It's been fun.

Way to slay the beast.

"The word 'terrible' is a gooood thing."

O vengeful God, loose thy fury on Pittsburgh and Gomorrah.

Alanya and I eat out at Hawthorne Fish House. It has gluten free fish and chips, which is the draw for us, but the fish houses are also Packers meccas, as the site so proudly pronounces:

The Fish Houses proudly show all Packers games. Each place has 4 screens, and the places fill up with Green Bay fans, many of them in full gear. Get there at least 15 minutes before kickoff if you want a seat!

Proudly.

Green Bay Wisconsin is a small city, not tiny. About 100,000 strong. The greater Green Bay metropolitan area is estimated at 300,000. Like most football teams, the Packers represent the state and the greater area and not just the city in the name. While we are sure to hear plenty about how small Green Bay is, there is nothing particularly small about Wisconsin, or the region the Packers draw their fan base from.

As evidenced by the Fish House chain, that region is the world. The Packers are perhaps the greatest bandwagon team in NFL history. Between Curly Lambeau, Bart Starr, Vince Lombardi, Brett Favre and a record 12 twelve league Championships, including victories in Super Bowl I and II, the Packers are storied, successful and marketable.

Continue reading this post »

Selections to be announced at 4 pm Pacific. Finalists are: Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Dermontti Dawson, Richard Dent, Chris Doleman, Marshall Faulk, Charles Haley, Curtis Martin, Andre Reed, Willie Roaf, Ed Sabol, Deion Sanders, Shannon Sharper and of course Cortez Kennedy. Senior nominees are Chris Hanburger and Les Richter.

Tez deserves enshrinement. The one reason I think that stands above all else is that in 1992, Kennedy was the best player in the NFL. His 1992 season was among if not the best single season by a defensive tackle in the history of the NFL. I prefer true greatness however shortly lived over sustained quality. Too many things can derail a career. Too many of the greatest of the greats in all fields endured short peaks, often short lives. The Hall is a hall of history, and no history of the NFL is complete without one of its greatest players.

Do the right thing, voters.

Someone topped two party hats with a snowman. Someone has no respect for our strict yet delicate rules of prototype and aesthetics and normal. Someone done made this goofy looking brother, head as big and round as a beachball, into a world class athlete.

He looks like the lovechild of Iman and John Waters. He looks, to reference my sixth-grade girl dictionary, "sweet." B.J. Raji looks like a chubby kid, with a kind heart, and a promising career as a grade school principle. He could make superintendent some day!

But Raji isn't any of those things. He is easy-powerful, the way a defensive tackle must be. Not all rocked up and bulging, but thick through his core and in his legs. Two men struggle to move him a yard. He makes his living doing little more than withstanding. Raji is a bulwark against thousands of pounds of force.

Which is crazy, right? Look at that mug. You can almost see the smoke imbued giggle about to erupt. The downright jolliness -- there's the word -- with which he contorts and thrusts his hips into the air.

Where chubby chasers and twink hunters converge, this is a stag film.

`Course if the Freezer was nothing more than a space eater, he wouldn't be remarkable. Raji would be yet another big dude paid to take abuse and smile about it. Another monger in the trade of mass and immobility. Another anonymous interior lineman, thick as he is fungible.

What separates Raji, made him an earth shaker all the way back to BC, is his ability to move. Raji is Red Bryant with leverage and pass rush moves. A player you double team not so that you can abuse him but so that maybe he doesn't abuse you. When he comes uncorked from a double team, you could melt lead between his legs. It's a shuffling, short-legged, bad-bodied explosion of interior pass rush, and it shows up in his stats: 7.5 sacks through 19 games, 12 quarterback hits, 11 tackles for a loss, and that interception, that beautiful interception.

Someone, some ghost in the genome, some omnipotent trickster, made a man that looks like B.J. Raji that moves like Michael Jackson. Here's hoping this Sunday he reminds Ben Roethlisberger what a car crash feels like.

Patches pal nailed it: I don't like this scheme.

Seattle isn't the first team to try and resurrect Seifert's elephant. Mike Nolan attempted the trick in 2006. The problem then, as I would argue the problem is now, was that San Francisco lacked the talent. It could move a defensive end or linebacker around attempting to find mismatches, but it couldn't make that player better.

The assumption is that because Chris Clemons had a career season, Carroll's elephant succeeded. The fact that the Seahawks defense was among the worst in the league, and that the pass defense specifically was among the worst in the league, contradicts that. Before any one of Brandon Mebane, Colin Cole or Red Bryant was injured, Seattle ranked 20th in pass defense efficiency.  Before Cole or Bryant went down in Oakland, the moment often cited as the beginning of the collapse of Seattle's defense, Seattle's pass defense ranked 20th. By the end of the year, whether because of Bryant, scheme adjustments, or just an expanded sample, Seattle ranked 25th.

The problem is two-fold: Team stats are a very rough way of judging individual players. Even if Clemons were an elite defensive end, it wouldn't ensure that Seattle's overall pass defense would work.

The other problem is the bigger problem, in my opinion. That is, apart from sacks totals, what evidence do we have that Clemons was helping Seattle's defense?

A "sack" in some ways is like an RBI. It depends on the execution of other players, and so though it's framed as an individual stat, no sack is accomplished individually. It is also context independent, and that means not all sacks are equal. We can think of the sacrifice fly that produces an RBI but does not improve a team's chances of scoring. A sack itself can never be damaging, but the method with which a team accrues sacks can be. Most notably, a team is much more likely to sack a quarterback if it blitzes, but it also risks more completions, more first down conversions, more yards and more touchdowns. It's a trade off, and one reason some defenses eschew blitzes and all defenses seek to create pressure from a four man pass rush.

Which leads me to something I have wondered but can not confirm: Did Clemons's high sack totals belie his actual ability as a pass rusher?

The missing component is Seattle's performance when blitzing. And I say that is the missing component because we know this: Seven of Clemons 11 sacks were accomplished when Seattle blitzed. I didn't know if that was uncommon or not, so I looked at all 14 players that finished in the top ten for total sacks. STATS Inc doesn't use fractions of a sack, so I didn't either.

Here is how it looks:

That isn't conclusive, mind you, but it does give some context for Clemons' high sack total. As does the fact that Raheem Brock had nine sacks, but only one sack when Seattle blitzed. The missing component is knowing just how good Seattle was when blitzing, and when blitzing compared to its overall defense. That still wouldn't be conclusive, but it would get us closer. It could tell us, for instance, if Clemons needs a blitz to succeed as a pass rusher, and Seattle performed poorly when it blitzed, that though Clemons notched a bunch of sacks, he might not have been an effective pass rusher.

Right now though, we are on the trail of what looks like a sensible explanation for how Seattle's pass rush improved its sack totals, but Seattle's pass defense barely improved. Does that invalidate the Leo position? No. Does it suggest that Clemons was not helping the pass defense as much as his raw sack totals would suggest? It does. A team could rush ten defenders on every snap and lead the league in sacks, and also field the worst defense in the history of the NFL. Conversely, a team could never once land a sack, but create consistent, fast arriving pressure, force premature check downs and mistake throws, and be the best defense in NFL history.

The take away is, a sack isn't a sack, and high sack totals are not a sure sign of a successful defense.

We will run with the assumption that Seattle sticks with a strong side and a weak side end. Seattle's two primary Leo ends combined for 23 sacks and 48 hits in the regular and postseason. That's some production.

Nevertheless . . .

Leo End

Starter: Chris Clemons

Backup: Raheem Brock (free agent)

Depth: Dexter Davis

Clemons had three career regular season starts prior to 2010. He now has 19. He had 62 tackles. Clemons now has 111. He was a pass rush specialist prior to signing with Seattle, but even his sack numbers jumped. Clemons had 20 sacks prior to the 2010 season. He now has 31.

Pete Carroll, and I think he deserves the most credit, found a diamond in the rough. Carroll saw something more in Clemons, allowed him to compete through camps, and awarded him a starter spot. The rest of us were left scratching our heads. Clemons was not just a career backup, he was a career backup with an extensive injury history. Counting on him to start 16 games seemed foolish, but he did. Clemons did and was easily among the Seahawks best defenders.

Good story, huh? And perhaps one of the more enduring stories of what was a fun, frustrating and memorable season. Now it's time to be cold and critical and evaluate the players for potential rather than past production.

Despite career best performances from Clemons and Brock, the Seahawks should look at Leo end as a need. It isn't just that career best performances are typically unsustainable, duh, or that Brock is no guarantee to return, or even that Clemons performance was so far out of line with the rest of his career. It is also that pass rushers often take time to develop, that Davis is the closest Seattle has to developmental talent, that the Seahawks like to use two Leo ends on passing downs, and that this scheme depends so much on the Leo or Leos to create pressure.

Clemons and Brock both produced in their way, but that production didn't add up to a good pass defense. That does not mean Clemons or Brock is at fault, or even that the Leo concept is faulty. But whether Seattle wants to build from the scheme it adopted in 2009 and honed through 2010, or build away from it and towards a more typical approach to the 4-3, it needs ends. It needs ends that are young, can develop and can be counted on for seasons to come.

Well this is confusing.

Probably hard to clink that link, laughing so hard at the headline as you no doubt are. Riotous, uproarious laughter. Laughter reserved for absurd propositions that are painfully cutting in some unspoken way. Like, "Would you like your last meal now, sir?" Or, "Should the Seahawks sign Sean Locklear?"

Yes, thanks to some eleventh hour finagling, Locklear is a free agent. And, yes, Seattle may seek to re-sign him if at a greatly reduced salary. No, the Seahawks probably will not sign Locklear, since he played like one of the worst offensive tackles in football last season, but you never know.

So what's the skinny?

Locklear will turn 30 before the start of next season. That is not old for an offensive lineman in the broadest sense, but it can be old for an oft-injured lineman, especially one showing significant decline. Locklear showed up twice on the NFL injury report, both times for a knee injury. Knee injuries and ankle injuries have plagued Locklear's career. Since 2006, he has appeared on the official injury report because of either a knee or an ankle injury 20 times.

Each individual responds differently to injuries. We hope that Russell Okung shrugs off his ankle sprains and develops into a great tackle. Locklear would present the alternative, much worse possibility. Once upon a time, Locklear was a very good right tackle. He could pass block, he could run block, he could move in space, he was versatile and mostly healthy. When Tim Ruskell signed him to potentially man left tackle, it seemed a like smart signing. Seattle wanted to retain Locklear at right, regardless, and putting incentives into his contract if he could make the transition gave Seattle options. It didn't need to fill left tackle right away. It didn't need to reach in what turned out to be a rather lousy 2009 offensive tackle class.

It also fit Ruskell's unspoken but seemingly defining belief that much of being great is the will and motivation to be great. Maybe Locklear could never be great like Walter Jones is/was/forever will be great, but maybe Locklear could become great like Donald Penn is, uh . . . you get the drift. Someone who is not Great. Someone or something that is not incredible to the point of stretching the limitations of human and human achievement. But someone that is great like Martin Scorsese is a great director. That is, comparatively good among those are supposedly the best in their field, and comparatively good long enough to earn an outsized reputation.

Well, it didn't happen. Locklear missed part of 2009 and returned looking like the right tackle he would become in 2010. His struggles in 2009 could have been categorized as evidence of the Peter Principle. His struggles in 2010 might indicate Locklear wasn't overmatched at left tackle so much as beginning a premature decline.

And now he's a free agent. What possible case can be made for signing him? Well, decline isn't linear or isn't assuredly linear, and though we can line up seemingly damning details about his age, injury history and the trajectory of his career, maybe he was overmatched in 2009, and maybe Locklear simply suffered a down season in 2010. Coincidence can entrap the brain, make it see patterns that are in fact accidents of chance. Maybe he can still regain something, be good again. He is or was a good fit for a zone blocking scheme, insomuch that he has the quickness, athleticism and size. He was playing without a line coach, or without a line coach with any sway. Maybe Cable can pound him back into shape.

But I doubt it. Or, to be more specific, I doubt Locklear's coming career revival will happen with the Seahawks. He needs the figurative change of scenery and some literal competition. He needs the kick in the butt Ruskell thought he was administering by signing over a fat check. Or maybe Lock just needs a couple seasons as a backup and a good plan for retirement.

Bill Walsh believed you could scheme an offense to greatness. Walsh could. The defense needed talent, no way around it. Since Walsh's time though, defenses have become ever more complex. Every team in the NFL has some kind of wrinkle, a formation from which to execute ever more elaborate zone blitzes: The Bandit, Stampede, Psycho, etc. Coordinators like Dick Lebeau, Dom Capers and the late Jim Johnson created schemes that seemed to transcend individual talent. Perhaps the NFL Walsh knew is no more.

The Seahawks desperately need to improve on defense. It seems like Gus Bradley is here to stay. I will go ahead and say I am ambivalent about that, and leave it at that for now. To most fans, improving the defense means: more and better talent. And after moving out much of what little talent had developed the past few seasons, it is true that the well was dry in Seattle. I give Bradley that. Johnson's defense didn't work in his first year with Philadelphia. Lebeau's defense only worked sporadically in his years with Cincinnati. Maybe Bradley just isn't there yet. Maybe he needs the horses to make his Bandit defense work.

The push to improve Seattle's talent on defense ignores something rather significant though: offensive performance is more consistent year to year than defensive performance and top offenses are better than top defenses. The latter is news to me but not surprising. The push to improve Seattle's talent on defense ignores that Seattle's offense was almost equally as bad.

The Seahawks defense is old and rather talent thin. The offense seems comparatively more talented and is definitely younger. But if it is more talented, it didn't show it, and unless something significant was holding that talent back, be it coaching or Matt Hasselbeck, we shouldn't be expected to perform significantly better in 2011. For most of the season, Seattle's defense greatly outperformed Seattle's offense. Maybe opinion is shaped by the offense performing better late in the season while the defense was collapsing, but that doesn't forecast much going forward. Any number of reasons can explain the shift, including health.

So I am surveying for opinions: should Seattle concentrate resources in its defense? Pete Carroll is a defensive minded coach, though some would argue that gives him a better chance of succeeding without great talent because of coaching and scheme. Should Seattle concentrate its resources on offense? And what does that mean exactly? Between Williams, Obomanu, Tate, Carlson, Morrah, McCoy, Baker, Lynch and Forsett, Seattle is fairly settled at its skill positions. Does it mean going all out to find a quarterback? Does it mean going all out to build the offensive line?

Subjectively, the defense seems in greater need of talent, but objectively the offense is more likely to be the foundation of a great team. Inevitably, for Seattle to be a great team, both offense and defense must improve. But which is the focus? Which is improved first?

In 124 targets, he has four drops. Four. 11 defended. One caught out of bounds. 124 targets, 76 receptions, 64 combined touchdowns and first downs, 1,265 yards -- the stat line of a superstar. The stat line of a superstar few talk about.

SB Nation worked a deal with Snickers to sponsor four Super Bowl related posts. That gives me a chance to write about one of my favorite players in the league: Greg Jennings. I have loved Jennings ever since he utterly crushed my hope that Kelly Jennings could ever develop into a quality corner. Jennings didn't just wear out or dominate Jennings in the 2008 NFC Division Round. He made Jennings look like a placeholder in a practice drill. He made Jennings look incidental.

In the last 78 games, Jennings has been held without a reception once. In the last 67 games, Jennings has been held without two receptions three times. He is the personification of the unheralded star. Jennings does not produce a wealth of highlights. He doesn't whine and complain when he isn't targeted. Jennings is targeted, because he runs the proper route, gets separation and catches everything. He is targeted because he turns targets into yards, first downs and touchdowns. Value.

Like the Steelers James Harrison, Jennings is a generalist. He isn't sensationally fast, yet consistently one of the fastest players on the field. He isn't impressively tall, but though only 5'11", Jennings has the frame and muscle mass to dominate smaller corners. He doesn't make a bunch of kooky spins and sidesteps and other flashy nonsense assigned the highlight stick. But his supreme agility and body control make Jennings one of the consistently best run after catch receivers in the NFL. He doesn't palm passes against his momentum and pull in impossible receptions. Yet his concentration in traffic and effortless ability to gain separation make him an easy target, trustworthy; rarely ever does Jennings drop a pass. He is both a quarterback's best friend and a true number one: Golden Tate's potential combined with Brandon Stokley's skill.

Jennings leads the NFL in EPA. 2010 marks the third consecutive season he has finished in the top five. Sometimes advanced stats mislead. They tell us Danny Woodhead was the most valuable rusher in the NFL, or D.J. Hackett has start potential. Sometimes advanced stats cut through hype and offer the unvarnished truth. Being a great wide receiver is not about making highlights and running your mouth. It's not about your profile, your talk show, your Q rating, your Twitter feed, your vanity. Being a great wide receiver is about turning targets into receptions and receptions into value. Few do it better than Greg Jennings.

Seattle signed Junior Siavii September 5, 2010. It was one of the lesser in a rash of last second moves. The most prominent, of course, was the sudden retirement of Alex Gibbs. For all intents and purposes, Seattle swapped Siavii for Kevin Vickerson. Vickerson had impressed in the preseason, was a much more natural substitute for both Colin Cole and Red Bryant, and went on to start 12 games for the Broncos, but something didn't click. Vickerson didn't "buy in" or whatever.

As long as we are willing to separate the signing of Siavii from the release of Vickerson, it was a solid move. Siavii is a bit of a misfit. He is built like a 3-4 end but primarily plays nose tackle. He was Jay Ratliff's proxy in the preseason, but he isn't nearly as explosive, quick or agile as Ratliff. Siavii saw most of his snaps in Seattle as an injury replacement for Colin Cole. He couldn't command two gaps like Cole, but wasn't an outright liability and is a better pass rusher.

On the surface, there isn't much reason to sign Siavii. Assuming a salary cap, signing middle-tier talents to free agent contracts, even reasonable ones, is a great way to nickel and dime yourself into poverty. If Seattle could instead draft a young player of a similar profile, it would benefit both from that player's comparatively cheap contract and upside. But players like Siavii are not common. That is one major reason Siavii was a second round pick in 2004. Players with his mass and length are always in demand and thus always in short supply. Seattle could find a better fit through the draft, but needn't force themselves to.

The Seahawks should probably float an offer and see if Siavii is interested. As I mentioned in the post about Palmer, for Seattle to become a great team again, it doesn't need sensational talent at every position. Siavii is not a sensational talent, but is neither blocking the development of or drafting of a sensational talent. He is a steady player, relatively young for a defensive lineman (or at least not old), with some chance of improving with a full camp and a better understanding of where he fits and what he's best at.

Highlights

Seahawks at Broncos

Golden Tate rumbles, bumbles and stumbles for 63. Seahawks take the ball.

. . .

Tate breaks a weak jam attempt by Andre' Goodman. Eight yards into his route, he opens his shoulders towards Hasselbeck while continuing to run down the left sideline, telegraphing the pass. Tate waits for a floating pass, jumps, spins, receives. Goodman runs himself out of bounds. Tate cuts inside and begins to sprint across the field. D.J. Williams tracks him from behind, but Tate spins through Williams' tackle attempt and continues right and away from Renaldo Hill. He looks surprised by his own ability. Instead of running up field and towards the end zone, Tate takes jab steps up field while running primarily horizontally. That give Brian Dawkins time to catch up from behind, and Dawkins tackles Tate after a gain of 52.

The reception is both exciting and frustrating.

Chargers at Seahawks

Screen attempt to Golden Tate that doesn't work and yet still succeeds. Tyler Polumbus is not fast enough into the left flat and Tate has to dodge Kevin Burnett almost immediately after receiving the pass. That slows everything down and allows the Chargers to rally and tackle. Apart from Polumbus, this could have been a solid play. At one point, Tate has four blockers, including an ardent John Carlson.

. . .

That put Seattle in third and long. Seattle converted. Golden Tate broke the jam attempt by Quentin Jammer (Tate was off the line of scrimmage, which helps) attained inside position and received and ran for 11 and the first.

. . .

Matt nearly Hasselsacked himself on the next play. He looked right, pumped right, looked off Forsett on the left, began to scramble, I began to clench my sphincter, but calmer heads prevailed. Hasselbeck found Tate on the left, well covered, but Golden one-handed the reception and put Seattle at the two.

Seahawks at Raiders

3-16-SEA 16 (8:42) (Shotgun) 8-M.Hasselbeck pass short right to 81-G.Tate to SEA 28 for 12 yards (33-T.Branch).

Defenders within 10 yards: 11

This is an interesting play, because it's clearly a passing down and Hasselbeck is actually in shotgun, but the Raiders are still playing very close to the line. Nine are within five and the Raiders two deep safeties are exactly 10 yards away from the line of scrimmage. Oakland is set to defend the pass--the short pass.

Continue reading this post »

Cortez Kennedy is once again a finalist for induction in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Mike Sando has a look at why he thinks Kennedy merits the honor. Check it out, it's great work from one of the best.

I wrote a bit about Kennedy in my book, but for most of his career and the greatest stretch of his career, I was just too young and too ill informed to know how great Kennedy was. Fans do not always make the greatest scouts, but they do make the greatest historians. A history is always part fact, part account and part legend. If I had it to do over, I would throw that chapter out to you, the 12 that honor me by reading this site. What did Tez mean to you? Who was he? What made him amazing?

The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a hall of history, and what is keeping Kennedy out is his anonymity. His greatest season, one of the truly greatest seasons by a defensive tackle in NFL history, was in 1992. That was a miserable Seahawks team. One that finished 2-14. One that fielded one of the worst offenses in league history. And that soaring accomplishment, accomplished on a pitiful team, is an encapsulation of Kennedy's entire career: He was great but no one saw his greatness. Few fans outside of Seattle understand how incredible Tez truly was. Shoot, I don't even really know how great Kennedy was. Among Seahawks fans, I am sure I am far from alone.

Tell me. What do you remember most? A play, a game, a series, a season? Let's give Tez the history he deserves, put him back in the conversation, and show some love for one of the greatest Seahawks to ever live. We can not enshrine Kennedy in Canton, but we can help show those that can that he belongs.

Dan Quinn was destined for a short stay in Seattle. Not like Jim Mora was destined for a short stay in Seattle, but more like Greg Oden was destined for a short stay at Ohio State. Quinn was the most mismatched among the original brain trust that dreamed the mighty West Coast Defense. Bradley was the linebacker guru with an endorsement from Lane Kiffin. Mora was the visionary. Quinn was a career defensive line coach that had worked under Mora in San Francisco, Nick Saban in Miami and Eric Mangini in New York. Magini and Saban are both Belichick disciples and both employ a 3-4 look.

Seattle took these disparate parts and forged them together, hoping to birth a griffin but instead aborting a beefalo. It couldn't blitz like a 3-4 or create pressure from its front four like a 4-3. It couldn't rush the passer from the strong side and couldn't stop the run from the weak side. It couldn't figure out a damn thing to do with Aaron Curry.

Etcetera.

So Quinn is gone now, and in his place is Todd Wash. Wash doesn't arrive with annoying baggage like a history of success or aspirations of promotion. He's systems guy, pure and simple, from the wellspring, and to my knowledge free of any crazy notions about a hybrid defense. His ends are pass rushers, his tackles penetrate and his run defense is atrocious, damn it.

Losing Quinn and signing Wash could mean an end to the unbalanced line. It was something Pete Carroll took on and ran with, but not something that reflects Carroll's greater coaching philosophy. In light of just how terrible Seattle's defense was, it wouldn't surprise me if some fundamental changes were made. Bradley remains, but I doubt Bradley was ever very committed to the strongside end/Leo setup. In his three seasons in Tampa as a linebackers coach, the Bucs mostly started a traditional Tampa 2 front four: light, fast and disruptive. The one exception is Kevin Carter, but Carter was not a 3-4 end but a 6'6" freak of nature. More Mario Williams than Red Bryant.

Kidding aside, there is no way of knowing if Wash is a good defensive line coach or not. Tampa has drafted quite a few promising line talents over the last few seasons, and few have developed, but that is hardly conclusive. Either way, Wash is in, Quinn is out, and with Quinn might go Seattle's unorthodox defensive line.

Well this is easy.

Receiving/Move tight end

Starter: John Carlson

Backup: Cameron Morrah

John Carlson is Zach Miller. Zach Miller is John Carlson. You would be hard pressed to find a better one-to-one comparison. High 4.8 speed? Check. 6'5" 255? Check. Route-running machines? Check. Saddled with terrible quarterbacks that undermine their production? Check and check. In what can only be called the Curse of Tim Ruskell, Carlson is actually older than Miller. And that's bad, because tight ends are not known for their longevity.

Carlson suffered a huge dip in his production this season. It wasn't because of an apparent drop in talent or skills, but a mix of factors. He became Matt Hasselbeck's favorite target for throwaways, much to the detriment of his advanced stats. Carlson was targeted 58 times. STATS Inc. lists eight as overthrown, two as underthrown, two as thrown wide, two thrown away intentionally, one batted down at the line of scrimmage and four dropped. So, of the 27 passes thrown to Carlson that He couldn't complete, STATS Inc. lists 15 as uncatachable, four as dropped and another five were "defensed." We can blame Him for the latter two categories, anyway.

Carlson also became the factotum of the offense: playing fullback, splitting wide, blocking way too much, and doing everything but trick plays and end arounds.

It was a bad season from a fantasy perspective, and led to questions about What happened? Where is He? And the inevitable, Is Carlson overrated? But JC was better as a blocker, precise as ever as a route runner, healthy as usual and still valuable, if not a Playmaker or Game Changer or Playgamemakechanger.

Morrah is the guy pressing him for time, and an intriguing replacement if and when the time comes. Morrah is younger, faster, more athletic and has a higher ceiling. It's a nice dilemma to have, and hopefully Cable and Bevell find ways to use both.

Blocking Tight End

Starter: Chris Baker

Backup: Anthony McCoy

Baker is the lunch pail guy. He only does a few things, but does those things well. McCoy is the better athlete, the better prospect (obviously) and potentially the best overall talent among Seattle's tight ends. A few years from now, McCoy might become a very valuable player, and he might be out of the league. If he had shown anything, even a few nice plays in the preseason, it would have given us reason to think he is ready to tap into that talent. But he didn't. He wasn't active and he didn't contribute. Which is okay, because Baker is signed through next season and steady.

Put simply, Seattle doesn't need talent at tight end.

Filling holes is a time honored tradition. Every team, every draft season, fills holes. What comprises a hole is subjective, but, basically, it means a position manned by an inadequate starter that also lacks talented depth to push that starter. The Seahawks have their share, but so do the Steelers and the Packers. Every team has holes and no team ever completely fills their holes. As the season progresses, injuries puncture new holes. The Packers lost Ryan Grant, Jermichael Finley, Nick Barnett and Morgan Burnett for the season, have started Howard Green at defensive end, and will start Green at defensive end in the Super Bowl. Green will start alongside other journeymen like outside linebacker Erik Walden and strong safety Charlie Peprah. That is a lot of holes. Both of Pittsburgh's starting offensive tackles are on injured reserve. The Steelers offensive line has been labeled a hole in pressing need of filling for as long as I can remember. Holes. Holes. Holes.

Few of them filled and none of them stopping either team from making the Super Bowl. This isn't unprecedented or a twist or working from an exception to make a rule. Teams that play the 19 or 20 games it takes to make and win the Super Bowl always have holes. Injuries happen, depth is insufficient, sometimes the team started the season with the hole, or the drop from starter to depth wasn't dramatic, but however you frame it, a Super Bowl caliber team is not a team without holes, is not a team that starts good players at every position, it is a team like the Seahawks, but much better at a few key positions.

Super Bowl teams are not defined by who is missing, but who remains. No one remembers or cares that Kawika Mitchell and James Butler started for the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, that Green and Walden will start for the Packers this Sunday, or that D.D. Lewis and Marquand Manuel started for the Seahawks in Super Bowl XL. People remember Osi, Justin, Mathias and Michael tearing through the Patriots vaunted offense. People will remember what Troy Polamalu did, what Aaron Rodgers did, what Greg Jennings did. We remember Jones, Hutchinson and Matt Hasselbeck.

The argument against trading for Caron Palmer is typically: Seattle has too many holes. Seattle can not afford to trade picks, because it has too many needs. And it does. And Palmer isn't enough. Seattle has holes, tons of them, but more importantly, Seattle does not have enough total talent to be a great team. It isn't there, it isn't close and to get there it needs better talent on offense and defense. It needs to take a flier on a converted wide receiver and have that player produce like Sam Shields. It needs to sign an aged left tackle, stick him at right, and watch him run block like Flozell Adams. It needs -- to cut through the rhetoric -- to invest and see that investment turn into something more.

The argument against trading for Carson Palmer should be: He is not worth more than what Seattle will have to pay. He is not worth more for the Seahawks.

To answer the first, that is probably not true. Palmer will probably be more valuable than even the 25^th overall pick, and a first round pick is quite a bit to ask. Whether Cincinnati will admit it or not, Palmer has the Bengals over a barrel. When Brett Favre exacted a trade, the Packers settled for a fourth round pick from the Jets. It wasn't as if Favre was washed up either. He averaged 7.2 ANY/A in 2007, an average Palmer has only surpassed once in his career. But even if that were the deal, Palmer would still likely be more valuable. An average 25^th overall pick is worth 28 AV.  Pro Football Reference lists Larry Triplett as representing an "average" 25th overall pick. Over the last five seasons, the presumed length Seattle can count on Palmer as a starter and the typical length of a late first-round rookie's contract, Palmer has been worth 52, and that includes a lost 2008 season.

To answer the latter, this might be true. The Seahawks have a handful of players with star potential and no stars. Some talent can be added through free agency, but the Seahawks also need to hit big on a few draft picks. There is the potential that even if Seattle lands Palmer, doesn't overpay, and Palmer plays well, the Seahawks will still take a step back. That 25^th overall pick might typically become a Larry Triplett, but sometimes you land an Ed Reed, Ray Lewis, Derrick Brooks, Darrell Green or even Dan Marino. Palmer might easily beat out the production of an average draft pick, but his potential to become an absolute steal is unlikely. The Seahawks need some absolute steals to build back towards being a great team.

We started here and we end here, because it is the only rational conclusion: If the price is right, if the party is willing, and if the Seahawks are the right fit. But from those sore platitudes, we can now set some parameters. Palmer is still very valuable, probably more valuable than what Seattle will pay in trade. Palmer is probably willing. He burned his bridges to Cincinnati, and watching him, watching Marvin Lewis, watching the sideshow that is Ocho and Owens, I think Palmer would rather retire than return. The Seahawks may or may not be the right fit. Seattle is not a Carson Palmer away from being a great team, a Green Bay or Pittsburgh. But Palmer could be part of the plan. Trading for Palmer could be one move in a series of moves that push the Seahawks back towards contention. Trading for Palmer could prove to be the most important move of all.

Might as well work through the whole roster.

Feature Back

Starter: Marshawn Lynch

Backup:

One amazing, historic, awesome in the literal sense run has caused a seismic shift in many Seahawks fans' perception of Marshawn Lynch. For most of the season, Lynch was damaging with bouts of outright catastrophe. That does not tell us whether Lynch is a good runner or not. He was part of the problem but could be part of the solution too. That might seem paradoxical, but it isn't.

Lynch is a big, bruising runner that doesn't shy from contact. Without blocking, his game became two yards and a pile of defeat. No good. With blocking, presumably, his initial acceleration will not be such a factor and his ability to cut back and break tackles will. So, with the 2010 Seahawks, Lynch was part of the problem. A quicker, more elusive back may have played better. With the 2011 Seahawks, assuming a revamped offensive line, and one that is actually coached (no offense to Golden Pat Ruel, but nevertheless), Lynch might be able to succeed, even excel.

Or so is the plan, but plan A should probably be paired with plan B. It would be a shame to say the least if Seattle built a smash mouth run game, but did not see improved results. Accepting that Seattle might not see improved results is smart planning. Runs by Lynch were the least valuable in football by EPA/P. Runs by Jamaal Charles were worth 0.17 EPA/P a play. Runs by Lynch were worth -0.19 EPA/P a play. That underscores just how much the Seahawks must improve as a team if they want to build the offense through running the football.

Change of Pace

Starter: Justin Forsett

Backup:

Forsett started the season as an unorthodox feature back, and when that wasn't a riotous success, the Seahawks traded for someone that performed much, much worse. It's the kind of move that once upon time would have sent me into fits of loudmouthed protest. How can the superior player sit? HOW?

Well, depending on how you look at it, retro me may have a point. Forsett was more valuable per touch than Lynch, and also a more valuable receiver and pass blocker. Lynch may have commanded more attention from the defense, however we would define that, and that could have benefited the passing game, but that's all speculative, and for us outsiders at least, all but impossible to substantiate.

That all said, I like Forsett as a change of pace back because I think limiting his carries helps protect one of Seattle's better assets on offense. I don't believe that Forsett lacks durability simply because of his size, but his bruising style does not seem designed for a lengthy career.

Adding depth behind Forsett is less pressing. For one, he has succeeded--at least relatively--and so there is less concern whether he can or not. For another, a change of pace back is kind of depth by definition. If Seattle adds another rusher capable of shouldering starter carries, that player can also function as a change of pace back.

Fullback

Starter:

Michael Robinson is a free agent. With Bates out, the quarterback/special teams ace/rusher/zone blocking fullback may no longer have a place on this offense. Marcel Reece is a restricted free agent, and Seattle might try and workout a sweetheart deal to add the former Husky, but if not (and I wouldn't count on it) he provides the profile: big, fast, athletic and versatile.

Stanley Havili?

Even staunch defenders of Charlie Whitehurst defend him mostly on grounds of principle. He didn't play enough to fail fully, but did fail when he played and more importantly, failed to unseat Matt Hasselbeck. That might be the ultimate arbiter of Whitehurst's fate. And now that Jeremy Bates is out, and Tom Cable and Darrell Bevell are in, Whitehurst is no longer prototypical either. Whitehurst will be expected to learn his third offense in as many seasons, and one he is not handpicked to succeed in. Though I do not think Whitehurst will be cut prematurely, I do think he is slated to be cut. I think Seattle wants a new developmental quarterback.

And I do think we're talking "developmental" quarterback, rather than quarterback "of the future." Maybe a franchise signal caller falls to Seattle at 25, but more than likely not, and with needs along the line and in the secondary, and quite a few talented fits likely available in the latter half of the first, I think the Seahawks are destined to sign a free agent quarterback, maybe Hasselbeck, and draft a developmental quarterback somewhere later in the draft.

Which isn't guaranteed stupidity. I mean, as infrequent as it seems, sometimes teams are able to select a developmental quarterback and actually develop that quarterback. Granted, not a single quarterback that finished in the top 20 in DYAR was drafted in the middle or late rounds and developed, beside of course Tom Brady, but I am willing to believe it is . . . possible? That would be the word. It isn't a sure waste of a pick, anyway.

So who's it going to be? With Bates went the need for an athletic scrambler. I am at best speculating about Cable and Bevell's preferences, but a pocket passer that completes a high percentage of passes and above all doesn't make mistakes seems like the acknowledged complement to a run-first offense. Someone that can excel without being particularly flashy. Someone that doesn't kill you but isn't a dreaded game manager either.

After watching the Shrine Game and reading a bit about him, I think Seahawks fans should know the name "Pat Devlin." He will have to prove his arm strength through the pre-draft process, and that's no small thing. But it looks adequate to me, and adequate in an applicable way. Consider a pair of slight quarterbacks with decent arms: Mark Sanchez and Jimmy Clausen. Put them in a drill, and either can "make all the throws." Put some pressure on them, force them to move around, throw on the move, throw off their back foot, and that ability goes away. Devlin doesn't launch it, but he's tall, throws overhand, has easy velocity and versatile velocity -- to coin a phrase.

From what I saw, he is very accurate. He's calm, fluid, not any kind of scrambler but not lumbering, and throws a very catchable pass. Like most young quarterbacks, he's pretty much one-read, but, yeah, who cares? We're talking developmental quarterback here. If Devlin can make a solid pre-snap read and throw an accurate pass to that read, he's ahead of the game.

This isn't meant as a scouting report. I will fire those up soon enough. It's a chance to introduce a player that I think hits the sweet spot where need, fit and available resources meet. Don't buy that Devlin lacks upside because of his less than stellar tools. That's hogwash. People used to talk about how Ryan Leaf had greater upside than Peyton Manning. For a quarterback, accuracy, judgment and speed of decision making determines upside much more so than size, arm strength and foot speed. Devlin doesn't have the latter, but he could develop what abilities truly matter.

With apologies to Bengals fans, I am not very interested in your opinion of Carson Palmer. It's not only that fans are inclined to struggle separating rational analysis and love for their team, or that Palmer specifically has become a lightning rod because his decline has coincided with the decline of the Bengals. It is, rather, that watching a team on Sunday and committing to an opinion by Monday is not a very sound method of analysis. That doesn't mean I know more about Palmer than Bengals fans. I certainly do not. It only means I would rather count on my on observation and not the cacophony of fan opinion.

So I watched a couple games: Saints at Bengals and Steelers at Bengals; Two excellent defenses and two quality performances by Palmer. Not necessarily a representative sample, but enough to get a feel for Palmer's tools, surrounding talent and coaching. So let's talk about those three subjects, mindful that this is far from comprehensive.

Palmer still has plenty of arm strength. It is an understatement to say he can make all the throws. That phrase is itself kind of misleading. Here's a better way to put it: Palmer can pass 20 yards down the field on a line, he can zip passes without perfect mechanics, and can throw bombs under pressure. I read that Tim Hasselbeck said Matt Hasselbeck's wounded duck to Cameron Morrah may have been the best pass of Matt's career. Well, it certainly wasn't. It was a gutsy pass that worked because Roman Harper choked on the double move. This pass, which traveled 40 yards in the air, was made with James Farrior striking him head on, and that dropped over Terrell Owens' outside shoulder to beat coverage by Bryant McFadden, is superior in every way. It isn't a play the defines greatness, but it does hint at it.

Palmer sometimes throws an ugly pass. That is, it wobbles and bucks. But though ugly it isn't slow. Palmer can be inaccurate and his passes sometimes sail high. Never good. But he isn't chronically inaccurate. It's just not a particular strength.

He moves well in the pocket but isn't any kind of scrambler. He looks like he could scramble, just never has. The important detail is though Palmer's knee was torn to shreds some years back, he doesn't look lumbering or gun shy.

Palmer clearly has a mastery of the offense. He looks like, for lack of a better way to put it, a franchise quarterback. He doesn't compulsively check down but does check down appropriately. He surveys the field, and seems to have a good grasp of primary and secondary reads. His timing isn't perfect, but, well let's now talk about his surrounding talent.

Terrell Owens, Chad Ochocinco, Jermaine Gresham, Jordan Shipley, Cedric Benson, Bernard Scott and Brian Leonard comprise a pretty good mix of accomplished, promising and/or steady receivers. Owens and Ochocinco are both fringe number one guys. They are big, skillful, read coverage and adjust routes. Solid, veteran stuff. Neither create many yards after the catch anymore. Owens has a little more power and long strider speed. Ocho, well, his 33 yard reception against the Saints is a pretty good example: Palmer steps up out of pressure and lobs a pass between double coverage. Ochocinco receives behind both defenders, turns and sprints up field. He staggers a little after the reception, but that isn't terribly important to me. What I notice is the total lack of get-away speed. Roman Harper and Darren Sharper are able to recover and track him down with relative ease. Once upon a time, Harper had 4.58 speed. How fast Sharper remains is anyone's guess. Neither is fast, nevertheless.

Despite their name recognition, Owens and Ochocinco is not one of the best pairs of wide receivers in the NFL. Leonard is a good receiver. Scott looks like he has the potential but isn't heavily involved. Benson is neither very able nor very inclined. Shipley is a made to order slot receiver and compares to Brandon Stokley -- a bit less tough and a bit quicker. Gresham is very talented but very raw even for a rookie. It's a group that is, well, adequate.

Continue reading this post »

I feel for Chris Spencer. If football players produced an individual stat line of any accuracy, Spencer would be acknowledged as a good, largely anonymous player. Someone fans of a particular inclination love. Sort of a Detlef Schrempf. Football players do not produce meaningful stats, especially offensive linemen, and Spencer, who is unassuming, atypical, even a little meek, has become one of the more recognizable names associated with a consistently broken offensive line.

Spencer took over in 2006, perhaps before he was ready and definitely before Mike Holmgren was ready for him. Holmgren emphasized execution. Tim Ruskell provided him wave after wave of projects. Center had been manned by a nasty old veteran: Robbie Tobeck. Spencer was a green, almost shy seeming developmental talent. With his arrival came the unraveling of the Seahawks offense and specifically the Seahawks offensive line.

The Seahawks have endured constant turnover at guard. Spencer has started beside the very young: Max Unger, Mansfield Wrotto, Mike Gibson and Rob Sims; those near retirement: Chris Gray, Mike Wahle and Ben Hamilton; modest talented undermined by injury: Floyd Womack and Chester Pitts; and journeymen tackles playing out of position: Ray Willis, Tyler Polumbus and Stacy Andrews. Center, and especially a center in a zone blocking scheme, executes through combo blocks. Most runs involve a combo block. Apart from 2007, Spencer has had almost no opportunity to develop trust and communication with his adjacent linemates. And apart from Sims, his linemates have done little to earn that trust much less a continued opportunity to start.

Continue reading this post »

This is a thread to discuss the Senior Bowl.

North Roster

South Roster

I do not believe that the Seahawks defense collapsed because it lost Red Bryant to a season ending knee injury. I am sure some kind of statistical gerrymandering can be done to show the before and after, and therefore how irreplaceable Bryant was. He was very good in his short stint. Maybe even the best player on the Seahawks defense.

Seattle attempted to replace Bryant with Kentwan Balmer and Junior Siavii. That was the bigger problem. Neither player is standout bad, but neither player profiled like Bryant and neither player could do what Bryant could do. I would argue that rather than Bryant being irreplaceable, Bryant was not replaced adequately. Players of Bryant's ilk are not freely available, Frank Okam be damned.

Players of Bryant's ilk are in fact quite uncommon, and that might present a problem for Seattle in trying to find depth for him. He's huge, has great length, natural power and his combine-certified five flat showing in the forty is still eye popping. But depth must be found, because Seattle created this monster of a position to feature Bryant's talent, and with that talent comes a lengthy and worrisome injury history.

If that depth can not be found through free agency or trade, Seattle might entertain someone like Phil Taylor of Baylor. He's being talked about as a nose tackle, but every jumbo defensive tackle that enters the draft is talked about as a nose tackle. And maybe he is, but I like his quickness, relatively loose hips and ability to disrupt. When I think of a nose tackle, I think of someone that's as wide as he is tall like Casey Hampton, Vince Wilfork or Jamal Williams. Taylor seems a little tall and lean in the legs for the life of a pile pusher, but like Bryant, that height and length lends itself to forcing double teams on the strong side, stringing runs wide and setting the edge for blitzers.

Taylor will play in tomorrow's Senior Bowl. It will be a good chance to see if he's destined for life on the interior, or a more hybrid role. Tomorrow I will post some players to watch that I think fit what Seattle wants. Until then, this is an open thread to discuss the draft and specifically the Senior Bowl.

Jake Locker.

Some Seahawks fans were beside themselves when Seattle signed Olindo Mare in 2008. Mare "sucked." "Suck" is one of those words that says more than it means to. It's applied to all sorts of flavor of the week villains. It's up there with "overrated" as words people use to present a strong opinion, while unintentionally revealing their own ignorance. It says: I want an opinion but I am not very informed nor inclined to inform myself, so I will compensate by being forceful, judgmental and salty in a socially acceptable way. I will shout down those that disagree. I will feign smugness. I will glory in my betters' failure.

Well, Mare didn't suck then and hasn't sucked since. He was stuck in the kind of slump that's sure to happen over a long enough career. The 24 hour news cycle rushed to bury him. The echo chamber reverberated the stupidity. Soon it became accepted fact. The force of orthodoxy on football fans is staggering. Suggesting that Mare might not be a bad signing became by a malformed twist of perception controversial. Jesus, John, Mare sucks.

Olindo's a Florida guy and with his career winding down, I wouldn't be surprised if he signed closer to home. He still kicks a high percentage of touchbacks, consistently among the best in football, but to my eye his kicks are increasingly dependent on a flat trajectory rather than raw power. I could see his kickoff ability unraveling at some point and him becoming a liability. But until then, if Mare is interested in Seattle, Seattle should be interested in Mare. There isn't much to say about a kicker. Accuracy or how we interpret accuracy is too unpredictable to depend on. Touchbacks are much more valuable than most football fans appreciate, and though my eyes tell me his abilities are eroding, that doesn't show up in the stats, and that shouldn't stop Seattle from re-signing one of the best kickers of his generation.

Jay Alford

It's tough to get excited about a soon to be 28 year old, 303 pound nose tackle that missed all of 2009 before returning as an ultra-situational player in 2010. So, let's not?

If you have heard the name "Jay Alford" but do not remember when or why, think back to the New York Giants upset victory over the then-undefeated New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. Alford started, subbed as a long snapper and sacked Tom Brady in the closing seconds, helping to seal the Giants victory. His playing time increased in 2008, but he never really broke through. He tore his MCL and was placed on injured reserve prior to the 2009 season, then was cut prior to the 2010 season. Alford signed with the Raiders and reprised his role as situational pass rusher.

Assuming Alford ever challenges for a roster spot, his Always Compete buddy would be Craig Terrill. Both are single gap tackles that penetrate and disrupt. Both are exposed if matched too consistently against the run. And both are best employed as a minor part of a tackle rotation, subbing in on nickel and dime packages and on passing downs.

James Brindley

Brindley returns to the churn for a second season. Seattle signed him last year and cut him not too long after. He was a standout safety at Utah State, but as is often the case, a standout that excelled but showed little potential to make it in the pros. So this is his life for a little while: lots of camp, lots of practice, signing contracts with big money mentioned but close to unattainable, and ignoring it all to give his all in a most likely futile pursuit. Brindley's upside is a special teams standout and emergency depth. Think Etric Pruitt, but subtract some size. More than likely though, Brindley will show up early, work late, buy in, hustle his ass off, push the vets, and be cut. Not a bad few months for a 22 year old. Still sort of depressing.

Chris Carter

Take it from someone that knows: It's a drag having a common name. And so, if you don't know who Carter is but chuckle because his name looks a lot like Randy Moss's possession receiver complement, since retired, you are my mortal enemy. No. No.

Okay, maybe.

Carter is interesting for two simple reasons: He slipped through the cracks during the draft process. Carter was invited to the 2010 NFL Combine but failed his physical. It's not too, too hard to see raw talent in a wide receiver, and so finding value requires some kind of exception. Playing FCS football and missing the NFL Combine despite being invited qualifies.

The other reason Carter is interesting is because he was pretty good at UC Davis. He didn't excel in the way a small school prospect must to really command attention, but had sustained success over three seasons. He was the Great West Coast Football Conference rookie of the year in 2006, missed most of 2007 because of injury, then rebounded in 2008 and 2009.

Carter's a long shot and maybe not even one with a ton of upside, but you never know. You never know is a less highfalutin distillation of Always Compete. If it means exploring every available talent with a pulse, well Pete and John, I buy in.

Hurting Carson Palmer's chances of outperforming historical averages are his injures. Kimo von Oelhoffen did a number on his knee in 2005. Ligament tears are relatively standard, but damage to cartilage and meniscus is far more serious and Palmer suffered both. That said, Palmer was never a scrambler, has not suffered any kind of spike in sack percentage (Palmer has consistently outperformed league average (and sack percentage is the most consistent stat when a quarterback changes teams)), and has not missed additional time because of the injury. As much as it's possible, the knee injury is a thing of the past.

Palmer missed 12 games in 2008 because of a partially torn tendon and ligament in this throwing arm. That ended a streak of 51 games started. He has since started 33 straight games. Hasselbeck's career long is 35, and that ended in 2004. Palmer elected to rest and rehab instead of undergoing Tommy John surgery, which seems ill-advised, and may contribute to his below average completion percentage and interception percentage. It's something to consider at the very least.

And if we're considering injury-related decline, we should probably talk about his declining performance passing the ball deep:

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Now, other things are at play here. The Bengals line was pretty good in 2005. It started a still promising Levi Jones at left tackle, and sub-elite left guard Eric Steinbach. Steinbach signed with Cleveland in 2007. Jones, however, missed most of 2006. Then-rookie Andrew Whitworth took over, and has since settled in as the Bengals starting left tackle the last two seasons. Whitworth is a suspect pass blocker, and the Bengals attempted to replace him by drafting Andre Smith. All-Pro right tackle Willie Anderson was at his peak from 2004-2006. He missed significant time in 2007, was cut, signed with the Ravens and has since retired. Rudi Johnson was at his peak. That was when Johnson was a high-volume power back that demanded safety attention. So, protection, a run game, Palmer had the two elements so often cited as a quarterback's best friend.

How much of Palmer's decline can be attributed to his surrounding talent is impossible to say, but that decline is too often overstated. By DYAR, Palmer's 2010 would rank as Hasselbeck's second best season ever, only behind Matt's amazing 2005. And, in fact, by DYAR, which accounts for playing in a division that includes the Ravens and Steelers, Palmer has been a superstud.

2004: 430 DYAR (17th ranked among qualifiers); 3.9% DVOA (16)

2005: 1,509 (2); 32.5% (3)

2006: 1,189 (3); 21.7% (4)

2007: 1,215 (6); 20.1% (9)

2008: 54 (30); 5.0% (29)

2009: 739 (15); 12.9% (18)

2010: 1,003 (10); 13.6% (17)

For those unfamiliar with DVOA and DYAR, think of it like quarterback rating but opponent adjusted, including sacks and not moronic. Palmer does not perform quite as well by other standards. His adjusted net yards per attempt is just below league average. His EP/A is just above. Neither accounts for opponent adjustment though, and that can not be ignored. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are consistently two of the best defenses in the NFL.

Without knowing what it would take to acquire Carson Palmer in trade, I can not endorse Palmer. But we can at least look at Palmer the asset, ballpark what he's worth and determine if he's a sound investment independent of his cost.

Let's look at the basics first: Palmer is 31 and does not turn 32 until December 27. That means, for our purposes, 2011 is Palmer's age 31 season, 2012 is his age 32 season and so on. Now let's look at that handy aging curve provided by Pro Football Reference:

31	 97.3
32	 93.7
33	 88.9
34	 83.2

That covers his remaining contract. That's one peak season, two near-peak seasons and one season into the decline. That's pretty attractive on the whole. Three to four seasons isn't a Brady, Manning or Rivers sized window, but for those of us fighting over the scraps, that's filet mignon.

Helping Palmer to potentially outperform historical trends are his tools. Palmer is a former first overall pick and not a garden variety first overall pick, if such a thing is possible. We're in draft season and so hyperbole has replaced perspective, but consider this prospect:

6'5" 235

4.62 forty

Athletic, cannon arm

Four year starter, 45 starts, all in a pro-style offense (Paul Hackett, Hue Jackson, Norm Chow)

59.1% career completion percentage

7.5 yards an attempt

No prospect in this class can touch that. Andrew Luck, hyped as a once in a decade prospect, can not touch that. He's not as big, doesn't have the same kind of arm strength, is not nearly as experienced (and didn't start as a true freshman) and hasn't been as successful. Now, tools, performance, experience--that doesn't wholly define a prospect, and I am not saying Luck couldn't surpass Palmer, especially if he can turn in another season like his 2010, but if the above were affixed to, say, Jake Locker, teams would be stabbing each other in the ball trying to trade up for the first overall pick.

I am very interested in how Jake Locker performs through the pre-draft process, and that interest makes up . . . less than one percent of my interest in this coming draft. If in a couple months it seems probable that Locker will be available at 25 or thereabouts, I will do some play by play. That's sure to be divisive. Until, how about those glaring holes in the front seven, secondary and offensive line?

So let's start with a wide receiver:

Sayre Bedinger rumors that Seattle is interested in North Carolina receiver Dwayne Harris. Here's a link to a highlight video, because who couldn't use 2:20 of Hey Ya!

My five cent analysis: looks a little Dexter McClusterish to me. Shifty, coordinated as hell, fun to watch in space and (at least in the video) existing through broken tackles and run after catch. Not sure he's quick enough to pull that off at the next level.

Not Senior Bowl related, but Justin Houston looks like one of the more pure Leos* I've seen in this draft class. This video starts with a straight edge rush and continues from there. His closing burst looks a little lacking, but his quickness off the snap and flexibility as an edge rusher make Houston at least interesting. He could join Clemons for an all-Bulldog Leo rotation.

*as defined by Clemons and Brock.

If Seattle's entertaining a second round-ish defensive end prospect, and it's not but I am hypothesizing here, it could draft someone like Colorado corner Jimmy Smith at 25. I haven't watched much of Smith, but from a quick glance of his tools--frame, quickness, length and motor--he sure looks the part of a top-tier corner in the NFL. Not sure about the kid's eye for the ball. Hard to tell when teams refuse to throw towards him.

Anyway, have at it.

Sometime back, in a postgame post, can't remember which, I apologized for criticizing Jon Ryan. The Seahawks punter was a on a hot streak. Think it was after the Seahawks beat the Bears. Good times. I am always at my most optimistic, forgiving and homer-ish after a big win. Well it's the offseason now, and we can look back at the season with some kind of clarity.

Seattle's special teams were a critical component of Seattle making the playoffs. The Seahawks had the second best kick return unit in the NFL, the fifth best kickoff unit and an above average punt return unit. Thank you very much, Leon Washington. Thank you double, Brian Schneider. But Seattle was again below average at defending punts. Seattle finished at -0.3 in 2010 after finishing -0.8 in 2009.

Excluding Josh Bidwell, who only had 15 punts, Ryan finished 19 in the NFL in net average distance of punt. He had a substantial decrease in average and net average, without a substantial increase in rate of punts downed inside the opponent's 20. Ryan only punted one touchback all year, which is good for a punter, very good, but without knowing the context, hard to qualify. Maybe Ryan was punting from field positions that do not regularly lead to touchbacks. He hasn't displayed the skill in any other season. Maybe he's developed. Maybe not.

The truth is, I don't know if Ryan is a good punter or not. He's had some stinkers. He's had some beauties. Evaluating a punter is very hard and imprecise. Maybe with better information, like hang time, we could do a better job.

So, I'll just throw it out to you: Should Seattle explore upgrading itself at punter? Is Ryan a good punter? How can we know? And if the rest of Seattle's special teams play improved (excluding field goals and extra point attempts), why do you think punt coverage lagged behind? Punt coverage is how Brian Schneider made his name.

A critic begins writing about music because he is passionate about music. He wants, and lets just call it a "he", he wants to spread the word about smaller bands that are struggling and puncture a few bloated dinosaurs while he's at it. His enthusiasm for his work and clarity of intention leads to success. The music critic helps discover bands. The music critic helps shape popular interest in music. The music critic solidifies his standing by breaking the boundary between subject and artist: interviews bands, conducts festivals, and develops sources within record labels so as to be able to break news, host exclusive content and rub elbows with insiders.

The music critic becomes successful, and through the conventions and demands of that success, destroys that which made him relevant. The bands he once championed become the bloated dinosaurs, but having developed personal relationships with the bands, and having benefited professionally from those personal relationships, loyalty develops. A loyalty only a sociopath or an ubermensch could completely escape. The corruption, and it is corruption, makes the critic hard, cynical and the enthusiasm and wide-eyed passion he once sought and publicized emerging artist with diminishes. His profile, history, guilt, publicity and notoriety breeds self awareness, and that awareness forces him to second guess his opinions.

That's an extended metaphor, but it's also a bit of a cautionary tale. It's something I have thought about, both about others, and myself and my future as a football writer. Unlike the average music critic, I presume, I don't want to be a professional athlete (as many music critics would rather be musicians), never really aspired to be a professional athlete and do not even want to be close to and hang out with professional athletes. To wit: I am not a jock sniffer. As lame or unambitious as it might seem, I like to write and I like sports and I like to write about sports, and though I miss some content by not pursuing access and though I cap or at least delay my legitimacy by not pursuing access, I can not resolve how I can develop human relationships with players and stay, at least to the best of my ability, impartial.

Last year, Brandon Mebane's agent contacted me and we talked about setting up a publicity even for Mebane. See, Mebane is my favorite player and I think in some way I helped to spread the word about him. He is not my favorite player because I know him or want to know him. He is not my favorite player because I think he is among the best players in the NFL or even the best player on the Seahawks defense. He is my favorite player because he is good, and appreciating that he is good takes a little work and a little knowledge. Appreciating Mebane's ability helped me learn more about the game of football.

The problem is, at least within the arc of his current career, Mebane's best season is now two years past. Mebane was excellent in 2008. John Marshall used him as the one-tech complement to three-tech Rocky Bernard. I think it was sort of an unexpected success, which was part of the fun. Mebane substituted for an injured Chuck Darby and outclassed the aged veteran. He never relinquished the job. Despite playing three tech throughout college, Mebane's mix of quick first step, hand fighting, effort and, well, size and shape made him the rare run stuffer that could make plays in the backfield, collapse the pocket and even sack the quarterback.

His success led to Mebane taking over as Bernard's replacement at three tech. 2009 was a down season. Mebane could disrupt, but some of the bugaboos scouts tagged him with coming out of college resurfaced: he doesn't have great closing burst, isn't particularly fluid or agile and doesn't make many plays in space. Carroll replaced Mora, but defensive line coach Dan Quinn and defensive coordinator Gus Bradley were retained. Mebane became an under tackle. He worked mostly from the weak side in 2010 as part of a 3+1 line. He put on some weight so as to compensate for the Leo end. It was a better fit, but still not as good a fit, and I worry not a good enough fit to make the scheme work.

When Mebane broke in, he was a fourth pass rusher. Both ends were primary pass rushers. Bernard was 50-50. He could force a double team. He could make a play against the rusher. When it was a pass, he would attack a gap and pass rush. Mebane handled the dirty work. He was doubled more often than any other Seahawks lineman. He was tasked with the unenviable duty of withstanding consistent double teams. He, in all his awesomeness, regularly was able to fight back and fight through those double teams and make plays in the backfield. But he wasn't tasked with being a primary pass rusher. Mebane offered found pass rush from a position that didn't emphasize pass rush, and that more than anything is what I learned to love about his game.

As an under tackle though in the Leo system, Mebane is one of two players that must be counted on to provide pressure from a base defense. Colin Cole and Red Bryant collapse and control to their abilities. Cole is pretty much a run stuffer only, but a quality two-gap tackle. Bryant, like many 3-4 ends, gives you a little bit of everything: collapsing the pocket, setting the edge, deflecting passing, making plays in space and recording coverage sacks. Neither player should be counted on to provide consistent pass rush. That's up to the Leo end and the under tackle. Chris Clemons did his job. Mebane, well, Mebane flashed a lot of the core abilities that made him interesting in the first place, but just didn't create pressure consistently, and didn't consummate what pressure he created with quarterback hits and sacks. Mebane had a career low one sack and one quarterback hit in 2010. In 2008, he had 5.5 sacks and 18 quarterback hits.

Each system has its premium positions. Middle linebacker Brian Urlacher returning from injury and the signing of right defensive end Julius Peppers transformed the Bears defense from 22nd ranked in 2009 to fifth ranked in 2010. In some ways, we're still figuring out what the Leo system is and what it needs to work. But after a year (and in some ways two) of breaking down tape and thinking and testing my guesses, it seems to me that Seattle's premium line position isn't end, Leo or strongside. It isn't over tackle. It's the position manned by Brandon Mebane. This player must be stout against the run and, specifically, able to tie up blockers. He must be quick off the snap and able to make plays in the back field. But the biggest requirement, the requirement that makes it a premium position and not easy to fill, is that the under tackle must also be a great pass rusher. Otherwise, on too many snaps, pass rush is dependent on the Leo end. That's far too easy to game plan around and far too liable to break down and leave a pass rush toothless.

So though Mebane is still my favorite player, and a very good player, and though Mebane is a valuable free agent to a team in need of a Darby-style run plugger that also disrupts and creates pass rush (Chicago and Indianapolis spring to mind), I do not think he is a great fit for the Seahawks system and that system's requirements. Depending on his asking price, Mebane could still make sense as a rotational tackle. Every team that rotates its front four needs quality depth or else risks its second team unit being run over (See: Frank Gore, 2008 divisional round against Green Bay), but, well, here comes my corrupted side: does Mebane want to be a rotational tackle? He's better than that, and deserves to start. Maybe that's not my corrupted side. Maybe that's what little humanity I preserve from my Seahawks fandom.

Maybe Seattle signs him and attempts to overcome its pass rush limitations through scheme and by drafting developmental talent. Maybe Kentwan Balmer develops. He is, from a very broad tools perspective, a better fit. Most likely, I think, Seattle makes a play for someone like Albert Haynesworth, Shaun Rogers, Johnny Jolly or drafts a prospect like Marvin Austin or Kenrick Ellis. It may need a rare specimen at under tackle to make this defense go, but it just so happens a few of the best may be available.