Seahawks Insider

Answers to your questions, vol. 65

Post by News Tribune Staff on Nov. 30, 2006 at 7:04 pm with 50 Comments »
November 30, 2006 7:04 pm

My absolute favorite comment of the day comes from the guy comparing me to Skip Bayless because I didn’t pick the Seahawks to win in Denver. Unfortunately, in doing my research on Seattle’s chances in the Mile High city, I could not find the game story we ran in the paper the last time the Seahawks won there. I’m thinking it got thrown out with the “Crimson Tide” laserdisc that came out about the same time. …


I had a “feeling” Seattle might lose in SF a couple weeks back, but I could not logically justify picking the 49ers, so the Hawks were the pick. This week the feeling says the Hawks will win this game in Denver, but logic compelled me to take the Broncos. I should just say that every week so I’m covered.


Darrell Jackson has had cartilage damage and cartilage loss in his knee. That makes it degenerative by definition, I think. Perhaps a doctor can confirm. …


Raolyn13: I’d have to look at the DL play again to answer your question about Rocky Bernard and the DT play against the Packers. …


We frequently get requests to pick games against the spread. I do pick a final score for every game in our newspaper coverage. I can start making the scores available on the blog if time permits. I have no idea what my record would be against the spread. It’s true that anyone can have a decent record straight-up, but I try to get into the 70s percentage-wise, and that is not a given. …


PapaHawk is right on how the OL would shake out based on various injuries. Gray could go to center, Womack to RG, Sims to LG. Locklear could play either tackle spot if healthy. Womack could play right tackle (he has played left before but I’m not sure they would want to try that).

Leave a comment Comments → 50
  1. Snugglson says:

    Did i miss vol. 65?

  2. andelero says:

    Skip Bayless is a hilarious gasbag, although that’s probably not what he’s going for. Or maybe it is, hard to tell.

    I haven’t seen anyone on ESPN pick the Hawks for this game. I’ll be mildly surprised if they win, but I think they should.

  3. I fully expect them to lose this game. They just don’t match up well against the Broncos.

  4. I hate to say it, but I’d never put money on the Hawks to win this week

  5. Doc_Bucket says:

    I expect them to lose, yes. But I’m still going to be crabby as heck if they do, cuz it’s going to be another heartbreaker if they do.

    Run the football.

    That is all, carry on.

  6. andelero: I believe that skip bayless was a actors double in the movie broke back mountain.

  7. djbargelt says:

    Hawks 20, Denver 10

  8. Andelero, so far there are 3 ESPN experts that have picked the game and 2 have picked the Hawks, those being Golic and Allen.

  9. PhilKenSebben says:

    I would be shocked by a win sunday night.

    first of all, its a night game in Denver, We don’t have John Friez or Christian Fauria and i have to watch that pathetic “Sunday Night Football” on NBC, (The Only game that you have to see, don’t need a ticket, all you need is a TV..)

    AAAAHHHHHHH!!! I hate this new TV package.

  10. ross_hanratty2 says:

    5 of the 6 cbs sportsline experts picked the hawks too…

    i think the reasons are, rookie quarterback, hawks have some mo getting hass and alexander back and they may be due for a nice road win.

    my gut tells me though that the seattle defense is going to find some way to make jay cutler look like the reincarnation of john elway.

  11. ross_hanratty2 says:

    on a side note…can anyone now that we are on sunday night football again, explain what nbc was thinking with that ridiculous opening performed by pink…do they honestly think that nfl fans are down with that? that opening is as bad as an enterprise rental car (a la “looking good moose”) commercial.

  12. I can tell you why some national people would take the Hawks. They watch from afar, see Alexander have a big game and think the Seahawks are right back to their 2005 form. They might be right, but those of us who monitor the team closely are aware of other issues the team faces.

  13. andelero says:

    I was just going by the TV I watched today, not the Expert’s Picks on ESPN.com (which I haven’t seen yet). Golic was out sick today so I didn’t hear what he had to say. Not that any of that counts for two hoots anyway–I just wasn’t seeing a lot of confidence in the Hawks.

    One thing that is a little concerning is that the Broncos will have had ten days to stew, scheme, and heal, and the Hawks are on both a short week and traveling.

    But if the playoffs are going to be fruitful, the Seahawks need to start imposing their will this month. This is one they need to win.

  14. Dukeshire says:

    I would agree with Mike’s assessment with regards to the “talking heads”. ross_hanratty2: tremendous refrence, thanks for the laugh. Hank Jr. opening is nearly as bad.

  15. PhilKenSebben says:

    I love Hank Williams Jr.

    The same song for 15 years, with minor changes, of course.

    I am always prepared for a contest of American professional football.

    NBC was trying to be more contemporary, but ended up looking silly.

    also “Football night in America” is a joke.

  16. seahawkfan says:

    I had written this game off from the start. Little did I know we would lose to Minnesota and SF. BUT the Hawks are underdogs in a national game so maybe…they just don’t have homefield. Maybe they can put Rufus Porter in and have a good show.

  17. ross_hanratty2 says:

    couldn’t agree more philkensebben about football night in america being a joke…there highlights take FOREVER, and it’s dreadful to listen to bettis and cris collinsworth blather on and on…

    espnnews is the only way to go…they get through the highlights quick and to the point. and they leave the dramatic olympic theme music out of it.

  18. andelero says:

    At the risk of reigniting the Jerramy Stevens dither (which is absolutely not on my list), did anyone watch Seahawks All-Access tonight on FSN?

    During their “Sights and Sounds” segment they showed the first big shot that Stevens took over the middle (Manuel?). Then they cut to a camera behind the bench where Hasselbeck and Stevens are side-by-side, after punting.

    Matt leans over and says a couple of sentences to Stevens, but the only part I can catch is at the end when he says “…probably going to get drilled when you catch it.”

    Did anyone understand the rest of it?

  19. lemonverbena says:

    if memory serves, Chris Warren rumbled a screen pass through the snow in Mile High for the winning score back in ’95… therefore, because they won last week in their first snow game at home, the Hawks are destined to break their Denver streak and win this one.

    easy-peezy, japanezse.

  20. elgranderojo says:

    I understand the Hawks have their issues heading into this game, but alas so do the Broncos.

    1)Rookie QB (first regular season game)
    2)Backup left tackle (starter out for the year)
    3)Starting SS out for the year
    4)Starting RB turf toes on both feet (possibly healed, but doubtful)
    5)The backup RBs not doing anything to help the ground game.

    I think the only two things the Broncos do have going for them is the wildcard of a new QB (which usually isn’t a good thing) but in this case he might be better than Plummer and the other is they have had a couple of extra days.

    I guess we are both dysfunctional and we’ll see who is receiving better counseling by who wins on the field. Personally I’ll take the counselor who looks like a Teddy Bear (or maybe a Walrus) rather than the guy who has a permanant fake and bake tan and hasn’t done a damn thing without Elway.

  21. elgranderojo says:

    I just that read that bit about joint degeneration… that pretty much sucks.

  22. doubledink says:

    Hawks should win, but no film on Cutler worries me.
    Ground games will decide this one by giving the team with the successful running game the liberty to throw when they want to not when they have to.

  23. I’ll stand by my Seahawks pick until the D lets me down again. I’m thinking they won’t do that though. They’ve dropped the ball too many times this season…they will be well aware that all eyes are on them from here on out. Tatum Bell looks like he will be back, so things might not go as easily as everyone would expect considering Denver’s last two games.

    Other Picks

    ESPN Picks: As mentioned, only Theismann, Allen & Golic have made selections, although the got everyone to pick for last night. I do know I can do better over a season than any of these gomers…the best of them is averaging less than 10 correct per week. “Experts Picks”? ;-p

    CBS Picks: Everyone other than Harmon (the current leader in picks) picked us, however they choose against the spread…so they might just be expecting us to lose by 2 rather than win outright.

    FOX/Simpsons: Lisa Simpson picked Denver based on a traumatic rookie experience she had when she was young. Don’t look at me, I don’t write this stuff.

    HBO Host Picks: Carter & Collinsworth for Denver. Marino & Costas for Seattle. Can’t say as I respect any of the four of them when it comes to picks.

    I didn’t see anything regarding picks at NBC Sports. Didn’t much like the site at all, really.

  24. boz5630 says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Denver run a 3-4? That defense gives the Hawks big problems.

  25. jzulaski says:

    Take away Hasselbeck’s ints from the last game and he looked pretty sharp for being out for a month. I have a feeling he’s going to get hot in Denver.

    And the OL is looking better as is the running game. I think it’s starting to gel. They have something to prove.

    Defense was getting better but our offense needs to do well to give them a breather. That was covered ad-nauseum on Monday night.

    I dunno, I just have this feeling that Seattle is going to surprise the hell out of a lot of people this week and dominate this game on Sunday.

    Probably the sounds of a die-hard Hawks fan but… I’m right sometimes (see last year). For years I told my step-sons that “this was the Hawks year to go to the SB”. Last year, I was finally right.

    Z

  26. crehling says:

    Steve Young said something insightful about the Seahawks after the Monday night game. Yes, I said Steve Young. He said that more than most teams the Seahawks are totally dependent on each part of their team clicking. While teams like the Bears can get by almost completely by defense and teams like Indy and Cincy can get by almost complete with their offence. Seattle needs it’s passing game to work to set up its run game. It needs it’s running game to work to keep the defense off the field. The defense needs to keep off the field as it is smaller and relies on speed, and will get beat up over the course of the game if the offense doesn’t spell them. It seemed like a reasonably informed comment, but then again I had just watched ESPN for about 8 straight hours and anything that wasn’t idiotic sounded good to me by then.

  27. tmcclurkan says:

    I had initially looked at this game as a loss when the season came out, and the Hawks’ inconsistency, particularly on the road, has done nothing to dissuade that line of thinking. Throw in the wildcard of a rookie QB making his first start (Cutler has the whole package, no doubt, but the first game he could struggle or he could look like Marino), and the recent struggles the Broncos have had both offensively and defensively, and you have to think the Hawks have a chance.
    Gut tells me we will start to get our swagger back in this game, and win 27-20.

  28. reshumate says:

    Only pessimists and “bad on the road this year” theorists think we will lose this game. All other signs point to a win.

  29. tezzer21 says:

    All of the stats, analysis and voodoo from the so-called experts don’t mean that much at this point in the season. As we saw in SF, it has more to do with emotions and confidence and keeping their cool. If the Hawks really want to win this one, there’s nothing to stop them. This is not the John Elway Broncos…they absolutely can be beat (remember the Rams beat them early this year). Throw away all the logical thinking and analysis and just get jacked up! We all need to just get jacked up! GO SEAHAWKS. I think they will surprise us!

  30. albanyhawker says:

    hey Regis…how’d you manage to get clickable links in your comment? is this site now accepting the ahref tag?

  31. PapaHawk says:

    Both teams have a lot to prove. History says the Broncos win most their games at home. History says the Hawks lose most of their games in Denver. The Hawks have the mojo factor working for them, plus the x-factor in special teams.

    My gut says the Hawks rally a strong performance and win…but they are playing in Denver, on Sunday night, against a team with a lot to prove.

    Do people really watch “Football Night in America” to see Pink? Or Hank Williams? They both suck. But I actually liked the old Tim McGraw halftime “highlights” to that song of his…it made me keep the TV on during halftime.

  32. aelliott11 says:

    Only pessimists and “bad on the road this year” theorists think we will lose this game. All other signs point to a win.

    That’s funny. So it’s pessimistic to point out that
    A) The Broncos have had 10 days to prepare
    B) The Hawks are on a short week + travel + MNF letdown
    C) The Broncos are in a desperate fight in the AFCW
    D) The Hawks are piss poor on the road this year
    E) The Hawks run defense has been awful against a team with a good O-line and a strong RB
    F) The Hawks pass defense is spotty at best
    G) The Broncos have a good offensive line, a downhill running back (licking his chops thinking about Seahawk tacklers), and a WCO passing game
    H) Seattle sports (ALL sports) are notorious for making rookies look like HoF candidates
    I) The entire NFC has been poor against the AFC

    Other than that, all signs point to a Hawks win.

  33. tribemm says:

    If we could reliably measure each team’s motivation, momentum and the amount the players and coaches are underestimating their opponent (call it smugness or over-confidence) we would have great predictor of winners, IMO.

    The Seahawks are motivated to prove they are legitimate contenders. They have momentum with Matt and Shaun back, and a win over Brett Favre and the Packers. The Seahawks will not underestimate the Broncos as they did the 49ers.

    The Broncos are motivated. Their momentum is very low with a two game losing streak, but it is moderated slightly with the optimism of having a new QB. They are more likely than not to underestimate the Seahawks and overestimate their home-field advantage. Their fans may be ready to turn against them.

    I am confident in a Seahawks win this week.

  34. Looks like it will be colder than last week at game time, but no precip predicted. I predict either a 27-24 or 24-20 game, could go either way, but the way the Broncs have injuries and a rookie QB, I give the edge to the Hawks. The Broncos may be motivated, but that hasn’t helped them the last couple weeks when playing AFC West rivals, which were HUGE games for them. I say this is probably the week their backs get broken and they fall toward the Raiders for 3rd in the division.

  35. D_Master says:

    The defense will struggle against Denver, which is why the offense must stay on the field. A wise man once told me: The seahawk defensive struggles comes from their offense not staying on the field.”

  36. “A) The Broncos have had 10 days to prepare”

    there are both upsides and downsides to this…

    “B) The Hawks are on a short week + travel + MNF letdown”

    What is a MNF letdown? and isn’t that rather redundant when stating “short week”?

    “C) The Broncos are in a desperate fight in the AFCW”

    the seahawks are in a desperate fight in the NFC; i’m sure they would like home game(s) in the playoffs. i think it’s inaccurate to state motivation is more important to one team than the other…

    “D) The Hawks are piss poor on the road this year”

    again with the redundancy thing.. didn’t you already cite “travel” above? are you that desperate to back up your opinion?

    “E) The Hawks run defense has been awful against a team with a good O-line and a strong RB”

    but they are playing Denver, which is neither at this time with a gimp running back and injuries to the o-line. the broncos only avg 12ypg more than seattle so far this year.. if you were an opponent, would you be afraid of seattle’s running game?

    also this is going to be dictated by how seattle’s offense responds. if they can score early, the opponents running game becomes a non-issue, and denver will have to rely on a rookie QB.

    “F) The Hawks pass defense is spotty at best”

    vs a rookie QB? seems at best a tossup to me… and denver’s passing game is not exactly fearsome (26th in the league) and now you add a rookie QB

    “G) The Broncos have a good offensive line, a downhill running back (licking his chops thinking about Seahawk tacklers), and a WCO passing game”

    they have a RB with 2 turf toes who hasn’t played in awhile, a replacement who hasn’t done much, and a backup tackle which has required them to keep the tight end in for pass protection…

    “H) Seattle sports (ALL sports) are notorious for making rookies look like HoF candidates”

    wow.. not THAT’s a relevant stat!

    “I) The entire NFC has been poor against the AFC”

    denver’s winning % vs NFC this year is .000 (0-1); seattle’s is .500 (1-1). does that mean anything? no, but it’s at least as relevant as your point….

    i am not sure how much Cutler will help; it’s not as if his presence will make Denver’s problems magically go away. he will face the same issues as Plummer has: Tatum Bell’s toe injuries have left the running game average, their starting left tackle is out for the season limiting the times Denver can send a tight end downfield because he’s needed for protection. Walker has had a very good season, but Rod Smith has definately lost a step.

    Champ Bailey is all world, but he can only cover 1 receiver/1 part of the field; the other CB is avg. at best, evidenced by the fact that denver’s pass defense is worse than seattle’s (albeit by a narrow margin).

  37. aelliott11 says:

    Cainam – all good counter points (albeit a bit argumentative). I was putting together a laundry list of things simply to illustrate one point: it’s not pessimistic nor is it short-sighted to expect this to be a tough game. Not all signs point to a Hawks win. They have a lot of things going in their favor, there are a lot of question marks.

    I think anyone who thinks this is an automatic W for the Hawks is delusional. Likewise, I think anyone who is certain of defeat is also delusional. Hate to ride the fence like that, but the facts are that this is going to be a very tough game and I could easily see us winning, and easily see us losing.

    My point was simply that it isn’t pessimistic to look at all the factors and question if the Seahawks can win or not.

    But thanks for refuting every single one of my items. Kind of like a message board. That was fun.

  38. Mike what were the terms of the trade with Phillly for Parry?

    I’ve looked and looked and can’t find more than it was for a 2008 draft pick, Was the trade conditional on him playing or staying healthy? What from what round was the pick? Has the trade now been voided because Parry went on IR?

  39. Nice debate on the game. Mile High is one of the toughest places for a visiting team to win no matter what the state of the Broncos is. I don’t know what their winning percentage is at home over the past 10 years but it has to be high.

    The Broncos are not a balanced team, they have a weak offense and a strong defense. We are the opposite so it is strength against strength and weakness against weakness. As wierd as it sounds I think our defense is better than their offense.

    Denver is not the type of running team that has given us problems this year. We have struggled against big backs and big physical offensive lines. Denver has an average size back (either one of the Bells) and a smaller offensive line. Our small quick defensive players should match up reasonably well against this unit.

  40. drmossguy says:

    RUN THE FOOTBALL.

  41. nighthawk2 says:

    lemonverbena, I was at the game in 95 (December 10th), lived there for 20 months. There was no snow, but yes, Chris Warren got the winning TD. John Friez started the 2nd half over Mirer and led us the biggest comeback in Seahawks history, from 20-3 half time defeceit to victory. I’ll never forget that game.

  42. aelliott11,

    i must’ve missed the context; i thought you were being overly pessimistic.

    i think it’s a tough game to call. denver playing at home is never a cakewalk. it all depends on which seahawk team show up to play.

    my head says denver @ home, but my gut tells me seattle shows up with emotion and pulls an upset. if i were a betting man, i’d take the ‘hawks +4 ;)

  43. andelero says:

    One of the problems trying to pick this game is that the Seahawks are at a pivot point. They’re just now getting the offense together and we simply haven’t seen enough of it to make a prediction on where it will go from here (“here” being the second half of the Packers game).

    However, I expect we’ll have a much clearer picture after only seven or eight minutes into the game Sunday night.

  44. mustangjss says:

    I don’t think the exact details to the Parry trade were ever released, generally its a snaps type of thing, so if Parry played a certain amount of snaps the Eagles would then get the conditional draft pick, most likely a 7th round pick.

  45. eatayork says:

    I think Denver’s injuries hurt them more than the Hawks’ injuries hurt us.

    Two other 1st round 2006 picks have had debuts this season: Young lost, so did Leinart.

    Hawks are undefeated with Alexander and Hasselbeck both in the lineup.

    Solid play on the frozen tundra of Qwest Feild Monday night.

    I haven’t lost a bet on the Seahawks this year.

    These are all reasons why the Hawks will win come Sunday.

  46. tribfan1 says:

    You didn’t have to go on a feeling to pick San Fran at home against the Hawks with Seneca at QB. You didn’t need to use your gut, just a little critical thinking.

  47. AlbanyHawk: Sorry…didn’t see the question. Yes, the href tags are working (I just viewed source to see what Sando was doing ;).

    San Fran did a good job exploiting us at a bad time. They got lucky on turnovers, which allowed them to go heavy with the run. When that succeeded, they had our secondary right where they wanted them. I guess it’s possible for the Broncos to do the same…all they need to do is get 3 turnovers in the first quarter, then bring out Frank Gore (I hope he’s got the bye from San Fran this week).

    PS…something to think about when San Fran comes to Seattle. Vernon Davis is back in the lineup. I hope they account for that fact and don’t just tailor the defense for Gore alone.

  48. It always takes a little luck to pick these games right. Last week I was right on the Titans, but did you see what it took for that pick to come through? The Giants had to practice catch-and-release tactics. It looked like Kiwanuka was making a guest appearance on Jimmy Houston Outdoors.

  49. I notice they turned that entire incident into a campaign against roughing the passer penalties, yet nobody points out that if Kiwanuka had kept his head UP, he would have known whether Vince still had the ball or not. It sure looks like that’s what Coughlin is tearing him a new one about on the sideline.

  50. andelero says:

    The campaign against rules protecting the quarterback picked up even more steam after the missed call against the Packers Monday night.

    But in the midst of all that “the rules suck” furor, no one I saw ever pointed out that it was just a bad call–like any other bad call. That was the problem, not the rule itself.

    Obviously, if the defender had actually driven his helmet through Matt’s head we wouldn’t be having a discussion about whether or not the rule is appropriate.

    Point being, just because it’s a bad call doesn’t make it a bad rule. To a degree unlike any other player on the field, quarterbacks are vulnerable and unable to protect themselves. That’s not going to change and needs to be accounted for.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0