Seattle Sports Insider

Seahawks 13, Cardinals 10: TJ Below RL

Posted by

9/25/11

...

=== Friendly Challenge Dept. ===

After 9 games of Jim Mora's first season as Seahawks' coach, we published Mora Torium. In this article, we plainly and flatly wrote Mora's obituary, with zero chance of parole. SSI tongue-in-cheekly challenges you to find an earlier op-ed in which Mora's chances were put at zero.

Dr. D doesn't keep up with NFL football that much these days, but he was steeped in NFL playbooks back in the days of Csonka, Kiick and Always On the Run. He may have to gum his NFL-roto owners these days, rather than bite them, but his childlike intuition still sees its moments...

Sometimes, having the situation at arm's length (as Sandy does with the Mariners) can help you see the clearer, no?

=== Three Types of QB's, Dept. ===

Chuck Knox used to respond to complaints about Dave Krieg with, "Well, there are two types of quarterbacks. There are quarterbacks you can win with, and quarterbacks you can win because of."

"... I don't know where you to to get the hall of fame quarterback."

Dr. D is 100% sympathetic! to the idea of installing a quarterback who won't beat himself, and then coaching the rest of your team to win games around him. He always liked Trent Dilfer much more than other people did.

....

But there is a third type of quarterback: the type you lose because of.

=== Root Cause Dept. ===

Tarvaris Jackson does not have to throw INT's, does not have to show Krieg-slippery hands on fumbles, does not to make catastrophic blunders, to be this kind of QB. You lose because of Travaris Jackson, INT's or not, for the same reason that a baseball team loses with a teamwide .295 OBP. Its scoreboard never changes. The blunder rate is irrelevant.

Sort this 2010 QB's table by % of deep passes. Then consider Jackson's current rate of 11%.

And it's not just a stat. It reflects the fact that Jackson cannot come off his primary option to locate receivers who are more distant from him than, say, the pitcher's mound is from the batter's box.

It's one thing to be replacement level, as Blake Beavan is. It's a different thing to be far below replacement level, as Anthony Vazquez is. Tarvaris Jackson is well below replacement level. His continued deployment is a neon sign advertising that you have a light bulb gone verrrrry, very dark.

...

Dr. D was not by any means biased against Travaris Jackson. SSI assumed that TJ had been criticized unduly in Minnesota. Another Trent Dilfer type whose flaws are exaggerated far out of any proportion to their actual impact. NFL fans don't like Trent Dilfer (TM). Dr. D is okay with Trent Dilfer (TM), though. I always liked Dave Krieg.

...

It's fine to say that Pete Carroll has directed TJ (and Hasselbeck before him) to take a sack, rather than to risk an interception. The Bart Starr Packers played that way, about 2,000 years ago.

The fatal flaw is that Jackson can't see the field. That's all. In modern NFL football, you throw the ball down the field or you become a laughingstock.

=== CYWYNPWTP, Dept. ===

We asked, last week, how many current Seahawks could be here for their next Super Bowl - can you win your next pennant with Chris Clemons in the batter's box. Experts told us, "most of the O-Line, most of the defenders, and several of the receivers."

Fine -- the Hawks are a QB and a RB away from being a good team. Having watched three games, I'll even buy that.

But Pete Carroll's mistake aversion is way, wayyyyy over the Chuck Knox line of "barely-feasible coward's orientation." Carroll's cowardly mistake aversion is not within feasible boundaries.

Fans agree that TJ should be out of there, but SSI will reraise. Each game that TJ starts is incomprehensible, like starting Ian Snell with a backwards K/BB.

The Seahawks' D, offensive line and WR's play more than well enough to win with Charlie Whitehurst. Just tell the guy to throw it away more often, and get him in there. Whitehurst, with this team around him, could probably go on a roll.

.......

It's a weak division. The Seahawks are a 13-8 Bengal loss from leading it, at the lofty heights of 1-and-2. We sure wish that the Seahawks would develop some interest in winning the division.

BABVA,

Dr D

Comments

Yep...this team is unwatchable.

And a big part of it is Jackson...rather like the Mariners deploying Casey Kotchman to be their #3 hitter...that sort of thing can break your offense's back. The Seahawks are exactly like the 2011 Mariners of April...a few aging stars, some pieces that work in support of other pieces, but nothing around which to build a real offensive machine. The O-line is good, but you can't win with just an O-line. There are two good WRs...but that's rather like having two good leqad-off hitters. They give you options but can't score by themselves.
They need a QB, RB, FB, another two WR, a TE, and a couple of special teams guys with special speed to be a good offense...they're not just a QB or RB or even both...away from it.

To be honest...

...yesterday's win saddened me. I've already written off the season in favor of a drive toward Andrew Luck, who I view as a generational talent.
Why do you play a guy like TJ? So you can assemble as many other good pieces as possible, and still lose as many games as possible. We were handed yesterday's loss on a silver platter, and couldn't take it home. =)

I disagree. : )

Fans agree that TJ should be out of there, but SSI will reraise. Each game that TJ starts is incomprehensible, like starting Ian Snell with a backwards K/BB.

The choice here is Tarvaris or Charlie. Neither are acceptable solutions to win now. I'm not sure if you've directed your Frank-en-steeen goggles toward Charlie's starts but there's some glaring, game-losing flaws to his game as well. Unacceptable ones if you were looking to win now. It is not incomprehensible to start TJ because neither are good. To use your example, your choice would be starting either Ian Snell or Anthony Vazquez.

But Pete Carroll's mistake aversion is way, wayyyyy over the Chuck Knox line of "barely-feasible coward's orientation." Carroll's cowardly mistake aversion is not within feasible boundaries.

After watching Pete 1) cobble his team together and 2) call plays for a year I would disagree wholeheartedly with this line of reasoning. Changing over his roster as completely as he has takes [guts]. Have you ever fired a 6'8" 298 lb. angry human who's fighting for his family's well-being? After hiring him 3 weeks ago? How about doing that ad nauseum? That takes [guts]. Hiring your friend to be your long-term offensive coordinator only to fire him after one year? That takes [guts]. Going for it on fourth down? [Guts]. Pete is no coward.
What he is is afraid. He's playing scared. He's not loose. His frenetic energy has gone from the inspirational level to the manic level and it's reflected in his roster-building and play-calling. And it's rubbing off onto the players. Just watch them. It's plain. They're all playing scared.
His legacy at USC has been depth-charged to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. That means that, in his view, he's going to be judged by his peers by what he does here. The pressure must be intense.
Contrast against the Holmgren-era Hawks. Holmgren came in to a bad organization with his shiny rings, sniffed, and went about cooly (sometimes heatedly) remaking the organization toward his vision. His confidence, his belief in that singular vision gave the team the consistancy it needed to gel and obtain an identity.
Carroll's vision is constantly changing. He wants Knapp's offense/He wants to run more (contradictary). He wants Gibbs' zone run/He wants road graders (contradictary). He wants big cornerbacks/He wants cover 2 corners (not necessarily contradictary but probably the second most difficult thing to find in the NFL).
It has been said often that Pete will be judged by his next franchise quarterback. So he, reactionarily, obtains two back-ups hoping to bridge the gap until he can find it.
I like Pete Carroll. I love Win Forever (have you read it? It really is good.) But Scaredy-Pete, man, we can't win with him.

Is winning the goal right now?

I see this years team as one who understands they don't have a franchise quarterback with the chops to take this team deep into the playoffs. One who also sees the cost of a potential franchise as too prohibitive in the current market. This I think is different than the M's not paying $1.10 for the $1 player who could have helped push them over the top. Kevin Kolb went to the Cards, unproven, and cost $1.50 for the $1 chance at greatness. Will he lead Arizona to greatness for the next decade? Maybe, but I live in Phoenix and the attitude here is one of great concern already.
The Hawks management I think decided this was the year to get rid of everyone over 30. Sign good young (approaching thier prime) free agents who were available. And give the O line a year to develop while a QB we don't really care about takes the beating. Take our lumps for a year, draft a high potential QB early of which there seem to be a few in this draft.
As a fan, I'd stop watching the QB play (which makes the game easier to watch) and try to enjoy the young players developing. This year is all about setting up for the future. Hoping 1 or 2 bad years leads to a team that can compete for a title every year. I would rather have that then fumble along for a decade. Problem comes if they miss on the QB drafted.
I don't see the Hawks throwing games this year, pros always want to win. But management set it up for them to not be able to win the 50/50 games by turning the team over to TJ, instead of overpaying to bring a Hasselbeck back who could have pried a couple of wins out of a weak division.
As a fan, if this is the kind of team we're going to have, I'd just as soon lose this game 17-13, see some young players learn a few things, and get Andrew Luck in the draft. Doesn't do any good to have Luck though if that right side of the O line doesn't mesh.

Is he bad enough?

Death of a thousand cuts Tavaris Jackson is so risk averse we will never win with him, But I worry that combined with a pretty solid defense he's not going to be incompetent enough to get us that high draft pick we'll needed to get a real QB.
Thanks Doc, I'm glad others see the problem with the trade off Pete's making with tavaris.

Ya, I've watched Charlie Whitehurst

Including in the win over St. Louis late last year.
........
Supposing that Whitehurst were as unable to see the field as is Jackson, which he is not? You'd still be talking about a guy who has not had a chance, vs. a guy who has demonstrated himself unable to play in the NFL.
My analogy would be: Josh Wilson (TJ) vs Alex Liddi (Whitehurst).
.........
BUT if you grant the premise, that Charlie Whitehurst has demonstrated already that he should be out of the league, as TJ has --- > then I'll grant the validity of the conclusion. It doesn't much matter who starts.
Carroll may already have concluded that about Whitehurst, I guess.

The Punt theory is interesting

But I am skeptical that on the real-life sideline, you could find anybody (especially Carroll) willing to go through the things that 2-14 teams go through.
Easy to punt a roto team; much harder to punt your life, as it were.
....
If Carroll were *investing* the year in rebuilding, teaching young players to play, that would be one thing...

Pretty solid D ... and Qwest

CLink, whatever it is.
With QWest, and the team around him, there is no way that TJ can lose 14 games.
.....
In fact if you *actually* wanted to work 18-hour days for a year and live your life around a 2-14 record, then TJ is the very last QB you'd want in there.
Pete Carroll wasn't trying to win yesterday, by exchanging punts through the last quarter of a 13-10 lead?

Seattle Has Become The Land Of The Perennial Future

You've heard the slogan, "The Future Is Now!" The core idea of the slogan is to strengthen near-term expectations. The presumed context is a community that has enjoyed little recent success and has been conditioned to think that success lies in some remote future. The point is to assert that a prepared-for success is about to break upon the community. Now.
Seattle sports franchises have turned this on it's head. "Now Is The Future!" Presumably a verb of being in this construction functions like an equal sign, so that flipping the terms results in no change of meaning. In this case that is not so. We have now been conditioned for perennial rebuilding toward some glorioius future that is always just beyond the immediate horizon.
The implication is that conditions are just not right to have expectations now. There's always some array of preconditions that must be fulfilled and cannot be fulfilled any time soon. So the preconditions are being worked on. As soon as we get there, THEN AND ONLY THEN can we begin to expect success. In fact, if we expect the team to put a successful team on the field now we are accused of being impatient, stupid and counter-productive.
I don't mind this so much as a general theory, it's just that in it's specific application to Seattle sports teams it has become a way of life, a settled feature of the landscape.
What?! You expect us to actually win something?!
:cough:
:harrumph:
:glares:
Why, dear simpleton, dear fan, that is PRECISELY what we are PREPARING TO DO! Do you realize how DIFFICULT it is to win? Why, things must be DONE. GROUNDWORK must be laid. FINANCES PUT IN ORDER. We must first WORK THROUGH THE MISTAKES THE PAST HAS LEFT US.
The whole thing reminds me of French political and military leadership when the Germans launched their blitkrieg through the Ardennes in May of 1940. If you ever get the chance, read what Churchill wrote when he made emergency visits to his erstwhile allies during that month, finding that defeatism had permeated the highest leadership. In the French view, there were so many insurmountable problems that the task was too hard. The Germans were running through and around them so fast they simply could not stem the tide. Churchill was incredulous that a nation could simply give up so easily and accomodate itself to the will of its mortal enemy. In the end the German army took what used to be a proud, powerful country and pushed it over like a rotted tree.
It has become tremendously difficult to be a Seattle sports fan. Its as if the franchises we hold dear are unworthy of our loyalty. It makes you feel dirty somehow for continuing to give it.
The Seattle Seahawks have gone the route of the Seattle Mariners. Oh sure, in the parity NFL they may actually compete in a weak division and even win. But they have become a joke, and they remain a joke.
Pete Carroll? I admire his energy and effort, but I don't see him as the architect of perenially good team, one that must be reckoned with.
Jack Zduriencik? He inspires more confidence, but until his genius actually generates results in keeping with his reputation I remain unconvinced that the franchise itself will be able to ride him to the heights that it suggests.
My question: When Will "The Future Is Now!" again be our slogan?!

We have one big thing going for us

Geoff Baker, who gets 5,000 - 10,000 per vidcast, calls baloney on a nightly basis. And a message of truth has a tendency to proliferate.
SSI's got his back on that. Or we should say, you do, Daddy-O.

Baker Is Definitely a Plus

Having now become an out-of-towner again myself, I have the advantage of seeing Seattle sports through a different lens.
I was borderline embarrassed to be a Seattle fan of anything when I was there. Now I realize I shouldn't have even bothered worrying about that. To the nation, Seattle is irrelevant. I don't know which is worse, to be laughed at or forgotten.
At any rate, having Baker around will help, but I think it's still a long road to building fan expectations. It's fan expetations that drive the marketing arm of the product(s). If there is no real urgency, then the marketing of the product won't likely change much. I don't have the answers, because I know that most fans are not like those of us who invest time reading and contributing to forums and blogs.
Now if Baker can drag a few other area media with him, you might be on to something.