decisions. (For example, wasting several first-round picks on fruitless efforts to replace Pro Bowl quarterback Dave Krieg, even as the offensive line deteriorated.)
Steve Largent calls Knox "the best coach I ever played for."
Speaking of Largent, the Hall of Fame wide receiver, though snubbed on The Top 100, did win recognition on "Top Ten Greatest Hands." Here's the list:
10. Marvin Harrison
9. Lynn Swann
8. Sterling Sharpe
7. Jerry Rice
6. Kellen Winslow
5. Fred Biletnikoff
4. Larry Fitzgerald
3. Steve Largent
2. Raymond Berry
1. Cris Carter
Note that the show did not purport to rank the greatest receivers in NFL history, focusing instead on the quality of good hands. This explains Rice ranking only 7th.
Initially, I was surprised to see Cris Carter top the "greatest hands" list, but the footage makes the case for him very well. (I missed a lot of football in the '90s, as I spent most of the decade in the Deep South without NFL Sunday Ticket, subject to the programming decisions of local broadcast affiliates. So I didn't see many Vikings games. Or Seahawks games, for that matter. In retrospect, it was a good era of Seattle football to miss.)
But we're here to talk about Seahawks.
Of course, I'm pleased with Largent's high ranking on the list. He did have great hands. But his hands weren't his best attribute as a receiver. Like Ray Berry, Largent had an unstoppable work ethic, and he developed those great hands through hard work.
However, it doesn't matter how well you can catch if you can't get open. (Unfortunately, Seattle's current stable of wideouts illustrates the truth of this proposition.)
In the "Greatest Hands" program, Hall of Fame defensive back Rod Woodson marvels at how often Largent managed to get wide open, despite having only average speed.
The program does not explain why this was so.
And that's a shame, because Largent's ability to lose defenders was his greatest trait as a receiver. Like his great hands, Largent's ability to get open resulted from hard work and preparation.
He studied film, noted his opponents' weaknesses, and learned how to set them up for failure on game day.
Then, to capitalize fully upon that mental advantage, he gained a physical edge: through conditioning, Largent developed incredibly powerful ankles and calves, which allowed him to make cuts sharper than the defenders of his era could manage.
And that's how Largent won the space he needed to let his great hands operate.
I wish more of today's Seahawks would emulate that work ethic.
The formula is simple:
1) Poll some unnamed experts (i.e., NFL Network employees) to compile the list;
2) Dig up some familiar footage from the NFL Films archives; and
3) Film some interviews with retired players and coaches, and with sports media personalities, wherein they sound off about the list. It is neither necessary nor desirable that these "authorities" know what they're talking about, only that they be provocative or entertaining when they speak.
Of course, the formula works like a charm. Resistance is futile. I can't stop DVRing these shows. Even my indifferent-to-football fiancee finds watching NFL Top Ten preferable to viewing an actual game. Or Psych. Or The Colbert Report.
In earlier posts, I've complained about Seahawks getting snubbed on these list shows. Specifically, I protested Dave Krieg's exclusion from "Top 10 Backup Quarterbacks," and the failure by NFL Films to include any Seahawks on The Top 100: The NFL's Greatest Players.
I've also acknowledged NFL Top Ten when they have given appropriate recognition to Seattle players, like when Jim Zorn ranked among "Top Ten Lefty Quarterbacks," and when Krieg made the list of "Top Ten Quarterbacks of the '80s."
Today, I want to discuss two more Seahawks who made the cut on two other installments of NFL Top Ten.
Incidentally, this is far from breaking news. Although I only saw these episodes recently, both originally
aired in July 2009.
The great Chuck Knox ranked among the "Top Ten Coaches Who Never Won a Championship." Here's the list:
10. Jim Mora (the elder)
9. Jeff Fisher
8. Don Coryell
7. Andy Reid
6. Chuck Knox
5. Dan Reeves
4. Mary Schottenheimer
3. George Allen
2. Marv Levy
1. Bud Grant
The program gave Knox props for turning around the Los Angeles Rams, the Buffalo Bills, and the Seattle Seahawks. Predictably, the talking heads knock him for "Ground Chuck" conservatism, without acknowledging his bombs away Air Knox offense of 1984, nor the groundbreaking courage that led him to defy Los Angeles fans and make James Harris the modern NFL's first black starting quarterback in 1974. Knox liked to run the ball, but he was no gutless mossback.
Similarly, the commentators criticize Knox for his teams' many playoff meltdowns. However, Knox twice took formerly losing teams to the playoffs in his first year as head coach. Under those conditions, just getting there is an achievement.
Knox might have coached Seattle to a Super Bowl if the front office had not made such poor personnel decisions. (For example, wasting several first-round picks on fruitless efforts to replace Pro Bowl quarterback Dave Krieg, even as the offensive line deteriorated.)
Steve Largent calls Knox "the best coach I ever played for."
Speaking of Largent, the Hall of Fame wide receiver, though snubbed on The Top 100, did win recognition on "Top Ten Greatest Hands." Here's the list:
10. Marvin Harrison
9. Lynn Swann
8. Sterling Sharpe
7. Jerry Rice
6. Kellen Winslow
5. Fred Biletnikoff
4. Larry Fitzgerald
3. Steve Largent
2. Raymond Berry
1. Cris Carter
Note that the show did not purport to rank the greatest receivers in NFL history, focusing instead on the quality of good hands. This explains Rice ranking only 7th.
Initially, I was surprised to see Cris Carter top the "greatest hands" list, but the footage makes the case for him very well. (I missed a lot of football in the '90s, as I spent most of the decade in the Deep South without NFL Sunday Ticket, subject to the programming decisions of local broadcast affiliates. So I didn't see many Vikings games. Or Seahawks games, for that matter. In retrospect, it was a good era of Seattle football to miss.)
But we're here to talk about Seahawks.
Of course, I'm pleased with Largent's high ranking on the list. He did have great hands. But his hands weren't his best attribute as a receiver. Like Ray Berry, Largent had an unstoppable work ethic, and he developed those great hands through hard work.
However, it doesn't matter how well you can catch if you can't get open. (Unfortunately, Seattle's current stable of wideouts illustrates the truth of this proposition.)
In the "Greatest Hands" program, Hall of Fame defensive back Rod Woodson marvels at how often Largent managed to get wide open, despite having only average speed.
The program does not explain why this was so.
And that's a shame, because Largent's ability to lose defenders was his greatest trait as a receiver. Like his great hands, Largent's ability to get open resulted from hard work and preparation.
He studied film, noted his opponents' weaknesses, and learned how to set them up for failure on game day.
Then, to capitalize fully upon that mental advantage, he gained a physical edge: through conditioning, Largent developed incredibly powerful ankles and calves, which allowed him to make cuts sharper than the defenders of his era could manage.
And that's how Largent won the space he needed to let his great hands operate.
I wish more of today's Seahawks would emulate that work ethic.
Free falling
Sunday's loss confirmed our worst fears about this season's Seahawks team.
We knew they were poorly coached.
We knew our roster lacked talent.
We feared that the players lacked heart, that their will to compete was as weak as it had been during the Seattle's late-season slides of 2008 and 2009.
And now we know.
Tampa Bay has one of the league's worst rushing defenses. We should have been able to run the ball against them. We tried to run more than 25 times, and netted a mere 90 yards.
Our awful O-Line still can't find the slightest hint of daylight for our running backs, but our players got little help from offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates, who continues to forfeit any element of surprise through relentless playcalling predictability.
Sure, the playbook shrinks a little when your backup quarterback enters the game. Perhaps Carroll told Bates to save the good stuff for next week, upon learning that the game had no meaning for the team's postseason prospects. But even with a restricted palette, an offensive coordinator can choose to help the defense by giving them what they expect in every given situation, or he can keep the defense off balance by calling plays for which they are not ready.
One welcome exception came early in the game on a third and short when Bates split Hasselbeck wide and had fullback Michael Robinson step under center, take a direct snap, and run for a first down.
But when Hasselbeck left the game, Bates seemed to have lost all playcalling creativity.
Our starting quarterback's early exit gave us an opportunity to see what Charlie Whitehurst could do.
Jesus of Clemson did not impress.
I tire of the excuse that the backup quarterback doesn't get enough reps in practice. As a middle and high school coach, I always made sure my second-string QB was ready to go. I'm not sure why some pro coaches can't seem to manage this, despite being more capable and better compensated than I ever was.
Whitehurst's mobility would be an asset if he were wise enough to throw the ball away when he escapes the pocket and no one is open.
This is a useful skill, because most of the time when we want to pass, none of our receivers can get open. That's what happens when you jettison last year's best three wideouts (Burleson, Housh, Branch) and replace them with a bunch of inexperienced kids.
As bad as our offense was, our defense was even worse, surrendering more than 200 yards on the ground, and letting Josh Freeman throw for five touchdowns.
Most of Freeman's scoring passes came at the expense of Marcus Trufant, normally our best cornerback, and once a Pro Bowler. Has Tru quit? Are nagging injuries compromising his performance? Does anyone else miss Josh Wilson as much as I do?
When Bucs running back LaGarrette Blount hurdled veteran safety Lawyer Milloy, I found myself wondering...
At what point did Seattle jump the shark this season?
Didn't the Seahawks see the film of Blount hurdling Kerry Rhodes against Arizona earlier this year? Why didn't that sobering footage inform Milloy's tackling technique?
Why did Milloy drop his head? Doesn't he know you're supposed to see what you hit, both for reasons of safety and secure tackling?
Is it time for Milloy to retire?
Would Deon Grant have made that tackle?
Why did our team squander so badly their last chance to achieve a respectable record?
We knew they were poorly coached.
We knew our roster lacked talent.
We feared that the players lacked heart, that their will to compete was as weak as it had been during the Seattle's late-season slides of 2008 and 2009.
And now we know.
Tampa Bay has one of the league's worst rushing defenses. We should have been able to run the ball against them. We tried to run more than 25 times, and netted a mere 90 yards.
Our awful O-Line still can't find the slightest hint of daylight for our running backs, but our players got little help from offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates, who continues to forfeit any element of surprise through relentless playcalling predictability.
Sure, the playbook shrinks a little when your backup quarterback enters the game. Perhaps Carroll told Bates to save the good stuff for next week, upon learning that the game had no meaning for the team's postseason prospects. But even with a restricted palette, an offensive coordinator can choose to help the defense by giving them what they expect in every given situation, or he can keep the defense off balance by calling plays for which they are not ready.
One welcome exception came early in the game on a third and short when Bates split Hasselbeck wide and had fullback Michael Robinson step under center, take a direct snap, and run for a first down.
But when Hasselbeck left the game, Bates seemed to have lost all playcalling creativity.
Our starting quarterback's early exit gave us an opportunity to see what Charlie Whitehurst could do.
Jesus of Clemson did not impress.
I tire of the excuse that the backup quarterback doesn't get enough reps in practice. As a middle and high school coach, I always made sure my second-string QB was ready to go. I'm not sure why some pro coaches can't seem to manage this, despite being more capable and better compensated than I ever was.
Whitehurst's mobility would be an asset if he were wise enough to throw the ball away when he escapes the pocket and no one is open.
This is a useful skill, because most of the time when we want to pass, none of our receivers can get open. That's what happens when you jettison last year's best three wideouts (Burleson, Housh, Branch) and replace them with a bunch of inexperienced kids.
As bad as our offense was, our defense was even worse, surrendering more than 200 yards on the ground, and letting Josh Freeman throw for five touchdowns.
Most of Freeman's scoring passes came at the expense of Marcus Trufant, normally our best cornerback, and once a Pro Bowler. Has Tru quit? Are nagging injuries compromising his performance? Does anyone else miss Josh Wilson as much as I do?
When Bucs running back LaGarrette Blount hurdled veteran safety Lawyer Milloy, I found myself wondering...
At what point did Seattle jump the shark this season?
Didn't the Seahawks see the film of Blount hurdling Kerry Rhodes against Arizona earlier this year? Why didn't that sobering footage inform Milloy's tackling technique?
Why did Milloy drop his head? Doesn't he know you're supposed to see what you hit, both for reasons of safety and secure tackling?
Is it time for Milloy to retire?
Would Deon Grant have made that tackle?
Why did our team squander so badly their last chance to achieve a respectable record?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Bucs stop here
Like the Seahawks, the Buccaneers started the season strong and are now limping toward the finish line.
Seattle peaked early, beginning 4-2 before entering a 2-6 nosedive punctuated by numerous humiliating blowouts.
Tampa Bay demonstrated greater staying power, reaching 7-3 by late November. Over the last month, the the Bucs have been 1-3, though they have been competitive in every recent loss, unlike Seattle.
Their nadir came last week, when the Bucs lost at home in overtime to Detroit. There's nothing wrong to losing to the Lions--they are much better than their record indicates--but there is definitely something wrong with letting the Lions beat you at home. Detroit entered last week's game riding the longest road losing streak in NFL history: 26 games! That's more than 3 full seasons of road futility! Since October 2007, simply showing up had proven sufficient to defend one's house against the hapless Lions.
But Tampa Bay couldn't manage that last week.
There is a moral to this story. The Bucs have been a great road team this year (5-2), but they are merely average at home (3-4).
So, the Seahawks have a shot today, as two fading teams face one another today to determine, Who wants it less?
Of course, no one likes to lose at home. Tampa Bay let an inferior team sneak up on them last week, so they should be on high alert today. Motivation should not be a problem, as the Bucs remain in playoff contention. Moreover, today is their last home game of the season, and this matchup is certainly more winnable than their road finale next week against the mighty Saints.
Recent weeks have offered little reason to hope that Seattle is on the verge of getting anything together. We've been playing like a team that doesn't want its January vacation plans disrupted by the inconvenience of a division title and a playoff game.
Always ready with some snake oil sunshine, Coach Carroll claimed, "This is as healthy as we've been in a long time." I guess he's not counting the players lost for the season on injured reserve. Our defense hasn't approached competence since we lost Red Bryant in Oakland, and our D-Line got weaker again last week when Junior Siavii joined him on injured reserve. Also out for the season is Deon Butler, one of the less unreliable components of our depleted and enfeebled receiving corps.
I fear that St. Louis will render the game meaningless by beating San Francisco this morning. If the Rams win, Seattle could choke today and still claim a tarnished division crown by beating St. Louis at home next week. Of course, at 7-9, the Seahawks would be the losingest division champions in league history. The only way to avoid that fate (or an even more ignominious 6-10 finish) is to win today.
This is gut check time for Seattle's players and coaches.
One way or another, the Bucs stop here. Tampa Bay could stop its late-season slide and stay alive for the playoffs by burying us today. Or the Seahawks could take control of their own destiny, eliminate the Bucs from playoff contention, salvage some dignity, and regain some swagger.
I hope, but I do not believe.
Go, Seahawks!
Seattle peaked early, beginning 4-2 before entering a 2-6 nosedive punctuated by numerous humiliating blowouts.
Tampa Bay demonstrated greater staying power, reaching 7-3 by late November. Over the last month, the the Bucs have been 1-3, though they have been competitive in every recent loss, unlike Seattle.
Their nadir came last week, when the Bucs lost at home in overtime to Detroit. There's nothing wrong to losing to the Lions--they are much better than their record indicates--but there is definitely something wrong with letting the Lions beat you at home. Detroit entered last week's game riding the longest road losing streak in NFL history: 26 games! That's more than 3 full seasons of road futility! Since October 2007, simply showing up had proven sufficient to defend one's house against the hapless Lions.
But Tampa Bay couldn't manage that last week.
There is a moral to this story. The Bucs have been a great road team this year (5-2), but they are merely average at home (3-4).
So, the Seahawks have a shot today, as two fading teams face one another today to determine, Who wants it less?
Of course, no one likes to lose at home. Tampa Bay let an inferior team sneak up on them last week, so they should be on high alert today. Motivation should not be a problem, as the Bucs remain in playoff contention. Moreover, today is their last home game of the season, and this matchup is certainly more winnable than their road finale next week against the mighty Saints.
Recent weeks have offered little reason to hope that Seattle is on the verge of getting anything together. We've been playing like a team that doesn't want its January vacation plans disrupted by the inconvenience of a division title and a playoff game.
Always ready with some snake oil sunshine, Coach Carroll claimed, "This is as healthy as we've been in a long time." I guess he's not counting the players lost for the season on injured reserve. Our defense hasn't approached competence since we lost Red Bryant in Oakland, and our D-Line got weaker again last week when Junior Siavii joined him on injured reserve. Also out for the season is Deon Butler, one of the less unreliable components of our depleted and enfeebled receiving corps.
I fear that St. Louis will render the game meaningless by beating San Francisco this morning. If the Rams win, Seattle could choke today and still claim a tarnished division crown by beating St. Louis at home next week. Of course, at 7-9, the Seahawks would be the losingest division champions in league history. The only way to avoid that fate (or an even more ignominious 6-10 finish) is to win today.
This is gut check time for Seattle's players and coaches.
One way or another, the Bucs stop here. Tampa Bay could stop its late-season slide and stay alive for the playoffs by burying us today. Or the Seahawks could take control of their own destiny, eliminate the Bucs from playoff contention, salvage some dignity, and regain some swagger.
I hope, but I do not believe.
Go, Seahawks!
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Hasselbeck again
Based on what I have seen on recent Sundays, I would start Charlie Whitehurst in Tampa Bay tomorrow if I were coaching the Seahawks.
However, Coach Carroll is giving another start to Hasselbeck. Matt has been a choke machine and a turnover factory over the last several weeks. He makes bad decisions when he's playing from behind. He tries to do too much, to take the whole offense on his shoulders.
To his credit, Caroll recognizes that it takes teamwork to lose the way Seattle has lost since October. Since starting 4-2, the Seahawks have gone 2-6.
Hasselbeck generally plays well when the Seahawks are still in games, when we hold a lead or trail by just one score. But when we play from far behind--after our defense surrenders too many points, and after our running game stalls--that's when Hasselbeck really starts sucking.
But he has help. Offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates continues to set up Matt for failure. Defensive backs play the odds, and when Bates keeps it predictable (too many deep passes, too many vanilla routes underneath), that makes it easy for opposing corners and safeties to grab interceptions.
Carroll and his staff know their quarterbacks better than we do. They see them in practice. They know what Hasselbeck and Whitehurst can do. They know how much of the playbook each quarterback has mastered.
So, I don't question Carroll's decision to keep Hasselbeck in the game.
He says that Matt gives us the best chance to win.
Carroll should want to win even more than the fans do. If Seattle loses out and finishes 6-10, his first year will have been a failure by every reasonable measure. If Paul Allen were going to be satisfied with such a modest rate of improvement, he would have kept Jim Mora. (Carroll won't get fired for losing out, but it would put him on the hot seat next year.)
On the other hand, if Seattle wins out and makes the playoffs, then it would make the decision to hire Carroll look wise. Moreover, it would implicitly vindicate the many, many questionable personnel decisions made by Schneider and Carroll.
Speaking of personnel decisions, the team needs to decide whether to re-sign Hasselbeck. Perhaps giving Matt another start will help Carroll decide.
If I were trying to decide the future of our quarterbacks, I would feel like I had enough information about Hasselbeck. I would want to know more about how Whitehurst performs in game situations.
If I were Carroll and Schneider, I would offer Matt a contract right now. His stock has never been lower, so I'd seize the opportunity to lock him down at bargain rates, offering him a modest long-term contract loaded with performance incentives. Even if Hasselbeck becomes Hasselbackup, he'd be one of the best backups in the league, so it would be a good investment.
Anyway, I'm OK with Matt starting this week.
However, if I were coaching the Seahawks, I would be quicker with the hook. I would have benched Hasselbeck sooner in San Francisco and swifter against Atlanta. I don't subscribe to the school of coaching that says, "Quarterbacks are different; you don't treat them like other players."
Quarterbacks aren't different. They're football players. When any football player doesn't perform, he needs to ride the pine for a while so someone else can get a shot. Getting benched makes a real competitor hungry to re-enter the game. If a quarterback's fragile ego can't handle competition, he doesn't belong in organized football. If anything, quarterbacks should be more mentally tough than other football players, not less so. Because they're supposed to be leaders.
Matt Hasselbeck is a leader, and a competitor. I hope he rises to the occasion, and I hope the Seahawks fight tomorrow. Beating Tampa Bay is the only way to stay in playoff contention with dignity, with any prospect of finishing at .500.
However, Coach Carroll is giving another start to Hasselbeck. Matt has been a choke machine and a turnover factory over the last several weeks. He makes bad decisions when he's playing from behind. He tries to do too much, to take the whole offense on his shoulders.
To his credit, Caroll recognizes that it takes teamwork to lose the way Seattle has lost since October. Since starting 4-2, the Seahawks have gone 2-6.
Hasselbeck generally plays well when the Seahawks are still in games, when we hold a lead or trail by just one score. But when we play from far behind--after our defense surrenders too many points, and after our running game stalls--that's when Hasselbeck really starts sucking.
But he has help. Offensive coordinator Jeremy Bates continues to set up Matt for failure. Defensive backs play the odds, and when Bates keeps it predictable (too many deep passes, too many vanilla routes underneath), that makes it easy for opposing corners and safeties to grab interceptions.
Carroll and his staff know their quarterbacks better than we do. They see them in practice. They know what Hasselbeck and Whitehurst can do. They know how much of the playbook each quarterback has mastered.
So, I don't question Carroll's decision to keep Hasselbeck in the game.
He says that Matt gives us the best chance to win.
Carroll should want to win even more than the fans do. If Seattle loses out and finishes 6-10, his first year will have been a failure by every reasonable measure. If Paul Allen were going to be satisfied with such a modest rate of improvement, he would have kept Jim Mora. (Carroll won't get fired for losing out, but it would put him on the hot seat next year.)
On the other hand, if Seattle wins out and makes the playoffs, then it would make the decision to hire Carroll look wise. Moreover, it would implicitly vindicate the many, many questionable personnel decisions made by Schneider and Carroll.
Speaking of personnel decisions, the team needs to decide whether to re-sign Hasselbeck. Perhaps giving Matt another start will help Carroll decide.
If I were trying to decide the future of our quarterbacks, I would feel like I had enough information about Hasselbeck. I would want to know more about how Whitehurst performs in game situations.
If I were Carroll and Schneider, I would offer Matt a contract right now. His stock has never been lower, so I'd seize the opportunity to lock him down at bargain rates, offering him a modest long-term contract loaded with performance incentives. Even if Hasselbeck becomes Hasselbackup, he'd be one of the best backups in the league, so it would be a good investment.
Anyway, I'm OK with Matt starting this week.
However, if I were coaching the Seahawks, I would be quicker with the hook. I would have benched Hasselbeck sooner in San Francisco and swifter against Atlanta. I don't subscribe to the school of coaching that says, "Quarterbacks are different; you don't treat them like other players."
Quarterbacks aren't different. They're football players. When any football player doesn't perform, he needs to ride the pine for a while so someone else can get a shot. Getting benched makes a real competitor hungry to re-enter the game. If a quarterback's fragile ego can't handle competition, he doesn't belong in organized football. If anything, quarterbacks should be more mentally tough than other football players, not less so. Because they're supposed to be leaders.
Matt Hasselbeck is a leader, and a competitor. I hope he rises to the occasion, and I hope the Seahawks fight tomorrow. Beating Tampa Bay is the only way to stay in playoff contention with dignity, with any prospect of finishing at .500.
Kiss the ground
Man, it's good to be back in the Seattle area.
Green landscapes, grey skies, drizzling rain. I love it. Even our strip malls look better than the eyesores seen elsewhere.
Green landscapes, grey skies, drizzling rain. I love it. Even our strip malls look better than the eyesores seen elsewhere.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Feeble
Seattle competed for the first third of the game.
Our first offensive drive was a thing of beauty, a creative mix of well-executed runs and passes, culminating in a touchdown by Marshawn Lynch.
After that, Jeremy Bates lost his mojo and lapsed into his customary predictability.
Our defense fought hard, but stopped Atlanta only twice when it mattered: once when Jordan Babineaux intercepted Matt Ryan, and again when we forced a punt in the third quarter.
Ryan dissected our secondary. We lost cornerback Marcus Trufant to injury early on. Again. I love Tru, but maybe he’s too fragile to be a reliable NFL corner.
Matt Hasselbeck continues to promote the starting prospects of backup Charlie Whitehurst. Rolling out in his own end zone, Hasselbeck would have been wise simply to throw away the ball when he saw a Falcons defensive end bearing down on him. Instead, the one-handed wonder took a strip sack. Touchdown, Atlanta. The Fox analysts blamed Hasselbeck’s injured hand. I blame the quarterback’s poor judgment, which seems to worsen every week
Matt followed up by throwing two picks.
Whitehurst looked good in relief. He threw well, made good decisions, and used his mobility to good effect. He deserves the start next week.
Our offensive line made some strides. Down 24 points, Bates wisely called several handoffs, knowing that victory was impossible, but that this new O-Line combination would benefit from the reps.
Russell Okung was a disappointment, committing two false starts and surrendering a sack.
What happened to the kid who shut down Julius Peppers in Chicago?
At the end of the first half, with the game still in reach, Leon Washington declined to take a kickoff out of the end zone, instead opting for a touchback. And then our offense took a knee rather than run a play. In both cases, I'm sure it's what the coaches advised.
Always compete?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)