=== First Quarter ===
... it looked like Matt Hasselbeck had just spent two years in the pokey, throwing down-and-outs against Big Poppa Meathead and the skinhead crew. Maybe he'd broken code on correct speech and gotten sent to a gulag, I dunno. But it looked like he hadn't picked up a football in a decade.
At any rate, Hass's field vision was nothing but a rumor, and not twice but four separate times, he threw the ball toward receivers under the premise that Ram defenders wouldn't mind. They minded, and at the end of the first quarter, Hasselbeck had thrown two picks, thrown another pass for a completion and fumble*, and his chances of finishing the day with a 100.0 quarterback rating depended mainly on the ABSOLUTE VALUE function in Excel.
What a three quarters he had, to actually get to the 100 mark on the day. He went 20-for-27 for 211 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions after the early Chuckles the Clown act.
.
=== Offensive Line ===
Absent their two best players, Mora's crew proved that they were deep and talented, as opposed to ragtag and ad hoc.
Hasselbeck consistently had plenty of space and comfort when delivering his intermediate passes, and didn't worry a lot when throwing the deeper balls to Carlson, either. Zero sacks, and I don't particularly remember a solid hit after a throw, either.
When Julius Jones can ramble for 19-117, even against the Rams, and you're playing your #3-#7 linemen, that's pretty sweet.
Surprised the stuffing out of me. Maybe it's the zone blocking.
.
=== Passing ===
I actually liked seeing all of the touches go to Burleson (7-74), Carlson (6-95), and Housh (6-48). Nobody else had more than one catch, except Jones, with two swing passes.
The intermediate game had a nice easy rhythm to it, and Hasselbeck proved that Holmgren's absence means little to him at this point in his career. Thanks for the passing system, Mike. Don't let the HOF door hit yer on the way in.
.
=== Running ===
There have been some amazing arguments on Seahawk sites over whether Julius Jones is an "average" (solid; effective) runner of the football.
Suffice it to say, that I don't think much of Jones' effectiveness in running the football. Even today's 19-117 effort, if you substitute (say) a 12-yard gain for his 62-yard pop against the feeble Rams, then Jones is 19-67 and we aren't raving.
And Edge was 11-30, so let's not make the running game out to be fxied just yet. They were one bustout away from a 30-100 day against a poor defense.
Still, with an injured offensive line, the Hawks did a surprising job of smashmouth three-four yards, keeping the Rams honest. Good show.
.
=== Knapp ===
Dr. D was petrified that Knapp's crazy run of top-10 rushing offenses was going to mean that he would dry-dock the West Coast in favor of a hapless, stubborn 500-attempt running scheme.
Three possessions in and Dr. D was smiling. The Hawks were actually in shotgun a lot of the time. They passed to set up the run, not vice versa, and were totally unpredictable from down-to-down. The double-lateral* to Seneca Wallace underlined Knapp's creativity.
As Knapp put it earlier, he and Mora are about exploiting their best athletes. It may actually turn out that Holmgren was more stubborn and predictable than Knapp is -- and that Knapp will fulfill the wild fantasies and "teach the Seahawks a running game" to go with their passing.
The game just couldn't have gone better from an offensive-schemes point of view.
.
=== Key Player: John Carlson ===
On TV, they mentioned that they'd asked the Rams what they had in mind for Carlson. "He's not Tony Gonzalez," they sneered. "Whoever covers him will cover him."
Or not cover him, I guess. The Hawks started one drive at their 29 and two swings of Hasselbeck's arm later, whoever was covering Carlson was on the waiver wire. As Carlson thundered across the goal line, the nearby Ram didn't even bother trying to stick him going in. Fear and common sense, y'know.
Carlson represents legit matchup problems and Hass is the right man to get him the ball. He's liable to wind up with 80+ catches if they keep overplaying Housh.
The Seahawks have created a genuine Pick-Your-Poison situation with their receivers. The chess match will be intriguing.
.
=== Exec Sum ===
446 yards, 25 first downs, and 28 points in three quarters. It's back to 2007, boys.
Ken Griffey Jr. predicted a three-touchdown Seahawk win. He was wrong. :- )
Cheers,
Dr D
Didn't get to watch most of the game, but what I did watch was fun to see.
Let's see how they play against a REAL NFL team before we get too excited. To borrow a Vin Scully appellation, the Rams played like the Little Sisters Of The Poor.
Saw the game live (first time in a couple years, saved up for a $65 nosebleed seat...)
While it wasn't pretty in the beginning, both sides of the ball got it going in the second half.
And while it is true that the Rams are not very good, they played hard through the first half, but were just beaten down by a good team. The defense was stingy and hard-hitting (curry and wilson were standouts, and even jackson came to play), the offense was out of sync mostly and still put up 28 (they should have put up 40), special teams looked good with Mare booming touchback after touchback...
I think they had a good first game, crowd was wild wild wild, as usual.
Mostly, they controlled the line of scrimmage all day, both sides of the ball. Win the line of scrimmage, win the game.
tb26
That'll be fairly real. At least the kickoff and first drive, I'll be pumped. :- )
Millen was asked, what would have happened if the Rams hadn't had a penalty on the FG block and the half was 7-7?
Millen's reply, halftime would have been chaotic -- but the longer you play, the more the better team emerges.
Seattle had a yardage edge of like 420-130 halfway through the 4th.
They are a legit player on the field. I remember a 3rd-and-1 in Seahawks territory that became a 3rd-and-11. That is yardage in the scorebook and it is points on the scoreboard. Wow.
Yeah, I heard that question (and 20 others in the same tone)...
They wouldn't have HAD a blocked field goal without the penalty...they had 12 guys, all bull-rushing up the middle. It would have been a miracle if the DIDN'T block it. They knew it immediately too, as most of the defensive players stayed right there by the original line of scrimmage all through the review and before. The crowd was confused, but the players were clearly aware of it. It wasn't a block, and it wasn't a 14-point swing. It was a penalty. It WAS a 4-point gain though, with the first down on penalty erasing a sure 3-pointer, and then Hass rocked the house again!
I think a very good game is in store next week. I will be watching Curry and Wilson on every defensive play for sure...
Go Hawks!
TB
Actually means that the Seahawks are favored to win the game by 2 points. Las Vegas usually gives the home team a "Free" 3 points so to speak. So if you are the home team and are favored by less than 3 then you are actually the inderdog ;)
Are you saying that you could cakewalk to a profit each year just by betting 100% road?
I'm not countering you - just curious. That's the first time I've heard the three-points thing.
.............
Your general point is well taken, that the Seahawks are a good solid 50% this weekend. Should be 900 kinds of fun.
...you can't get a profit by betting all road teams because home teams win 54% of their games, even in football. That's why the oddsmakers give the home team a 3-point edge on their spread. Because the average home team wins by 3 points.
If betting on all road games was a sure thing, wouldn't everyone be doing it, at least until the bookies were fired? ;)
What he meant was that the Seahawks would be favored by 2 on a neutral field but San Fran is favored by one in this game because they have home field advantage. If it were played in Seattle then the 'Hawks would be favored by five (if they are credited with the same 3 point home field edge as other teams which isn't necessarily the case; with the reputation of that stadium they might get a slightly larger one).
One of us is missing the point here :- )
The home field in the NFL has got to be worth a lot more than 3. If the Niners are -1 at home they'd be like +4 neutral field.
Oobie was saying, or we thought he was saying, that in reality the Seahawks will probably win in San Francisco, but that the oddsmakers give 3 to split the bettors who like home teams.
I'm blown away that the home field is only considered to be worth 3.
No...when the odds say -1, that means the Vegas spread is actually +2 in a neutral field nd would be +5 if the Hawks were home. IOW, -1 means that San Fran is favored by 1 point...but that's because there are 3 points given to them for being a home team and the actual odds in a neutral field would be +2 to the Hawks...or +5 if they were home (roughly).