Despite losing Zac Miller, Robert Gallery, John Moffit for a brief period, and Russell Okung for a brief period the fact that the O-line looked light years better than it had in the first two games is the most heartening thing to me. Carpenter got schooled on a few plays but mostly held his own. You may remember Aikman making it a point of saying that the right side was Seattle's strongest side on their O-line.
The penalties, though, AARGH the penalties are killing me. I must be spoiled by Holmgren's non-acceptance of offensive penalties. I know this is a young team but, man, those penalties cost us.
I'm not terriby concerned about the turnovers, I view them as mostly flukey. If Robinson and Lynch start to show that they'll consistantly put the ball on the ground then I'll start to worry. They haven't yet, though, so...
Bye to heal up and then off to the less gristly part of the schedule. As you would say, eyes slideways.
....
Q. Wow, 8 receptions, 136 yards, unfriendly environment, money game.
A. Reminds me of Steve Largent as a rookie. No pre-hype, no special emphasis towards him in the playbook. Just catches all over the field, from game one, and "who is this guy?"
One bona fide Doug Fister find, if it's out of nowhere, can take an org several yards forward. Doug Baldwin is making a whale of a difference for the 2011 Seahawks.
.
Q. Were the Seahawks just lucky to get Doug Baldwin?
A. A team brings a great college football coach into the NFL, it gains one huge advantage: that coach is a specialist in the current college player pool. The Seahawks gained a two-year grace period in which Carroll's value grabs are going to better than other people's.
The NFL figured that Baldwin was small, and that he was succeeding because of playing with a legendary NCAA quarterback (Andrew Luck). Pete Carroll, however, coached against Baldwin in the Pac-12, obviously watched film on him, and took a deeper look at Baldwin.
Other coaches didn't see the quickness and separation, and didn't perceive Baldwin's talent for finding open spots. They didn't have the time. Carroll evidently had insight that others didn't.
.
Q. Is there really such a thing as "feel for getting open" in zone coverage?
A. You can compare it to court vision in basketball. ... Every pro sees the plays, and anticipates them. But a few players (Steve Nash, Larry Bird, Chris Paul, Jason Kidd) have an extra notch, see things one micro-tick earlier. They see the back cut one stride sooner.
In soccer, Didier Drogba sees the bounce of the ball just a bit earlier than other pro players.
Troy Aikman, on the Giants broadcast, stated that Doug Baldwin has the "court vision" of a 5th-year player. Cool.
.
Q. What is the mainframe's read on Baldwin's sustainability?
A. In They Call Me Assassin, Jack Tatum argued that the entire passing battle is about a receiver's willingness to take a hit. "If a receiver is willing to go into the middle, to catch the ball and to take a blow, he will be effective."
If the physical pain does not "warp a player's will to win," as Tatum put it, then a defense is essentially powerless to stop completions in the middle of the field. I agree with Tatum, pretty much. A quick, truly fearless, receiver is going to be able to get open in the center of the action. He's got room there.
Baldwin is accused of having "a Napoleon complex" -- a resentment of short jokes that makes him mean. Napoleon complexes last approximately .... a man's entire life. Baldwin will probably die with the same chip on his shoulder that he has now.
.
Q. So he's for real? The coefficient of confidence is what?
A. He's got a surprising academic record, he's got extra-class tools in terms of quickness, he's got the makeup.
He's been the INADVERTENT go-to receiver on 3rd down, from the first game of the year. The Seahawks didn't schedule him for 3rd-down recepts. He got them because he's good.
Some receivers are making yardage because the system emphasizes them. Baldwin made yardage because the cream rises to the top. Considering that the cream rose to the top beginning in Game One, it looks like a real player here.
Steve Largent did that. A 7th-round pick, Largent racked up tons of NFL catches beginning in game one. It wasn't the system; it was him.
...
Doug Baldwin is for real, coefficient of confidence 0.85. He might not be the best receiver in the NFL -- but a surprise no-cost-to-you Doogie add certainly moves the chains on your rebuild.
Rice, Baldwin and Co. have transformed the look of the Seahawks' offense, maybe not from okay to good, but from "unbearable" to "interesting," anyway.
.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
And, at the risk of sounding like a bad fan, the downside if the winning is the prospect of perpetual mediocrity. Not bad enough to get an elite QB prospect, not good enough to win anything of consequence. Personally, I think its almost impossible to win without an elite QB, and the odds in snaring the next Rodgers looks long, the chances of aligning the stars to win with 2000 Ravens defense-esque looks even longer to me. What would you do, Doc? Rooting for losses isn't very enjoyable. Though, I really enjoyed rooting for Tyrone to lose another game in 2008. Horrible human and a worse FB coach.
During that pre-season, it looked like we were an Okung ankle away from a 1997 M's Bullpen situation...
Jackson and Whitehurst had time to plant, step, and look for a heartbeat or even two, almost every play ...
And Beast Quake had the kind of room he needs in order to get that inertia pointed North and South...
Last two games, the Seahawks have traded bare-knuckle punches even steven with two legit contenders.
In a way, this is the most fundamental, 30,000-foot-view question hanging over Carroll's tenure.
Aaron Rodgers was taken 24th, Tom Brady went in the 6th round and Kurt Warner wasn't drafted. There are lots of guys who became top quarterbacks who weren't hyped up on draft day.
Must admit I am proud to have the Stanford Cardinal representing in the the 206.
The poor open field tackling by the Seahawks linebackers is killing me. Aaron Curry reminds me of Nuke LaLoosh in Bull Durham. Early in the movie Crash Davis dares Nuke to throw a fastball at his head and Nuke misses by a mile -- if I have to see Aaron Curry try to blow-up another runner only to whiff and see him make an extra 8 yards because he failed to wrap him up with good technique... *sigh*.
LOL on the Nuke :- )
Would somebody explain to me why Curry isn't a speed-rushing defensive end? Seems to me like he should have his hand on the ground at the snap. Richard Dent was smaller than Curry, right?
Don't doubt that there's a reason, but would like to hear what it is.
.......
Failing that, an MLB "thumper" on running downs?
........
Obviously Pete Carroll would have thought of that. Just asking.
At the end of last season, Curry played with his hand on the ground on obvious passing downs (the bandit package, I think it's called), but I don't think he has been so far.
I think he has very rudimentary pass rushing moves, but I say that as a parrot, not based on personal observation or opinion (I like reading fieldgulls).
But Brady was the flukiest of flukes. HOF QB and 6th round don't go together very often.
I think hoping to hit the jackpot on an UDFA or 6th round pick is even longer odds than drafting in the top of he first round.
His physical gifts and feel for the game couldn't be farther apart. The guy is such a specimen, but the game never slowed down for him. "...looks like Tarzan ,plays like jane."
Sure Largent could find the open seams in the zone but that's like comping a young pitcher to Clemens because he can throw a curveball. That wasn't Largent's true weapon.
Largent's true skill was his ability to destroy man coverage with 8 second forty speed. He did it with legendary precision and a hall of fame head fake. If Largent's head fake were a slide step in baseball, opposing runners would crouch with one foot on the bag like little kids playing Tee ball.
Baldwin has way more speed than Largent. Speed underneath is more of a comp to Wes Welker. And that's nothing to sneeze at.
... except in the sense that Baldwin has come out of nowhere with the type of early impact that suggests staying power.
Stylistically, no, two wideouts couldn't be more dissimilar than Baldwin and Largent.
At SSI, it's important to make sure that you understand an author's position before rebuffing it. This isn't a typical sports chat board; we discuss sports topics thoughtfully and with respect for alternative viewpoints.
If I were annoyed at the presumption, I'd point out that two wideouts couldn't be more dissimilar than Welker and Baldwin, either; Welker runs a 4.7 forty and, though small, plays like a big receiver, almost a tight end. Baldwin doesn't play like a big receiver, not at all.
But I'm not annoyed, so I won't point that out.