Hawk Tawk <g>
I guess it's time to eat a little crow.
The loss by the Seahawks to the Chargers was bad.
It almost appears as if Holmgren was outcoached.
Someone please ask the guy to make a promise: Never run the ball up the middle on 2nd and 10 late in the game when you've been averaging less than 3 yards a carry all day.
Someone bench Watters. 21 carries for 54 yards. He danced his way out of at least 2 potential breakaways. He never broke a tackle either, from what I saw. Someone needs to take him aside and say, "look, if you can't get 3.5 yards a carry at the bare minimum, you're going to sit."
Why does Ahman Green return kickoffs but has yet to take a handoff from Kitna out of the backfield. Why is Reggie Brown running only once or twice a game when the running backs coach says he's "as good as Jerome Bettis, with better hands?"
The Seahawks never went deep and when they finally did, on about a 25-yard throw downfield, it was picked and led to the 34-yard SD TD drive. The only other deep ball I saw was to a double-covered Mayes. Doesn't that mean Dawkins was single-covered on the other side? How come the 'Hawks don't get the single-coverage on Hawkins and go for the post up deep the way Minnesota did to Moss last year?
If they're so desperate to stretch the field, why doesn't Watters take off deep once in awhile? You'd think he'd have less than the best corner on him and might get open in the coverage mismatch. Knox used to run Curt Warner deep out of the backfield.
Man, this was a pathetic loss. It was a waste of a good defensive effort; I say "good" and not "great" because SD's #88 WR dropped a few balls which would have made the game worse for the 'Hawks, not to mentioned the overthrown halfback pass which was a sure TD. If nothing else, everyone saw what a ball-hawking secondary we have; 11 interceptions so far.
We may not be missing Galloway specifically but we're missing outside speed. What matchup mismatches I can think of that they could generate... they've not tried.
Some of us are already calling for Holmgren's head. I don't envy him but he's got to be just a wee bit better than 3-2. I guess we're just getting greedy here after one of the NFL's longest droughts.
They had a chance to become top 5 NFL material but now they're back firmly in the middle of the pack, probably somewhere around 13th or 14th. We won't be able to get excited about them for another 2 or 3 weeks at a minimum.
Let me close by saying that yes, if the Seahawks played the Rams today they would lose, 41-13. The NFC is looking like a Rams/Redskins battle is somewhere on the playoff horizon.
****
In the AFC West, the division itself picked up two nice wins yesterday, perhaps shifting the balance of power a bit. The Raiders regrouped and ran over the number 1-ranked Buffalo run defense. The Broncos ground GB into the turf. Did anyone see that McCaffrey highlight were he broke the heck out of that GB defender's tackle, down by the goal line? The Seahawks don't have any receivers like that capable of breaking tackles. SD has 3 of them. Yes, if SD had a decent QB they would really be dangerous.
Anyway, the Oakland win over Buff gives the West more credibility against the East in the AFC, and the Broncos' win gives what I believe is a 2-game edge at this point to the AFC West over the NFC Central in the season series.
FWIW
Andy |
