Im so sick of the following people...

[TheUrbanZealot]

1. Holmgren
2. Hasselbeck
3. Alexander

This trio is just absolutely disappointing. Forget Hasselbeck's 67% completion ratio prior to this game.

Haseelbeck hasn't had the competition like Pittsburgh, nor has he really opened the offense up save for rinky dink WC offense dumpoffs. He is a complete poser that has a false sense of confidence. He always seems to try to force the ball in impossible places, turning his offensive player into a defender. He looked absolutely lost out there today.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: why we signed SA to an 8 yr contract is absolutely beyond me. The hell with loyalty. The guy had a fluke year and i KNEW he would be hardpressed to get 1,000 yards ever again. He just doesn't seem to make progress when he runs. If I have to see another carry for a loss....

Now the person that takes the cake to me is Mike Holmgren. Mike Holmgren is intent on adhering to his WC offense system. The problem is he doesn't have the personnel that matches the system. He is ultra-conservative on 1st down and 3rd down, ultra predictable. He was down 3 touchdowns today with 9 mins left, and what does he do? Concede the loss and run the ball. I mean you have to be kidding me? Where is the heart? Seattle NEVER does trick plays. Seattle NEVER keeps the defense guessing. He doesn't open the offense enough and keeps Hasselbeck on a leash. He thinks he can mold Hasselbeck into QB's like Montana or Favre.

Realize this is not a reaction to a loss. I'd keep the same opinions even if they win. I am just not convinced this system is the right system for this team. Further, I don't think Matt is fit enough to lead this team to the promise land. I just don't have faith in him...I'm sorry...

I pray that we look at our coaching , QB and RB situation this summer to get an influx of fresh ideas/skillset to offset this predictable offense...

[Bulltalk]

I will agree with you that Alexander is frustrating at times, and I will also agree with you that RB should perhaps be our top priority in the next year's draft, especially if one of the top 3 backs falls to us. As far as Alexander's contract goes, NFL contracts are not guaranteed contracts, though some of his contract will count against the CAP if we should move away from him after next season (I can't envision us cutting him loose before the end of next season even if we do draft a top prospect).

As for Hasselbeck, the fact is that he IS NOT an elite NFL QB. But he's also not a bad QB, or even an average QB. He's in the top third of NFL QB's, or perhaps even higher. What realistic choice do we have other than Hasselbeck?

As for Holmgren, well he's simply one of the best coaches in the game, one of the great coaches of all time, a HOF coach. We shouldn't worry about problems that aren't problems.

[TheUrbanZealot]

I will agree with you that Alexander is frustrating at times, and I will also agree with you that RB should perhaps be our top priority in the next year's draft, especially if one of the top 3 backs falls to us. As far as Alexander's contract goes, NFL contracts are not guaranteed contracts, though some of his contract will count against the CAP if we should move away from him after next season (I can't envision us cutting him loose before the end of next season even if we do draft a top prospect).

As for Hasselbeck, the fact is that he IS NOT an elite NFL QB. But he's also not a bad QB, or even an average QB. He's in the top third of NFL QB's, or perhaps even higher. What realistic choice do we have other than Hasselbeck?

As for Holmgren, well he's simply one of the best coaches in the game, one of the great coaches of all time, a HOF coach. We shouldn't worry about problems that aren't problems.

I don't know man. Hasselbeck to me is what I call a "poser". Keep in mind the strict/safe system allows his #'s to be a little better. Seattle has an extremely low risk offense, so as long as you have receivers that don't drop the ball and a fairly accurate QB your completion % will be decent. The problem is Hasselbeck has always had trouble in big games. From Green Bay, to Pittsburgh, to Pittsburgh again, I mean he just doesn't have that killer instinct when it counts. You saw it man. Time and time again he tries to force passes in and the defender has a beat on the ball. He tries to be like Brett Favre too much when he should just keep it simple. When he panics, he gets completely erratic. I have absolutely no faith in Matt hasselbeck in a big game, I'm sorry. As for another option? Forecasting and hindsight is always 20/20, however I can say this- if we are going to STAY w/ Hasselbeck, we need to seriously changethings up offensively, which leads me to...

Mike Holmgren. I mean, it's easy to say he's one of the greatest after winning what, 2 SB's in Green Bay, and a few as a coordinator in SF? I mean, the guy had some ridiculous talent! Including 2 of the top 5 QB's of all time. That MAY have had something to do w/ it. The problem is now, he has a very average QB. Say what you will, but Dilfer, another average QB, gave us every bit of opportunity to win as Hasselbeck. It was the system man. Holmgren is extraordinarily conservative. What's sad is even when Pittsburgh had an 8 man front they'd still run on 1st down to "get alexander going". No audibles, no shifts, nothing to throw the defense off. Holmgren has to realize at some point that his running game is going to need a PASSING game to open it up. When your passing game becomes predictable, then you are in SERIOUS trouble. Holmgren may have been a great coach for those other teams, but he hasn't done s--t for Seattle. Seattle already had talent man. Holmgren hasn't done anything w/ that talent that consistently puts them in the Championship game. I want to see more things to keep the defense off guard. I want to see Seattle use Burleson's speed more- I mean hell, we're paying him 50 million why not? I want to see flee-flickers, I want to see double reverses, i want to see fake punts, i want to see onside kicks to start the half, I want to see fake field goals, halfback throws, etc etc. Little things like that are enough to keep a team guessing the whole game.

2 weeks ago I saw Dallas, with the ball on Miami's 40 yrd line, up by 10 on 4th down and 3 with about 3 1/2 mins left to go. Now conventional wisdom would have said to just punt it with Miami having to go 90+ yrds and score twice w/ little time left. What did Dallas do? they WENT for it on 4th down and scored a touchdown, therefore absolutely SLAMMING the door shut on any possibility of a comeback. See, they played to WIN. They didn't play to NOT LOSE....

...and that, my friend, is the biggest difference between Mike Holmgren, and an upstart coach (now a coordinator but he will be) like Jason Garrett of Dallas. The elite teams play to WIN. Holmgren plays to NOT LOSE. If holmgren keeps playing things safe all the time, he will constantly find himself making up lame excuses for why his team didn't pull out a supposed win...

[Bulltalk]

-= original quote snipped =-




I don't know man. Hasselbeck to me is what I call a "poser". Keep in mind the strict/safe system allows his #'s to be a little better. Seattle has an extremely low risk offense, so as long as you have receivers that don't drop the ball and a fairly accurate QB your completion % will be decent. The problem is Hasselbeck has always had trouble in big games. From Green Bay, to Pittsburgh, to Pittsburgh again, I mean he just doesn't have that killer instinct when it counts. You saw it man. Time and time again he tries to force passes in and the defender has a beat on the ball. He tries to be like Brett Favre too much when he should just keep it simple. When he panics, he gets completely erratic. I have absolutely no faith in Matt hasselbeck in a big game, I'm sorry. As for another option? Forecasting and hindsight is always 20/20, however I can say this- if we are going to STAY w/ Hasselbeck, we need to seriously changethings up offensively, which leads me to...

Mike Holmgren. I mean, it's easy to say he's one of the greatest after winning what, 2 SB's in Green Bay, and a few as a coordinator in SF? I mean, the guy had some ridiculous talent! Including 2 of the top 5 QB's of all time. That MAY have had something to do w/ it. The problem is now, he has a very average QB. Say what you will, but Dilfer, another average QB, gave us every bit of opportunity to win as Hasselbeck. It was the system man. Holmgren is extraordinarily conservative. What's sad is even when Pittsburgh had an 8 man front they'd still run on 1st down to "get alexander going". No audibles, no shifts, nothing to throw the defense off. Holmgren has to realize at some point that his running game is going to need a PASSING game to open it up. When your passing game becomes predictable, then you are in SERIOUS trouble. Holmgren may have been a great coach for those other teams, but he hasn't done s--t for Seattle. Seattle already had talent man. Holmgren hasn't done anything w/ that talent that consistently puts them in the Championship game. I want to see more things to keep the defense off guard. I want to see Seattle use Burleson's speed more- I mean hell, we're paying him 50 million why not? I want to see flee-flickers, I want to see double reverses, i want to see fake punts, i want to see onside kicks to start the half, I want to see fake field goals, halfback throws, etc etc. Little things like that are enough to keep a team guessing the whole game.

2 weeks ago I saw Dallas, with the ball on Miami's 40 yrd line, up by 10 on 4th down and 3 with about 3 1/2 mins left to go. Now conventional wisdom would have said to just punt it with Miami having to go 90+ yrds and score twice w/ little time left. What did Dallas do? they WENT for it on 4th down and scored a touchdown, therefore absolutely SLAMMING the door shut on any possibility of a comeback. See, they played to WIN. They didn't play to NOT LOSE....

...and that, my friend, is the biggest difference between Mike Holmgren, and an upstart coach (now a coordinator but he will be) like Jason Garrett of Dallas. The elite teams play to WIN. Holmgren plays to NOT LOSE. If holmgren keeps playing things safe all the time, he will constantly find himself making up lame excuses for why his team didn't pull out a supposed win...

Holmgren's done a great job here. Just look at the last 4+ years.

2003 sea 10-6
2004 sea 9-7
2005 sea 13-3
2006 sea 9-7
2007 sea 3-2
-----------------

Total 44-25

This includes 4 straight trips to the playoffs (a 5th most likely on the way), a trip to the Super Bowl, and coming within a whisker of the NFC championship game last year. We've been fortunate to have such a strong football team here. Remember, before Holmgren arrived, we hadn't made the playoffs in years and years.

As for Hasselbeck, again what other choice do we have that's better than him? I'm all ears.

[Bulltalk]

PS>There's some things we know about Hasselbeck as our quarterback:

1) We can be a winning team with Hasselbeck
2) We can be a consistently winning team with Hasselbeck
3) We can be a playoff team with Hasselbeck
4) We can consistently be a playoff team with Hasselbeck
5) We can win in the playoffs with Hasselbeck
6) We can be a Super Bowl team with Hasselbeck
7) Hasselbeck was not the reason why we lost the Super Bowl

[TheUrbanZealot]

[quote="Bulltalk"][/quote]

What I find a little dubious is you being quick to discount Shaun Alexander- who, by all accounts, had been our most consistent offensive threat (including winning an MVP) since his 2nd season. Yet, when it comes to Hasselbeck, who hasn't had the success Alexander has, you justify his stance as our starting QB? The point is, if you are going to acknowledge Alexander's decline, it's only fair to acknowledge the others as well. I wonder what your motivation is for being loyal to Hasselbeck and Holmgren while eschewing Alexander? Interesting...

I am discounting ALL of them. They get equal lack of love from me. It's easy to mention Holmgren's last 4 seasons when he has had losing seasons with Seattle as well. Besides, he hasn't fielded a CONSISTENTLY winning team. When I say consistent, I mean a New England, Indianapolis type of team that has a chance to win the Super Bowl (realistically) every year. I don't care how many wins Hasselbeck piles up, he will never ever win the big game.

The problem is any QB name I give you, you will just justify reasons why Hasselbeck is better. Further, much has to do w/ the coach and his system. A better way of putting it for me would be who would I want as a new coach? Easy. Jason Garrett hands down. He is the best and freshest offensive mind in the game right now, and I would love an influx of a new system.

[Bulltalk]

-= original quote snipped =-



What I find a little dubious is you being quick to discount Shaun Alexander- who, by all accounts, had been our most consistent offensive threat (including winning an MVP) since his 2nd season. Yet, when it comes to Hasselbeck, who hasn't had the success Alexander has, you justify his stance as our starting QB? The point is, if you are going to acknowledge Alexander's decline, it's only fair to acknowledge the others as well. I wonder what your motivation is for being loyal to Hasselbeck and Holmgren while eschewing Alexander? Interesting...

I am discounting ALL of them. They get equal lack of love from me. It's easy to mention Holmgren's last 4 seasons when he has had losing seasons with Seattle as well. Besides, he hasn't fielded a CONSISTENTLY winning team. When I say consistent, I mean a New England, Indianapolis type of team that has a chance to win the Super Bowl (realistically) every year. I don't care how many wins Hasselbeck piles up, he will never ever win the big game.

The problem is any QB name I give you, you will just justify reasons why Hasselbeck is better. Further, much has to do w/ the coach and his system. A better way of putting it for me would be who would I want as a new coach? Easy. Jason Garrett hands down. He is the best and freshest offensive mind in the game right now, and I would love an influx of a new system.

My difference between Hasselbeck and Alexander is that I feel the former is giving all he can of himself to win, whereas I don't feel the same in the latter. In other words, Hasselbeck has limitations, but he seeks them out, whereas Alexander has limitations but oftentimes doesn't seek to find them.

I'm not discounting Alexander's contributions to this team. We wouldn't have been nearly as successful without them as we have been.

One has to keep in mind, however, that it is far easier to groom a new running back than it is a new quarterback. It is possible for a drafted running back to make strong contributions to a team in his first season, and become a consistent strong contributor in his second season. Only in rare cases is this so with a quarterback.

Also, the life span of a running back is much shorter. Very few running backs (hardly any) don't begin to dramatically decline in productivity after the age of 30, whereas quarterbacks can remain significant contributors into and through their mid 30's.

With this in mind, it's simply more pressing for us to bolster up the starting running back position next off-season, whereas we can put off searching for a starting quarterback in the draft for another year at least.

[vegas_runnin_rebel]

UrbanZealot, you're delusional.

Hasselbeck is definitely not part of the problem. Saying that we need a new QB is like a Bucks fan saying they they need a new SG. Micheal Redd is never going to be Kobe or Wade, but at the end of the day he's still one of the best SG's in the game. The same goes for Hasselbeck. He's never going to be as good as Brady or Manning, but he's still one of the premiere QB's in the game. He's well on his way to having another pro bowl season.

The problem with this team isn't at QB or with the coaching. It's our complete and utter lack of a running game. Hasselbeck wasn't missing reads today when he had all of that time back in the pocket... The Steelers were rushing three and dropping everyone else into coverage because they knew we couldn't run against them. And once Branch went out early in the second quarter, we were left with two mediocre route runners in Burleson and Obamanu.

At any rate, you can hope and pray for Hasselbeck and Holmgren replacements all that you want, but it's not going to help. We can't upgrade at those spots--only downgrade. And as Bulltalk already stated, RB is the only realistic position we can seriously upgrade in the off-season via the draft.

[TheUrbanZealot]

UrbanZealot, you're delusional.

Hasselbeck is definitely not part of the problem. Saying that we need a new QB is like a Bucks fan saying they they need a new SG. Micheal Redd is never going to be Kobe or Wade, but at the end of the day he's still one of the best SG's in the game. The same goes for Hasselbeck. He's never going to be as good as Brady or Manning, but he's still one of the premiere QB's in the game. He's well on his way to having another pro bowl season.

The problem with this team isn't at QB or with the coaching. It's our complete and utter lack of a running game. Hasselbeck wasn't missing reads today when he had all of that time back in the pocket... The Steelers were rushing three and dropping everyone else into coverage because they knew we couldn't run against them. And once Branch went out early in the second quarter, we were left with two mediocre route runners in Burleson and Obamanu.

At any rate, you can hope and pray for Hasselbeck and Holmgren replacements all that you want, but it's not going to help. We can't upgrade at those spots--only downgrade. And as Bulltalk already stated, RB is the only realistic position we can seriously upgrade in the off-season via the draft.

Wow, I expected a little bit of bias, but you are taking it to a whole 'nother level. I'm delusional? I guess Matt Hasselbeck and his 13/27 for 112 yrds had nothing to do with it. I guess Matt Hasselbeck consistently throwing RIGHT to #24 trying to be Brett Favre had nothing to do with it. I guess it's all the fault of Alexander and Seattle's inept receivers, right? Nevermind that Roethlisberger was without his TOP TWO wide receivers and still was able to be successful. Yeah. I'm delusional.

Dude, you are living in a dream world if you DON'T think Hasselbeck or Holmgren is the problem. We will never win with these 2 at the helm. Period. I would rather rebuild so that when Tatupu is in his prime in 3 yrs we will have a better run. We look old, tired, and boring.

Holmgren? Holmgren is not a problem? Let me give you an example of the difference between a 4-0 team, and a mediocre 3-2 team like Seattle. I am watching GB vs. Chicago right now. GB was up 7 pts with 1:47 to go in the 1st half w/ 1 timeout at their own 15 yrd line. Now conventional wisdom would have said to play it conservative and just run out the clock w/ the run. After all, that's what Holmgren does. What does GB do? They go into a risky SHOTGUN and proceed to march down to Chicago's 20 yrd line and kick a field goal as time expired in the 1st half. You see, GB's coach is playing to WIN. This safety net style that Holmgren incorporates is getting boring, predictable, and rarely successful against ELITE teams.

When has Seattle beaten an ELITE team? I mean a Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis? I mean let's be realistic, Seattle plays in a horrible division. You don't think 6 games a year against horrid teams has anything to do w/ their recent semi-success?

Dude, you are delusional if you put all of the blame on Alexander (who has been our 2nd best player after Jones for the past 5-6 yrs). Is Alexander part of the problem? Absolutely. He's running like he's scared and inept. But Hasselbeck's mistakes and Holmgren's conservative nature have every bit to do w/ the mediocrity that is Seattle.

You can't be choosy about who you blame when you have a universal meltdown...

[Bulltalk]

-= original quote snipped =-



Wow, I expected a little bit of bias, but you are taking it to a whole 'nother level. I'm delusional? I guess Matt Hasselbeck and his 13/27 for 112 yrds had nothing to do with it. I guess Matt Hasselbeck consistently throwing RIGHT to #24 trying to be Brett Favre had nothing to do with it. I guess it's all the fault of Alexander and Seattle's inept receivers, right? Nevermind that Roethlisberger was without his TOP TWO wide receivers and still was able to be successful. Yeah. I'm delusional.

Dude, you are living in a dream world if you DON'T think Hasselbeck or Holmgren is the problem. We will never win with these 2 at the helm. Period. I would rather rebuild so that when Tatupu is in his prime in 3 yrs we will have a better run. We look old, tired, and boring.

Holmgren? Holmgren is not a problem? Let me give you an example of the difference between a 4-0 team, and a mediocre 3-2 team like Seattle. I am watching GB vs. Chicago right now. GB was up 7 pts with 1:47 to go in the 1st half w/ 1 timeout at their own 15 yrd line. Now conventional wisdom would have said to play it conservative and just run out the clock w/ the run. After all, that's what Holmgren does. What does GB do? They go into a risky SHOTGUN and proceed to march down to Chicago's 20 yrd line and kick a field goal as time expired in the 1st half. You see, GB's coach is playing to WIN. This safety net style that Holmgren incorporates is getting boring, predictable, and rarely successful against ELITE teams.

When has Seattle beaten an ELITE team? I mean a Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis? I mean let's be realistic, Seattle plays in a horrible division. You don't think 6 games a year against horrid teams has anything to do w/ their recent semi-success?

Dude, you are delusional if you put all of the blame on Alexander (who has been our 2nd best player after Jones for the past 5-6 yrs). Is Alexander part of the problem? Absolutely. He's running like he's scared and inept. But Hasselbeck's mistakes and Holmgren's conservative nature have every bit to do w/ the mediocrity that is Seattle.

You can't be choosy about who you blame when you have a universal meltdown...

1) Sorry. We have won with these two at the helm.

2) No matter what team I mention, you would deny it to be an elite team. I do recall us beating Indianapolis the year before last, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Philly the year after they went to the Super Bowl, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Carolina in the NFC championship game, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Dallas in the playoffs last year, but that wouldn't count.

You get the idea.

[TheUrbanZealot]

-= original quote snipped =-



1) Sorry. We have won with these two at the helm.

2) No matter what team I mention, you would deny it to be an elite team. I do recall us beating Indianapolis the year before last, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Philly the year after they went to the Super Bowl, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Carolina in the NFC championship game, but that wouldn't count. I do recall us beating Dallas in the playoffs last year, but that wouldn't count.

You get the idea.

You know what I mean. They will never win "the big one" with these 2 at the helm.

Save for Indianapolis and a decimated Eagles club, I don't recall any truly elite team Seattle has beaten.

My main issue is just denying that Holmgren or Hasselbeck have nothing to do w/ Seattle's plight. Blaming everything on Alexander is extremely short-sighted. I place more responsbility on Holmgren, Hasselbeck and Alexander because they represent our "star" personnel.

[Bulltalk]

-= original quote snipped =-



You know what I mean. They will never win "the big one" with these 2 at the helm.

Save for Indianapolis and a decimated Eagles club, I don't recall any truly elite team Seattle has beaten.

My main issue is just denying that Holmgren or Hasselbeck have nothing to do w/ Seattle's plight. Blaming everything on Alexander is extremely short-sighted. I place more responsbility on Holmgren, Hasselbeck and Alexander because they represent our "star" personnel.

I'm not "blaming everything on Alexander". I'm not sure where you came up with that. I said I wasn't a huge fan of his approach to the game, and I felt he was closer to the end of his career than Hasselbeck. I also said we would not have been nearly so successful as a team had we not had him for the Holmgren era.

I also questioned the Seahawks' "plight". What plight? That we don't win the Super Bowl every year? There's 32 teams in the NFL, and a league which pulls teams closer to parity than any other team sport. Yet in spite of this, we have become a perrenial playoff team, and Super Bowl contender.

No, we're not as strong as New England or Indianapolis. Who is this year? But it's certainly feasible that we could make it to the Super Bowl out of the NFC, and on any given Sunday.... That's what we're looking at this year, hoping for. Them apples are pretty good.

Cheer up. Things ain't that bad.

[Monkeyfeng06]

i also want to point out that seahawk's receiving squad is poor (in my standards). deion branch is probably the only guy on the team that i can trust. the rest are ball droppers. you guys need someone that can be a consistent receiver. deion branch looks to be the guy but he's injured right now. plus, you guys need a good receiving TE since you guys do the west coast offense. you guys need a TE that hasslebeck can dump the ball off instead of throwing into tight coverage or throw the ball to alexander in the back field that will only lose more yards.

[Bulltalk]

i also want to point out that seahawk's receiving squad is poor (in my standards). deion branch is probably the only guy on the team that i can trust. the rest are ball droppers. you guys need someone that can be a consistent receiver. deion branch looks to be the guy but he's injured right now. plus, you guys need a good receiving TE since you guys do the west coast offense. you guys need a TE that hasslebeck can dump the ball off instead of throwing into tight coverage or throw the ball to alexander in the back field that will only lose more yards.

The receiving corp is not poor. Branch, Engram, Burleson, Hackett...you could do a lot worse than that. Sure, we'd love to have a great tight end, as in DUH! But after getting rid of Stevens for his off field problems, and striking out in FAcy with Graham, all we could do was pick up the best vet we could get our hands on, which we did.

I'm sure we'll be looking for the best RB or TE in the draft next year with our first couple of picks, unless a blue chip lineman or WR that is too good to pass up falls into our laps.

We did about the best we could in the off-season. We upgraded both of our safety positions (a real need), picked up a strong pass rushing DE (another need), drafted another CB with our first pick (yet another need), and a DT with our next pick. We had little choice but to put our money and picks where we did. You can't do everything, at least not to the level of quality that you'd like.

[Bulltalk]

I thought I heard on the broadcast today that we have 25 new players on our roster today that weren't on our roster the year went went to the Super Bowl two years ago.

Can that be right?

[Ex-hippie]

I thought I heard on the broadcast today that we have 25 new players on our roster today that weren't on our roster the year went went to the Super Bowl two years ago.

Can that be right?

Let's see. Here is the roster... non-Super Bowl players are in bold.

Offense
5 Charlie Frye QB
8 Matt Hasselbeck QB
15 Seneca Wallace QB
37 Shaun Alexander RB
20 Maurice Morris RB
36 Alvin Pearman RB
38 Mack Strong FB
43 Leonard Weaver FB
83 Deion Branch WR
81 Nate Burleson WR
84 Bobby Engram WR
18 D.J. Hackett WR
87 Ben Obomanu WR
86 Courtney Taylor WR
85 Will Heller TE
47 Bennie Joppru TE
88 Marcus Pollard TE
48 Derek Rackley TE (who the heck is Derek Rackley??)
65 Chris Spencer C
62 Chris Gray G
75 Sean Locklear G
67 Rob Sims G
68 Tom Ashworth OT
71 Walter Jones OT
74 Ray Willis OT
77 Floyd Womack OT
66 Mansfield Wrotto

Defense
98 Baraka Atkins DE
52 Jason Babin DE
97 Patrick Kerney DE
55 Darryl Tapp DE
99 Rocky Bernard DT
91 Chuck Darby DT
92 Brandon Mebane DT
93 Craig Terrill DT
90 Marcus Tubbs DT
95 Ellis Wyms DT
57 Kevin Bentley LB
54 Will Herring LB
56 LeRoy Hill LB
53 Niko Koutouvides LB
50 Lance Laury LB
59 Julian Peterson LB
51 Lofa Tatupu LB
32 Kevin Hobbs CB (that's the guy they just signed, right?)
21 Kelly Jennings CB
23 Marcus Trufant CB
26 Josh Wilson CB
27 Jordan Babineaux CB
24 Deon Grant S
42 Mike Green S
25 Brian Russell S
39 C.J. Wallace S

Kicker/Punter
3 Josh Brown K
1 Ryan Plackemeier P

I actually count 30. 13 on offense, 16 on defense, one punter.

One thing that jumps out at me is that the DE and S positions have been completely turned over. Two years ago, I wouldn't have expected to see that.

[Sweezo]

Derek Rackley = Our **** long snapper

I don't get the hatred toward Holmgren. He's the first coach to lead this team anywhere, and his version of the WCO has been successful all over the league. I think he's hamstrung when he doesn't have a RB who can carry or catch the ball. Everyone knows Hass is going to pass.

[Bulltalk]

I thought I heard on the broadcast today that we have 25 new players on our roster today that weren't on our roster the year went went to the Super Bowl two years ago.

Can that be right?

Let's see. Here is the roster... non-Super Bowl players are in bold.

Offense
5 Charlie Frye QB
8 Matt Hasselbeck QB
15 Seneca Wallace QB
37 Shaun Alexander RB
20 Maurice Morris RB
36 Alvin Pearman RB
38 Mack Strong FB
43 Leonard Weaver FB
83 Deion Branch WR
81 Nate Burleson WR
84 Bobby Engram WR
18 D.J. Hackett WR
87 Ben Obomanu WR
86 Courtney Taylor WR
85 Will Heller TE
47 Bennie Joppru TE
88 Marcus Pollard TE
48 Derek Rackley TE (who the heck is Derek Rackley??)
65 Chris Spencer C
62 Chris Gray G
75 Sean Locklear G
67 Rob Sims G
68 Tom Ashworth OT
71 Walter Jones OT
74 Ray Willis OT
77 Floyd Womack OT
66 Mansfield Wrotto

Defense
98 Baraka Atkins DE
52 Jason Babin DE
97 Patrick Kerney DE
55 Darryl Tapp DE
99 Rocky Bernard DT
91 Chuck Darby DT
92 Brandon Mebane DT
93 Craig Terrill DT
90 Marcus Tubbs DT
95 Ellis Wyms DT
57 Kevin Bentley LB
54 Will Herring LB
56 LeRoy Hill LB
53 Niko Koutouvides LB
50 Lance Laury LB
59 Julian Peterson LB
51 Lofa Tatupu LB
32 Kevin Hobbs CB (that's the guy they just signed, right?)
21 Kelly Jennings CB
23 Marcus Trufant CB
26 Josh Wilson CB
27 Jordan Babineaux CB
24 Deon Grant S
42 Mike Green S
25 Brian Russell S
39 C.J. Wallace S

Kicker/Punter
3 Josh Brown K
1 Ryan Plackemeier P

I actually count 30. 13 on offense, 16 on defense, one punter.

One thing that jumps out at me is that the DE and S positions have been completely turned over. Two years ago, I wouldn't have expected to see that.

Nice work, hippie. Wow, you tend to forget how fast rosters turn over these days. What a job it would be to be a NFL GM.