Suck for Luck? Not exactly, but the signs aren’t good

September 12th, 2011 | Written by Rob Staton

Feeling lucky yet?

When people call the NFL a quarterbacks league, they speak the absolute, unquestioned truth. The blue print to success is clear these days – having a franchise passer is integral and so is having players on defense who can prevent other franchise passer’s succeeding.

The evidence on Sunday suggests the Seahawks have neither.

I don’t want to be overly critical because it’s only week one and there’s still plenty of football to come. The Seahawks can still go 4-2 in the NFC West and give themselves a fair shot at retaining the division crown. If you’d have made that point to me at half time yesterday however, I would’ve laughed loudly.

The Seahawks’ offense was pathetic in the first half against San Francisco. It wasn’t really a surprise, because the first team unit looked equally awful in all four pre-season games. The offensive line didn’t do a great job, the running game was completely shut down and Tarvaris Jackson looked as tentative and panicky as he did during his five seasons in Minnesota. Is shambles too strong a word? Only if you believe a week one judgement is too soon. On pure face value, it’s the perfect description.

At least the second half performance was better and unlike the previous regime in Seattle, there was at least signs of spirit and hope. The simple fact is though – you can’t give teams a 16-0 head start on the road and expect to win.

Jackson deserves some degree of time to settle into life with the Seahawks offense. He’s been vaulted into a starting role simply due to his familiarity with the offensive coordinator, but his move to Seattle still carries a major learning curve. The problem for Tarvaris is that unlike a rookie or a player that cost some form of trade stock – people will naturally be less patient. The mere fact that Charlie Whitehurst cost a third round pick buys him extra wiggle room with fans because they don’t want their team to make a mistake in the trade. Trades carry pride and a need for justification that low-level investment free-agent pick-ups don’t. Jackson hasn’t got the same luxury as a Whitehurst – if he fails then nobody is going to worry about that $4m salary. People are already concerned that the Seahawks wasted a third rounder on Whitehurst – it’s one of the big argument for Charlie starting regardless of prior performance.

A lot has been made of the offensive line struggles and certainly they exist, but I’m going to keep beating a drum I’ve been banging on about for the last few years. If your offense carries zero or very little skill/passing threat to an opposition defense, you can’t expect to block your way to success. Offensive line play will never be defined by high draft picks or expensive free agents. They are a group of individuals working as a team competing – at times – in outnumbered situations. If you have a lot of talented guys among that group that happened to cost a lot of draft stock, fine. You can’t, however, just fit early draft picks and big names into a line and suddenly expect great pass protection and a running game. Familiarity, execution, scheme and opportunity are just as important as talent for an offensive line. If they are being consistently blitzed, stacked, attacked and outnumbered you can’t expect miracles.

The offensive line is just one cog that relies on the performance of the quarterback and skill position players as much as they rely on protection and blocking. How else do you explain the fact teams with elite quarterbacks and far from elite offensive line regularly meet in the Super Bowl? When you play Green Bay, you fear Aaron Rodgers and all of those receiving options. You don’t go to San Diego, Indianapolis or New England and worry about getting around an elite offensive line - it’s all about the quarterback.

Jackson is never going to be afforded the kind of perfect passing pocket some crave and demand in Seattle. Which team in it’s right mind is going to be concerned about him beating them in the air? Harsh but true. That’s not to say he won’t defeat the odds and win games this year. That’s not to say he won’t end up demanding greater respect with his performances. However, those complaining that Jackson isn’t getting enough time to play better need to realise that situation will not exist and probably wouldn’t even with 2005 Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson on the line.

Speaking of 2005, the Seahawks are a perfect example of this argument. Yes they had a great line, but they also had a Pro-Bowl quarterback in his prime, working within a system he’d mastered from one of the great offensive minds. That passing game, on it’s day, functioned like clockwork. They also had a NFL MVP superstar at running back. Would Jones and Hutchinson have enjoyed half as much success in Seattle without all of the other pieces to the puzzle? I would say almost certainly not.

The Seahawks have acquired some talent this year, not just on the offensive line but also at the skill positions. Yet Michael Lombardi was correct when he said right now they’re just accumulating individuals. There’s not a true identity to the team other than a lot of talk about being able to run and seemingly ‘get by’ at the quarterback position until perhaps the opportunity to get ‘the guy’ appears. I can’t see much changing until they do get that guy, whenever that may be. Pass-protection won’t really get much better this season apart from the occasional game (not next week, for sure). The running game will continue to lurch on and will not define this team the way Pete Carroll wants it to. Until that quarterback is acquired one way or another that can sling it like the best, this will be the story of the Seahawks offense. And right now it looks like one of the worst – if not the worst – in the NFL.

The defense seems to have received a much more positive review for it’s performance. Admittedly, San Francisco couldn’t run for peanuts and that is testament to the stoutness up front. That’s all well and good, but Alex Smith may not have an easier game all season and that’s in spite of the fact Frank Gore had only 59 yards from 22 carries. Smith coasted along, unchallenged, to the tune of 15-20 passing. There was NO pass rush. For all the plaudits being handed to the defense, they’ll struggle to come up against an opposition quite as weak as the one presented in San Francisco.

Alex Smith – much maligned former #1 pick who is again playing for his future and seemingly a stop gap for whatever direction Jim Harbaugh chooses to go for the long haul. Michael Crabtree – talented but absent throughout pre-season. Braylon Edwards – the guy nobody wanted. New coaching staff/scheme – and it needed to be installed in a much shorter time frame. Positive aspects like Vernon Davis and Frank Gore noted, but this is not an offense that will give anyone a headache outside of the NFC West this year. Just like Seattle.

That’s the second part of the equation for a competitor – you need to pass on offense and stop the pass on defense. If you’re not creating sacks, you need to be creating pressure. The Seahawks have some niche role players who through scheme will generate a level of production in the LEO, but they lack one dominating, scary pass rusher.

I kept an eye on the Redskins vs Giants game yesterday and was amazed how successful Washington were despite the fact they have some of the same problems as Seattle on offense. It was all based around Brian Orakpoconsistently beating his man, supported by a collection of other guys capable of capitalising on Orakpo’s dominance such as round one pick Ryan Kerrigan.

It’s really encouraging to see that the Seahawks are tough against the run and it has to be said that for the most part on Sunday, the young group of linebackers and defensive backs did a good job. Yet we will never feel the true potential of this unit without someone to cause havoc in the backfield. It doesn’t need to be an edge rusher – it could be a great three technique. Nevertheless, that’s almost as big a need as the gigantic hole at quarterback.

On paper that’s two needs that could be the difference between Sunday’s first half shambles and potential NFC competitor. Unfortunately for the Seahawks, alongside the left tackle position, they’re the most important in the game. They need to aggressively attempt to solve those problems.

In the meantime I don’t expect the Seahawks to prosper in 2011 and the Cardinals game in week three will basically determine the season. Win that game and maybe there will be a shot at repeating as division champs? Maybe they can find some momentum? Lose that and you’re looking at a possible (probable?) 0-5 start, potentially stretching to 0-6 in Cleveland after the bye. There are kind games on the schedule such as Cincinnati at home and Washington at home – despite week one wins neither team is a daunting prospects at the CLink. There are five more games against the rest of the NFC West. Yet I do feel this team is set for an arduous campaign and maybe in the long run that won’t be such a catastrophe if they can fill one of those enormous holes? That’s such a lottery though, which is why the concept of ‘suck for Luck’ still doesn’t interest me much.

22 Responses to “Suck for Luck? Not exactly, but the signs aren’t good”

  1. Colin says:

    As for the game yesterday, you have to admit Harbaugh had a pretty bland gameplan based on how well his defense was playing. He wasn’t going to let Smith lose that game. However, that doesn’t excuse the fact that the pass rush was non existent. Despite being whipped 16-0 in the 1st half it was 19-17 with 5 minutes to go in the 4th. There is small value in that. Key word is small.

    The other thing I was impressed with was how well the secondary held up despite the pass rush. This time last year Smith would’ve probably had another stellar game with that protection. Instead he was basically limited to a nice Dilfer performance. Respectable numbers, but did little to actually help the team win.

    Big thing that scares me is how reliant the defense is on Red Bryant. We need more depth on the defensive line. Without him, we’d be screwed. Sure Alan Branch could slide over there and play the 5 tech, but who would replace him in the middle? Concerned after last year’s debacle.

    One bad thing I saw was Russell Okung getting worked, which I guess should’ve been expected due to his lack of playing time in preseason. I shouldn’t single him out though- they all sucked.

    One great thing was Earl Thomas. Oh. My. God. He was everywhere. Fast to the ball, sound tackling, just amazing to watch. Pro Bowler written all over him.

    At the end of the day, it’s only one game. 15 more to go.

  2. kevin mullen says:

    I think there’s a few teams vying for Luck, the Colts being one of them. They looked atrocious yesterday. Is it wrong to spend $120mil on TWO QB’s next year?

    • Rob says:

      Imagine switching from Manning to Luck… talk about a monopoly on quarterbacks.

      The Colts will be bad without Manning – but I think top-ten rather than top-one.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        I might respectfully disagree. Not because they laid such an egg at Houston.

        Indy’s entire team, both offensively and defensively, is engineered around the idea that they will either be playing with the lead outright, or be capable of pinning 30+ points on any defense. Indy has always struggled mightily with teams capable of minimizing possessions and dominating time of possession.

        Without Manning, they will not be able to prevent either case from happening. This is a team that is not built on stopping physical teams playing with a lead. Which should happen regularly.

        I’ve not followed Collins really for any length of time and don’t know if he’s the kind of QB that can excel in Indy’s system or not. So it’s possible he will be able to deliver a handful of wins. Nor is it yet certain that Peyton is out for the year.

        In baseball there is the conventional wisdom that every team can win 60 and lose 60 with 40 games in the balance. It seems to hold true that any bad team generally can expect to get 2 wins, with 4 being winnable*. For Indy, week one in Houston without Manning was not a winnable game. For us, SF was one of those 4 winnable games going in.

        Indy without Manning seems to fall into this category just as we do. Maybe even a bit more comfortably since their blueprint for winning is so overly dependent on Manning’s unique skills. Indy doesn’t really have the ability to win in alternative fashion other than the other team just has a stronger will to lose.

        * winnable = 40% or greater expected chance of winning: Yes completely subjective — as is the term itself.

        • Rob says:

          I think we generally agree Attyla. Manning hasn’t just bailed out several team mates but also a few coaches (significantly the current HC, who hasn’t really impressed me at all since replacing Dungy). But I’m working under the assumption that you’ll need 0-2 wins to pick #1 and I still think Indy will negotiate that – even if it’s only by achieving say four wins.

          • Attyla the Hawk says:

            Agreed.

            The “2+4″ theory is just my own. Generally, I think there are anywhere between 5-8 teams that belong to that category. It generally takes one of those 8 teams to lose all of their winnable games to get #1, in addition to stealing no wins and possibly losing one or both of the games they have little business losing.

            Indy falls into the 2+4 club just as we do. You’re absolutely right, the odds that Indy is the one of those 8 teams is pretty low. They are all equally unlikely to be the worst team. Losing to Houston just doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.

            Unlike Indy, we’ve already banked one of our +4 into the loss column. Washington and Buffalo stole a win, and Cincy made good on one of their +4.

            In golf parlance, Indy’s loss was basically shooting par. Washington and Buffalo eagled. Cincy birdied. We launched our tee shot deep into the woods, hit an amazing shot from the weeds back to the fairway, then two putted for bogey.

    • akki says:

      If the Colts end up with any of the top QBs, that would be too annoying. Part of me thinks that Polian’s apparent genius is tied to happening to take the Indy GM job when they had the first overall pick coming up, and having Manning available. (Yeah, he had to dismiss Leaf too). After a few good years of drafting, in the last 4-5 years he’s struck out on Tony Ugoh, Donald Brown, Anthony Gonzalez, Jerry Hughes, Mike Pollak, and Fili Moala, and the Colts were still 10-6 last year regardless. Is Polian really that worthy of praise without the Manning factor?

      I’ve thought the Colts were a 4-6 win team without Manning, and it’s only one game so far, but I might have been a tad too generous.

  3. Glen says:

    I agree with all of the above Rob. QB and DE are the absolute must fill holes for next year, however I hope we can land a DE via FA next year and maybe a younger Rd 2 or 3 pass rusher to let develop…history shows DEs take a few years to start producing…

    That said I think it’s easy to look at this in a vacuum (the DE & lack of pressure, the QB talk is already played out for me) I blew it and didn’t DVR the game but don’t recall many blitzs yesterday, it was almost like the game plan was set to force Alex Smith to beat our defense on passing downs…unlike many times last year our manufactured pass rush would create pressure. I think that’s an equally important piece to look at, why wouldn’t we smoother Smith with some bandit? All I can come up with is trying to protect a young secondary in their first game…

    I’m not a USC fanatic and I know that college and pro football are totally different, but I don’t recall the mid 2000 Trojans producing NFL caliber DEs (see Jackson, Lawerence) I’m guessing Pete has his formula and is trying to get the defense installed and acquire the personnel to deploy it.

    There is no stud DE on this roster that can win one on one with regularity and I’d like to see that change this year we are going to rely on manufactured pressure. Hopefully the D can stay as stout v the run and keep 3rd downs over 6 yards…time will tell I guess.

  4. Frank says:

    If Jackson stays the QB all year we will get Luck or Barkley. I think TJ was brought in to protect their chance to draft top five. Whitehurst already kept them from getting Locker, if he plays say goodbye to Barkley or Luck.
    Rob stop pouting that the front office has the forsight to invest in a oline for the next decade. We got the guys, its gonna take a little while for them to gel. Jackson is making the oline look far worse than they really are. I like the West Coast and zone blocking elements to this offence, but we’ve decieded prowess throwing the ball isn’t as important as the ability to run around like a chicken with his head cut off in a QB.
    We might get the first overall pick next year, but I feel a little shity knowing the guys on our roster could make a real run for the playoffs ( In this division) with Whitehurst. If we dont play him we should ship him. He can play if he can learn to protct himself enough to stay healthy. Whats PC deal? Am I the only one who see’s this as intentionlly tanking a year to get our future and savior?
    Worse yet. I’m kinda OK with underacheiving this year for a blue chip QB and a passrusher. Is the culture of a losing team settling in this fast? The NFC looks horrible this year. Hard to belive how bad our offence is, bad enough to keep a really good defence out of the playoffs in this division. Our oline is going to get better as the season continues, but I don’t expext too much until next year, and better next year, and maybe great the next year.

    • Rob says:

      For starters Frank, there was no interest in Locker – I can assure you of that. He was #6 on their QB big board, they wouldn’t have taken him at #25 had he lasted. It’s also not a case of ‘pouting’ about the offensive line. The issue I have is with people continually referring to bad offensive line play as an excuse for bad quarterback play without considering that maybe the two are linked somehow? I still don’t accept spending a R1 pick on a RT because of the nature of the position, but having gone that route it’s frustrating to hear the same things about the line and ‘lack of time in the pocket’ like it’s something that happens by flipping a switch with high draft picks. Offensive line play is about much more than pure draft stock and they need help from their QB the same was the QB needs pass-pro.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        Well, we’ve seen some pretty epic bad teams here in the PNW, and we’ve never picked first. So getting the top pick outright will be a stretch.

        However, week 1 was encouraging, as the teams most likely to compete with us for QB selection either won their games outright, or had performances that likely takes them out of the market already.

        Carolina? I would be shocked if they ship off Cam at this point. One game a career doesn’t make. But in year one you want to see flashes of what is possible. Um check that one as DONE.

        Cincy? While I don’t think Dalton is all that, I didn’t see that performance coming either. Even if he wouldn’t preclude the Bengals from drafting a Luck/Barkley, I’m comfortable saying that team is going to get 6 wins. Dalton won’t cost them enough winnable games to get a Barkley/Luck.

        Washington? Who the heck knows. That team will probably get 5 wins the old fashioned way: Out of nowhere.

        Buffalo? I’ve been a Fitzpatrick fan for awhile now. Not that I think he’ll be a top 10 QB. But he to me is clearly in the B class of QB. If you think our OL is bad, you clearly haven’t ever watched a Buffalo game in the last 3 years. Don’t feel bad, outside of the 6,000 diehard Bills fans, you aren’t alone.

        I don’t think it’s possible to put up 41 points at Arrowhead and be one of the worst 5 teams in the league.

        It’s only week one, but our biggest competitors for Luck OR Barkley have essentially either gotten half the wins needed to take themselves out of the running, or have demonstrated that they likely will.

        Which is equally important. Because it increases the chances that a team could be willing to deal at the top of the draft to a team desperate for a QB. If the possibility to move a QBOTF pick exists and it comes down to who makes the most outrageous deal, I think Pete/John will answer that call.

        We don’t have to be the worst team in the NFL. We just need the worst teams in the NFL to already have a working solution at QB willing to listen to a deal. Week one did just that.

        • Having a working solution at QB and being one of the worst teams in the NFL are usually diametrically opposed concepts.

          • Attyla the Hawk says:

            Remember, a QBOTF often can take 2-3 years before they become, or appear to fail to be capable, of being a franchise QB.

            Working solution includes potential franchise QBs. For most, their productivity and results in wins/losses aren’t reflective of potential value.

            3 good examples would be: Stafford, Newton and Locker. Three QBs with different levels of ‘show me’. Stafford is a great talent, but has durability flags. Newton has already shown amazing flashes. He should be inconsistent and lose games too. And that team has already spent their first overall picks the last 2 seasons on QBs. If their season tanks, or he continues to be brilliant in losses and has his season cut short — would Carolina build around Newton’s potential?

            Tennessee made a bold move to move up, and are enamored with Jake’s potential. What’s more is with the boldness/criticism of the move — their futures are now directly in inseparably tied with Jake. If they abandon him after one season, that staff will not last the year.

            Each of these teams could be bad. Although I think Detroit has enough talent outside of Stafford to compete for the postseason. But were they to suffer injuries and bad luck and find themselves in the top 5 — they may or may not select a QB.

  5. Attyla the Hawk says:

    Awesome post by the way!

    I have always felt similarly. The adage, “You cover a veteran and blitz a rookie” is a tried and also true statement. Bad QB play will not be able to make a defense pay for exposing their coverage. If there is no disincentive to sacrifice coverage for more pass rush, then no line will ever be able to afford suitable protection.

    Which literally means, the QB is responsible for blitzing personnel. It ultimately falls only on the QB to make the risk of blitzing be too great to consider doing so with impunity. Good QBs will be able to gash teams that blitz them on a more regular basis.

    Tarvaris is going to get blitzed all season long. In preseason, and in week one, his inability to account for the extra man is crippling and as constant as the tides. There really is no reason for teams to not stack 8 in the box and to send 5+ on every down. Tarvaris has not shown the ability to recognize or execute plays to exploit their exposure.

    Apologists will certainly continue to blame the line. But until our QB can force teams to play honest coverage, it will always appear to be a jailbreak to the QB.

  6. dave crockett says:

    I really enjoyed the post. What I’d say is that it’s less a straightforward “suck for Luck” and more of a season-long evaluation. Even without the top overall pick, Seattle should be in position to have some options to address its QB needs.

    What I have liked about the regime thus far is that it seems keenly aware of the problems and it acts pretty aggressively (perhaps overly so?) to address them.

    1. Overall talent — The roster PC/JS inherited was among the least talented in the NFL. Carroll has worked from the back end of the roster forward, as you noted, acquiring individuals that fit a broad profile: big and talented. They erred in overspending for Whitehurst, though it was understandable under the circumstances (legit concerns about Hasselbeck falling apart and all).

    2. Upgrading the offensive line — Although one can argue that first round picks are not necessary to field a quality offensive line, it’s not a bad idea to start with top-tier talent and let it grow. I wholeheartedly agree that you need at least competent QB play to field a good offense, but consider that the line had been criminally neglected under Ruskell. And in Seattle’s specific case, I don’t think they reached for clearly inferior players when selecting either Okung or Carpenter.

    3. Non-dogmatic — Despite their pithy little marketing slogans (Win Forever! Always Compete!), in practice PC/JS have been pretty flexible and pragmatic overall. They have picked up underrated/undervalued talent to patch holes, often giving second chances to guys who failed elsewhere. They have been pretty steadfast about not overpaying and they haven’t tried to make the market supply what is chronically in short supply (namely QBs, dominant pass rushing ends, and 3-techs).

    • QB was also criminally neglected under Ruskell. It’s pretty clear that Rob is still pissed about not having gotten Mark Sanchez, and I rather agree with him. At the very worst, I can’t imagine Sanchez having been worse than Matt Hasselbeck and Seneca Wallace these last three years.

      • dave crockett says:

        I would definitely agree that QB was criminally neglected under Ruskell. It was definitely an oversight on my part to leave that out. Had Ruskell taken Sanchez over Curry he might still be in Seattle — and I think Sanchez is a thoroughly mediocre QB who has benefited from context as much as any player in the NFL. So, my opinion there is as much about Curry’s disappointing career to date — given that he was sold as a pro-ready LB — as it is about anything Sanchez brings to the table.

        The issue I suppose is that you get so few opportunities to seriously upgrade production at the QB position. We missed one with Sanchez. It looks like this year should present another opportunity. I don’t necessarily think it’s “Luck, Barkley, or bust.” Rather, I think if Seattle ends up with top-five draft position they’ll have some flexibility.

  7. John says:

    I agree completely with Rob. And I agree even more with Frank:

    “We might get the first overall pick next year, but I feel a little shity knowing the guys on our roster could make a real run for the playoffs ( In this division) with Whitehurst”

    And Atylla:

    “Apologists will certainly continue to blame the line. But until our QB can force teams to play honest coverage, it will always appear to be a jailbreak to the QB.”

    These statements sum up our season until Tarvaris is benched or injured. And it’s a serious error. Whitehurst might be able to win a lot of games this year – while I think it’s unlikely, he might even be able to develop into a legitimate starter. He’s showed definite improvement over his performance last year. A lot of people might think that we should beeline for Luck if we can get him, but no player is a guarantee coming into this league. And no player is guaranteed to declare.

    Win now, or forever hold your peace. I suspect Pete IS tanking for Luck on some level, because what he really wants to create is not a one-run championship, but a dynasty. I’m okay with that idea, but tanking a season is an excessive gamble to achieve it.

    • Glen says:

      Really? Charlie could win a lot of games? Based on what? Improvement vs 2nd/3rd stringers? I’ll give it too him he looked much better this preseason than last….but so did Tarvaris vs. 2nd/3rd stringers in weeks 3 & 4…

      I think it’s always funny media and fans talk about owners and coaches in pro sports “tanking” seasons…how dumb a statement is that? Really think about it…uber-competitive men getting paid millions, sit in their plush offices and scheme ways to lose…

      Let me guess Carrolls plan was to be in a dog fight for a crappy division title last year to give a fan base some hope, when week 17 rolled around with an injured Hasselbeck and a real shot to win because the 49ers sucked he called up Schneider and asked about the years QB class, they decided losing and picking #8 would give them a shot at any QB but probably Newton so they started Whitehurst, but the Rams WRs foiled there plans by dropping pass after pass…so the plot turned to the 2012 draft class…Schneider and Carroll schemed up that Tarvaris Jackson was the worst QB available and he could lead them to a crap season…

      They brought him in and anointed him the starter without even practicing because “hey they know Charlie can win a lot of games and get us back to the playoffs” so they’re going to ride Tjack to a 1-4 win season…all while Charlie would have taken us back to the post season…

      Give me a break…we all sit and like to couch GM and coach our favorite teams, I love it personally…but believing these guys are intentionally “tanking”even a little a season, even a little, is laughable at best and a cheap diagnosis.

  8. akki says:

    Very nice writeup, and there’s no questioning that filling the needs at QB and DE is paramount asap, and until then the season will be painful. I don’t think things feel any worse after week 1 than they were before the season. The lack of experience on offense showing was expected, and even last year, the 49ers killed the Seahawks way worse at Candlestick than they did on Sunday, and Gore didn’t even play that game. The lack of pass rush against a mediocre SF OL was more frustrating though it didn’t hurt too much this game. I expect more there.

    I do think that the OL will improve substantially over the course of the season, such that it’ll be 50% better by the end of the season against both the run and the pass. The members have such little time playing next to each other that every game is a substantial gain in cohesion – that’s easy when you start at zero. The rookies will learn more about getting used to the speed of the game and maintaining leverage (seemingly the worst problem for Carpenter and Moffitt so far). The coaching staff will begin to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the members and how to call plays that maximize their effectiveness. Unfortunately, progress will be gradual and we’ll be getting impatient by mid-season.

    Will Tarvaris look better when the line improves? Some, I’m sure, but how much nobody knows for sure. The chicken-or-egg question can be argued forever. Is he under more pressure because the running game is bad? Or is the running game bad because nobody respects his passing? I was frustrated that he seemed to be slow in decision making, and a couple times seemed to react to pressure by running into a sack. But on the other hand, I can also see the apologist point of view that with the current condition of the OL he’s probably scanning for which defender will break through that he has to escape, when he ought to be focusing downfield. Doesn’t help that there was no FB for most of the game too (that one’s on Carroll/Schneider).

  9. Darnell says:

    In my heart I hope the Seahawks can win every single game they play, but my mind tells me that the absolute worst thing for this franchise this season would be mediocrity.

    There are many ways to build a winner. The Lions didn’t accumulate their high-end talent by being mediocre – they got it by being dreadful: Stafford early 1st, C Johnson early 1st, Best early 2nd, Leshore early 2nd, Suh early 1st, Fairley early 1st, Delmas early 2nd.

    Now, unlike the Lions I don’t think we need to be dreadful for an entire decade to build a winner (and the jury is still out if they have a winner or not) but say a couple dreadul seasons in exchange for the franchise QB, franchise LT, all pro safety and lets say an early 2nd pass rusher wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.

  10. Colin says:

    I’m not at all upset about not having Mark Sanchez. Taking Barkley next year will be worth the 3 year wait of not having Sanchez- whose done very little to impress statistically.

    He wouldn’t be in 2 conference championships if he was wearing Seahawk blue that’s for sure…