RealGM

That the trifecta has to go? The trifecta of SA, Hass, and Holmgren

Some points from the N.O. game:

-SA looks like he is puddling through mud. I have always been a fan of Weaver because he has a "toughness" dimension SA lacks. Fullback? Why don't we put Weaver as our power RB and play Fred McCrary at FB.

-Hasselbeck. This guy is the most frustrating QB to watch in the NFL, hands DOWN. Sure, he is accurate on rinky dink passes, but when it comes to deep balls he just doesn't have it. He thwartst the last drops of momentum by jump-balling it RIGHT to N.O. with about 4 1/2 mins left? There were at least 3 audibles that resulted in either a sack or botched run. Either Hasselbeck is just not good at reading defenses, or...

...Holmgren needs a REFRESHER. My goodness, the play-calling is below pee-wee level right now. Holmgren choosing to run twice on 4th down? In crucial parts of the game? Holmgren's offense just lacks any type of juice right now. He is the only coach that I've seen that concedes on 3rd and long. He is the only coach I've seen that does ZERO trick plays. He is absolutely conservative and it's stagnating the offense. We pay Burleson 50 million to be a deep threat, so why don't we ever throw deep to him? We have one of the best utility men in Seneca Wallace, so why does he only get one opportunity a game? It's not like he gets a lot of backup time.

Honorable mention goes to the most overrated defense in the NFL. I think they are one of the worst now if I'm not mistaken. Deon who? Brian who? I don't see any difference between them and Hamlin/Boulware, who at least made big plays/hits (i know they gave up a big play or two but are these guys any different?).

This is some serious stuff people. Do you honestly think this team is alright in its' current state? We need a new coach, new system, new QB, new RB, new O LINE- hell, I say we start the rebuilding sooner than the inevitable later...

What's with the confrontational attitude? Congrats, you've convinced me...I'll get on the phone to Ruskell and make sure changes are implemented.

hasselbeck is an above average QB. shaun alexander is in the decline. give mike holmgern another chance, dude is still one of the better coaches in the league.

It can't be a coincidence that Weaver was in there as the RB in the 4th quarter when the game mattered. I wonder if Holmie's sick of SA's act.

The Seahawks are starting to look like last year again. By that I mean, they are finding ways of falling short of reasonable expectations. This quality drove me out of my skull last year. You can always find excuses for not pulling out a big victory, not being able to change, or seize the momentum during a game, not coming up with the big play.

Perhaps that's the problem with the team now. We seem to lack playmakers, especially on offense. I would go as far as to say that we do not have a single "playmaker" on offense in the true sense of the word. We want Alexander to be one. We want Hasselbeck to be one. We hope Branch will be one. Yet I can't say anyone of them are. I actually miss DJ Hackett now, as he at least really tries to be one. He was refreshing to watch last year in that regard.

On defense, our only playmakers, IMO, are Tatupu and Peterson. If I'm right about this, then it could be said that we only have two playmakers on our team, and they're both on defense.

This is not to say that we don't have players who make good plays, it's just that there seems to be only two that I can at all count on to come up with the big play, change the momentum of a game, pull out a big victory for us.

I am in agreement with John Madden that losing Hutch really cost us. He did have attitude, and he was significant, in tandem with Jones, in making Alexander look like a playmaker. That WAS inarguably the dumbest gaff the organization has made in years.

So here we are like last year. Playing in a poor division, and having a favorable schedule that makes it possible for us to talk playoffs in spite of ourselves. I really thought we had the pieces and the experience to reassert ourselves as a top 2-3 team in the NFC, win our division and compete for a first round playoff bye.

I'm already backtracking on these hopes.

The question is, what causes teams to "find ways to fall short of reasonable expectations"? The obvious guess is the coaching staff. That guess is bolstered when you watch the team make head-scratching play calls. Is there any other plausible expectation?

And as I mentioned in the New Orleans game thread, I don't understand the offensive system's bizarre need for exquisite timing. If you disrupt the "rhythm" of the offense you can throw everything out of whack. Obviously the system has had success with Joe Montana and Steve Young and Brett Favre in his prime. It has had Super Bowl success with Hasselbeck as well (as everyone except for Bill Leavy and Pittsburgh partisans is aware), but that was in a year that happened to be peak seasons for at least five offensive players, including Hasselbeck, a Hall of Fame LT, a Hall of Fame LG, a Hall of Fame RB, and a Pro Bowl FB. Other times, when the team doesn't fire on all cylinders, it can look really bad.

Even when it's not getting a butt-whipping like the last two weeks, the team has a strange way of not putting opponents away, letting them hang in games. Again, the coaching has to be the prime suspect for that.

Still, not all is lost. They have four games left in the division, including home games vs. Arizona and San Fran and a home-and-home vs. St. Louis. They should be favored in all four of those. The rest of the schedule isn't too bad either: @ CLE, vs. CHI, @ PHI, @ CAR, vs. BAL, @ ATL. If I had to guess, they should be favored in four and possibly five of those six games (all but @ PHI and possibly @ CAR, depending on how the Panthers are looking when it happens). If they just take care of business in the division and win three of the remaining games, they'll be 10-6 and they'll probably win the division by 3 games or more. Find their groove and they can be 11-5 or even 12-4. But, of course, that leads back to my point about the team's stunning inability to "just take care of business." I'm not interested in seeing my team go 8-8 and win the crappiest division in football.

The division is terrible so they dont have the pressure to win on a weekly basis. I think Alexander like most backs his age is losing a step but his main problem is his health which i dont think has been right since last year.

The thing with Holmgren is he doesnt know how to draft, his drafts are the same every year, a defensive lineman that doesnt pan out, an offensive lineman they take a round or two earlier than projected and no tightend.

Hasselbeck isnt a problem at all, probably in the top 6-8 QBs in the league.

jumanji wrote:The thing with Holmgren is he doesnt know how to draft, his drafts are the same every year, a defensive lineman that doesnt pan out, an offensive lineman they take a round or two earlier than projected and no tightend.

Funny, the last time Holmgren drafted, his first-round pick was Jerramy Stevens, a tight end.

If you're talking about the Seahawks' more recent drafts, they were run by Tim Ruskell, and you're wrong. By most accounts their drafts under Ruskell have been very successful.

I can't name a single "offensive lineman they (took) a round or two earlier than projected." Possibly Chris Spencer, who was viewed as a borderline first/early second-rounder when the Seahawks took him in the late first. That's not exactly a huge reach. Of the other linemen they've taken in that time frame -- Wayne Hunter, Ray Willis, Rob Sims, Mansfield Wrotto -- each and every one of them was viewed as a bargain pick (even Hunter, the one who, in retrospect, hasn't panned out).

And "defensive linemen that don't pan out"? Sorry, that criticism doesn't hold up either. They took Marcus Tubbs, universally viewed as a first-round lock at the time, but he has been injured. You can't blame that on bad drafting. They haven't taken a defensive lineman that "didn't pan out" since 2002, when Anton Palepoi was a second-round pick. Since then they've drafted, in addition to Tubbs, Darryl Tapp (now starting in his second year), Brandon Mebane (a rookie very promising future), Baraka Atkins (also a rookie with a promising future), Craig Terrill (excellent value in the sixth round who is a valuable rotation player). What defensive linemen have they drafted who didn't pan out during that period? Maybe a couple of sixth- and seventh-rounders, who aren't expected to make it in the first place?

Look up and down the lineup and you'll see three recent draftees at the top of the CB rotation (Trufant, Jennings, Wilson); two recent draftees anchoring what is considered by many to be the best LB corps in the league (Tatupu and Hill); a recent draftee starting at DE (Tapp); draftees heading the DT rotation (Bernard, Mebane, Tubbs when healthy, Terrill); a recent sixth-round pick starting at WR when he's healthy (Hackett); three recent draftees starting on the O-line (Locklear, Spencer and Sims).

I don't mean to be rude, but... your post was completely off-base.

[quote="hippie"][/quote]

You're not being rude at all it's called discussing things. Let's start with Jeremy Stevens, should have been about a 3rd round pick with his character issues and they havent rectified that mistake since then. As for Holmgren and the draft last time i looked he's still running things there so to me he has the final say in all decisions.

As for guys getting drafted earlier than projected let me know which of these players you think were picked where they were slotted leading up to the draft:

Ken Hamlin
Wayne Hunter
Seneca Wallace
Tubbs
Boulware
David Greene
Kelly Jennings
Mo morris
Darryl Tapp
Rob Sims
Josh Wilson

what still behooves me is the implication that Hasselbeck and Holmgren should escape blame. IMHO they have everything to do with the Seahawks demise as Alexander.

One of you did mention something that was completely semi-valid: Seattle lacks playmakers. Seattle is a very methodical, non-exciting team that uses a system based on simple, quick strikes rather than trickery, deep balls, and QB improv. Seattle's players either A) don't have playmaking capability or B) have a coach that is fearful of expanding the playbook. I think it's a combination of both, however leaning more towards the latter. Holmgren has got to come up with better schemes and less predictability. When he should be predictable he makes bonehead mistakes like running on 4th and long. When he should show balls (like playaction on 3rd or 4th and 1) he becomes predictable. Seattle actually has a few people, notably Wallace, Burleson, and Hackett, who have ability to make a big play. They don't, however, have that elusive guy- the one like a Bush, or Hester or Tomlinson or Westbrook, that can turn a broken play into a huge gain (or just flat out make people miss).

Going back to Hasselbeck- remember people, don't let his "good" #'s fool you. He is in a system that has proven to make QB's look good. He is in an extremely low risk system that doesn't allow for too many mistakes. Hasselbeck just seems to always make one boneheaded decision though at a critical juncture in a game. No matter what you people say, he is an average, not elite, QB. He certainly is no JP Losman, but he's definitely not a prime Brett Favre either (whom he tries to emulate).

I just want to know how many more frustrating losses will it take to make people realize this team needs a makeover?

jumanji wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
You're not being rude at all it's called discussing things. Let's start with Jeremy Stevens, should have been about a 3rd round pick with his character issues and they havent rectified that mistake since then.

One of your original criticisms was that Holmgren never drafts tight ends. What is Stevens, exactly?

As for Holmgren and the draft last time i looked he's still running things there so to me he has the final say in all decisions.

Well, it's nice that "to you" he has it, but that's not reality.

Now let's look at your supposed reach picks:

Ken Hamlin

Solid second-round pick, considered a potential first-rounder who would slip into the second because of character issues. Which is what happened.

Wayne Hunter

Was projected as a fringe first-rounder and likely second-rounder; taken by the Seahawks in the third and was considered a big bargain. Didn't work out, though, in part because of character issues.

Seneca Wallace

Projected as a borderline first-day pick, taken early in the second day. A good value.

Tubbs

Consensus first-round pick according to absolutely everybody who projected the draft. And he was looking like he would exceed his draft slot, until he was injured. That's not bad drafting, it's bad luck.

Boulware

Consensus second-round pick.

David Greene

There's a reach. You got one. I'm not sure how he fits into your pattern of linemen who are taken too high.

Kelly Jennings

Projected borderline first-round, early-second-round pick. He was drafted at the high end of the range, to be sure.

Mo morris

A reach.

Darryl Tapp

Taken somewhat higher than projected -- he was pegged for the third round and went in the second. Boy, I guess that shows how dumb Ruskell can be... wait a second, did you see those four sacks yesterday?? How's that for defensive linement who don't pan out?

Rob Sims

Thought to be a likely late-first-day pick, taken early in the fourth round. Widely viewed as a value pick, and now that he's a regular starter, that conventional wisdom has been confirmed.

Josh Wilson

Taken right in the projected mid-second-round slot.

So, of all the players the Seahawks took higher than people expected, there's Tapp, Greene, and Morris. Funny how you don't add Tatupu to that list; he was projected as a fourth- or even fifth-rounder before Ruskell traded up in the second round to draft him. In that group you have zero offensive linemen drafted too high, zero defensive linemen who didn't pan out, and one two-time Pro Bowler. How exactly does any of this support your point?

The insinutaion (should have been more clear) is they havent rectified the Stevens mistake, sorry about that.

As for where you thought the guys i mentioned were projected i disagree with most, I dont know who you follow as far as scouting services go or whether you do your own ranking of players but most of those guys were reaches. Even a Lofa Tatupu went a couple of rounds before he should have, worked out pretty good though for sure.

hippie wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Funny how you don't add Tatupu to that list; he was projected as a fourth- or even fifth-rounder before Ruskell traded up in the second round to draft him.

jumanji wrote:Even a Lofa Tatupu went a couple of rounds before he should have, worked out pretty good though for sure.

Now why didn't I think of that?

Here is Mel Kiper's final 2006 mock. (Sorry, you need an "Insider" subscription to access it for yourself, but I'll just tell you his predictions). In that draft:

Jennings - predicted #25 to NYG (taken #31 by SEA)
Tapp - predicted #54 to KC (taken #63 by SEA)
Sims - predicted #132 to BAL (taken #128 by SEA)

Okay, so Sims wasn't projected to go late first-day on this one. But he also wasn't taken a full round too early. By the way, he has turned out to be a nice value with that pick.

I'll also give you his final 2007 mock draft.

Wilson - projected #62 to SD (taken #55 by SEA). Again, right in the range.
Mebane - projected #99 to OAK (taken #85 by SEA). A little high, but he's also turning out to be a great pick.

Here is an article by Kiper in 2005, projecting Chris Spencer as a likely second-rounder (as I mentioned) but also describing him as a first-round talent. (See opening paragraphs.)

In his 2004 first-round projection, Kiper tabbed Tubbs at #21 to NE. He went #23 to SEA. In his second-round projection the same year, he put Boulware in there at #26 (#58 overall). He wound up going #53 overall, right in the range.

For 2003, I don't have Kiper's mock, but I do have an article listing Hunter as the #3 OT prospect, ahead of eventual first-round pick George Foster and second-round pick Jon Stinchcomb. And Hamlin is listed as the #3 safety, behind first-rounder Troy Polamalu and high second-rounder Mike Doss. Sounds like a second-round pick to me. From after the draft, I found this article describing Hunter as a draft bargain and a "fringe first-round pick." Perhaps this was the article I recalled when I used those exact same words. I had also read a number of mock drafts that had actually projected Hunter in the first round.

That's all I have the time for. You might or might not like Kiper's picks, but you have to acknowledge that he is very much in the draft-projection mainstream, and his work is widely published.

There are still a few left, such as Palepoi and Greene (and maybe Hunter, who turned out to be a bust in retrospect, partly because of off-the-field issues). Name a team that doesn't have the occasional bad pick or bust. What's your idea of an exceptionally well-run franchise these days? Perhaps the Patriots? Well, if you look at their 2004 draft, you see a nice pick in the first round, Vince Wilfork; a second-rounder, Ben Watson, who has developed into an average tight end; and a bunch of guys you've probably never heard of. Marquise Hill, who's that? What are Cedric Cobbs and P.K. Sam up to these days?

Overall your criticism just doesn't hold up. The Seahawks have been one of the best drafting teams in the league over the last five years or so, since Tim Ruskell has taken charge. Your original criticism -- that Holmgren doesn't know how to draft -- might or might not be true, but it's completely irrelevant, because he hasn't run the draft for several years, and it's certainly not affecting the team now.

And you have still not given us a shred of evidence for the propositions that (1) Holmgren runs the drafts, (2) whoever runs the drafts, they frequently take defensive linemen who don't pan out, or (3) they frequently take offensive linemen too early by a round or two.

Always liked Kiper but havent suscribed to his publications for some years now, i will have to take your word on some of his projections although i will say predicting where a guy will be taken isnt the same things as how their ranked. Who is "us" by the way? You mean a Seahawk fan cant question management? Must be a republican.