When watching the NFL, audiences are frequently subjected to broadcasters debating the merits of kicking to or away from standout return specialists. These discussions never involve any data or quantitative reasoning. I would love to see some data/analysis on this subject, but I understand the inherent difficulty. That is, when a kicker or punter kicks away or squibs a kick, this is not an officially recorded statistic. Even defining these things is inherently problematic. Much like an error in baseball, an out-of-position return man can make a kicker appear to be kicking away.

I think the stupid debate and lack of any substantive analysis go hand in hand. Guys like Jaworski pipe on about how they would never kick to Hester. Thinking in stupid binary categories like always/never and not considering different ways to "not kick" to someone and game state make the whole conversation a non-starter. I have always thought that the "not kicking to" position was rather empty. I assumed this because people tend to underestimate the impact of what they don't see. Coughing up field position kick after kick obviously adds up, but goes unnoticed, while a ball taken to the house leaves an imprint.

My aim here is to make a basic case and then open up the discussion. Let's consider Hester since he is probably the best returner ever and as such provides a good upper bound on the dangers of kicking to a great returner. I understand that most of his success came very early on and he has cooled considerably since then. One could chock this up to early luck, changes in the other S/T personnel or scheme, teams shifting to kicking away from him, his taking on a bigger role in the offense, etc. We'll just go with it.

To keep it simple I am lumping together kicks and punts. Hester scored on about 4.7% of the kicks he saw. Or a bit less than 1 in 20. That calculation took about 10 seconds to do, is that really just too technical for the talking heads? How much field position does kicking away cost in general? We are out on a limb a bit, but let's say 10 yards. That means kicking away sacrifices 200 yards per TD prevented. Since these are usually going to be comparatively cheap "between the 20s" yards, and great returners usually mix in long non-scoring returns with their TD's, it ends up being pretty close..

I think the conclusion is that it just isn't that clear cut. It is never surprising when supposed experts speak matter-of-factly about something no one really understands all that well, but I can't say how refreshing it would be if a broadcaster mentioned this sort of simple back-of-the-envelope stuff and admitted that it is not a cut and dry question. Said commentator could then give their view (ultimately coaches have to call something) and provide a psychological motivation. 

Returning to the question motivating the post, a question we will certainly hear posed this weekend, what should opponents do? I am going to ahead and say that I would much prefer our opponents kick to Leon. Leon has brought back about 4% of the kicks sent his way (I know different S/T personnel), so about aligned with the analysis above. However, since our offense sort of sucks right now, I question how much a dozen or so yards of field position really matter. They will improve our expected points significantly only in relative, not absolute terms. On the other hand, a TD, is absolutely worth 6-8 points. Opposing defense vs. S/T coverage unit would clearly be a factor as well. Anyhow, this post is long enough, what do y'all think?

There are presently twelve 7-8 and 8-7 teams right now. Denver is 8-7. They play KC this week, a game that most teams would win, but this Denver team has been finding ways to lose lately, dropping 7 of their last 9. While they are still likely to win, it is quite good for the Hawks if they lose. As you know, we hold Denver's 2010 first round pick. A Denver loss gives an 8-8 finish, they miss the playoffs, and the pick ends up being around #15 (+/- a couple of picks) depending on how the other teams shake out. A Denver win, combined with a loss by either NYJ or BAL, would put Denver in the playoffs. The draft order is based on winning percentage but a playoff team drafts AFTER a non-playoff team with the same record. This would mean that Denver's pick would be #22, a jump of around seven spots (maybe more)..

It may not seem like a lot but I was quite suprised when I saw that this one game could amount to ten or so spots in draft position for the hawks. Go KC!

As for the Hawks game, they could go up or down a couple spots based on the outcome... I am sort of hoping they lose because that would give them a much better shot at drafting Suh or Berry. It seems like those two are the best talents in this draft by far. Since teams at the top are likely to reach for QB/LT as usual, if we can sneak up to the #5 spot, there is a good chance that we geta shot at one of these guys. The only unit on this team that doesn't need an infusion of talent is LB, so a DL or DB up high sounds great to me. If we can get an LT and QB with our remaining first and our second, then I think thats a nice chunk of our rebuild under way.

We are all excited about Hasselbeck's dominating 4-TD return on Sunday and the implications for the season that so recently seemed lost. I am going to present an analysis of the Seahawks last 4+ seasons that addresses the potential presence of greatness in the Seahawks. I will not be concerned with whether the Seahawks are 'physical' or 'know howto win', instead I focus on one simple question: Can the Seahawks win on the road against a good team?


I presented a similar analysis last season, but there is new data here and a new context so I feel it deserves a new post. Many remember last season when we were in disbelief about the Seahawks terrible performance. A lot of us looked back on the supposedly succesful years prior and noticed something alarming: The Seahawks have won only one road game against a better than .500 team in 2005-present. That game was against Denver in 2006. It was Jay Cutler's first ever NFL start and he created three turnovers himself in a game in which the Seahawks were outgained. We slid by with a 23-20 win. Here is the rest of the data: Note that I looked at the entire 16 game record of the team, not their record in the other 14 or 15 games not against the Seahawks. So, for example, if the Hawks beat a team that goes on to be 8-8 (8-7 excluding the hawks game), they are not included.

2005 (0-2)
L - Jacksonville (12-4)
L - Washington (10-6)

2006 (1-2)
L - Chicago (13-3)
L - Kansas City (9-7)
W - Denver (9-7)

2007 (0-2)
L - Pittsburgh (10-6)
L - Cleveland (10-6)

2008 (0-5)
L - NY Giants (12-4)
L - Tampa Bay (9-7)
L - Miami (11-5)
L - Dallas (9-7)
L - Arizona (9-7)

This comes out to a combined 1-11 against good teams on the road. Even if we call 2008 a fluke that is 1-6 in the other three years. We could add as many as three more such losses if we include playoffs. An interesting thing to note is that we had by far the largest number of these games in 2008 (5), with only 3, 2, and 2 in the other years. My point with all of this is that it has seemed to me for some time that the ability to beat a good team on the road is something a great team must be able to do. Obviously no team is going to bat 1.000 in such games, but it has to win some games. The Seahawks have been a strange team over the last few years in that we made the playoffs in 2005-2007 with only one such win. It is strange to me that we have been so good at home. Last year we were only -10 point differential at home for the season. We also have shown the ability to play near-perfect football against bad teams. I am waiting for the moment to come when we go out an beat a good team in their stadium. I do not think I am harping on some small sample size anomaly. Year after year I like our roster on paper and see what it can do at home against a bad team, and then see a totally different team in any tough road game.

I think right now is an exciting time because the Seahawks just played some of the best football we have seen from them and the season is still young. If the Hawks can sustain a level of play similar to what we saw Sunday, the sky is the limit. I do not think Jacksonville is a Rams type stinker, they are a halfway decent team. I see the next two weeks as follows:

ARI: We have to win this game if we are gonna sneak into the playoffs 9-7. Divisonal home game. I don't think beating the Cards at home (they probably won't even be .500 this year) proves anything, we just have to win. It seems like the playoff sneak-in requires that we win these gimme and almost-gimme games:

ARI
DET
@STL
SF
@Hou
TB
TEN

giving up @ARI, @DAL, @MIN, @GB.

DAL: This is where, I think, things get very interesting. Even if we still only finish with 9 wins. It would be awesome to win one of the four remaining road games against a team likely to finish the season above .500. That sort of win makes me believe we have a chance of winning a road playoff game and making this a very special year. I would not say I am expecting this win, but I think it would be more than just a win...

I was a bit suprised to see us sign Ken Lucas. You don't sign a 30 year old corner of Lucas's level unless you plan to start him. Clearly the writing is on the wall for Jennings. We all thought Jenning was covering really well in 2007, but in 2008 we realized that looks can be decieving. While Jennings was typically hip-to-hip with opposing wideouts, teams learned that they can just throw at Jennings anyways, his inability to lay a big hit, or make a play on the ball in the air meant that he never punished with a pick, and often times couldn't manage to stop the completion. I don't think a diet of Gore, Jackson, and Wells will do Jennings any good next year either. Jennings still gives us a different matchup at the nickelback spot, injury depth, and a very good dime package.

Lucas can be an above average #2 corner for us. He was a cap casualty in Carolina, a team that felt deep enough at corner to let him go and gain some cap room.

The question is, how much did we spend on Lucas? I am guessing/hoping that we got a bargain. Most teams have already done their overpaying in FA, and have also had needs met in the draft. I would think that in the cold market we got a good deal on Lucas. I haven't heard the numbers yet, but here are some comparables.

The two corners who I think are closest to Lucas in value level are Jabari Greer and Samari Rolle, both good #2 corners.

Greer got 23MM / 4 years (age 27)

Rolle got 10MM / 4 years (age 32)

So I would think that fair value for Lucas would be between 2.5 and 5.5 MM a year. Varing depending on how good you think Lucas is relative to these other guys. I am basing my comparison naievely on Scout.com's rankings

Hello all.

Former Sonics fan here. I have followed the Hawks pretty closely this year as I recently moved to ATL. My impression of the Hawks, as someone who is genuinely interested in seeing them succeed, but not a die hard fan, is that their talent level far exceeds their on the court performance. I am not going to get into specifics, but I want to point out that the Hawks have a very deep problem that extends deeper than Woodson or Smith- Rick Sund.

Sund is a complete idiot. His saving grace his entire career was the Gary Payton and scraps for Ray Allen and scraps deal. Ray Allen was about 7 years younger and entering his peak years while Payton was well off of his. I will grant him that this was a great deal.

Nevertheless Sund managed to completely destroy the Sonics. The worst thing about him was his drafting, a feature you Hawks fans have yet to see.

While the writing may or may not be on the wall for Woodson, don't expect to see your team get any better. Go take a look at Sund's last THREE drafts for Seattle and see if there is one name there you even recognize. The best players this guy has ever drafted were Nick Collison, Luke Ridnour, and Vladimir Radmanovich. In other words, the best he has ever done is find a solid bench player. He has a huge thing for his own guys too. Wherever he goes you will find Flip Murray and Early Watson, so expect him to just bring his guys in instead of the guys you really need.

There is nothing worse than a bad GM because it means you get worse year after year. Expect to be back in the lottery shortly.

"They cut Roy Williams the Safety":http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3954441

He would seem to make sense for the Hawks for the same reasons as Phillips. I truly hope that it is Russell we are considering benching, and not Grant... I mean, the FO and coaching staff can't be THAT blind right?

I haven't really watched Williams a ton. He is known for his run-stopping, but is considered a liability in coverage.

Interesting things happening in Dallas.

What do y'all think?

I was looking at Dan Carpenter's stats and considering him as a fantasy plug and play this week with the 'phins taking on STL, a very poor defense.

The thing that bugs me is that Carpenter has tried very few FG's relative to the number of PAT's he has made. I am trying to understand why this is. Here are a few options, please indicate which one or several you think is right:

1) Redzone efficiency

2) Kicker has a weak leg so the team tends to go for it or punt instead of try 45-55 yard FG's

3) The team goes for it on 4th a lot, even when it would be a short kick.

The first option is a lot less sustainable, so I would play Carpenter if that was the case. Not that I want to take away from the Dolphins that they have played well in the redzone, but they are getting touchdowns vs. fieldgoals at a ridiculuous 2:1 clip. The latter two options would lead me to avoid playing Carpenter, as those are things that are not likely to change.

Thanks!

This article suggests what a lot of us have been thinking for a long time- that Safety play for the hawks has been terrible this year, despite Grant and Russell being the guys Ruskell hand-picked. The encouraging thing about this article is that the source is supposedly a team insider. This is a big positive because another year of Russell would be torture/suicide.

I am very happy to read this, because we have been hearing through the media about Wilson/Jennings switching roles, etc. While CB play has left something to be desired, these guys are young and have upside. There was strange silence about the horrible play of Russell and to a lesser extent Grant, guys whose skills are going nowhere but down.

The article also mentions that our safeties have blitzed a lot and not gotten to the QB, another quality observation.

My hope is that this supposed team insider is among the camp that will be running this team in years to come. Russell should be cut. His salary is sort of high also which makes him an easy cut to swallow. Grant is supposedly playing hurt. He is 29, but has been superhumanly durable over his career. I believe he is hurt after how he went down against Green Bay this year. I would expect after potential off-season surgery, that he will be good to go next year and be a solid contributor for another few years. At the SS position (where he has done pretty well), he won't suffer as much from losing a little speed each year.

A nice FS addition from the draft at or around the 3rd round and a healthy Grant would make a world of difference. I see Adams more as depth and competition for Babineaux at the dime spot. Of course, I would be happy to be wrong.

FO is now calling the Hawks schedule up until now the 9th toughest in the NFL. They are calling the Giants schedule up until now the 32nd toughest. Doesn't change the way the Giants handled us... but I think this sort of year may be good for the future of our young core.

I don't think many of us saw this schedule as being this tough. The Bills and Dolphins were supposed to be pushovers and they are both better than .500 teams, that sucks for the hawks for an east coast road game. You ideally want the easiest games on the road (so you win them), the toughest games on the road (so you don't waste a home game losing) and the close games at home. We have had our easiest contests at home (SF, STL) which has compounded the problem.

In addition to supposedly bad teams like BUF and MIA turning out to be good. The mix of teams that we expected to be pretty good have turned out to be awesome. You usually expect some team that was hot last year to suck the next year, but we haven't gotten that: GB, NYG, PHI, and TB are all top 10 DVOA teams. The only break we have gotten has been STL and SF being bad. STL being as bad as they are actually makes our schedule seem easier than it is: STL is so bad that if they got a little better we would still beat them, but we can still only get 2 wins out of them so it doesnt really help us much that they are atrociously bad vs. just bad.

The 'break's would be coming in our future schedule, as NWE and DAL are not as bad-ass as was projected, but even those teams have still been solid. With Romo coming back and Cassel heating up, even those games are very tough. Plus we have the Jets playing way better than anyone thought and they are coming up in our schedule. Arizona is light years from what we expected coming in... They pretty much totally cancel out the weakness of SF and STL. Last but not least, the Redskins are yet  another top 10 DVOA team...

This had turned out to be easily the toughest schedule we have played in quite some time. We have still underperformed one way or the other.. but I think it is a plus going forward to have this sort of season under our belts.

Injuries haven't been huge in number but have seemed to hit us precisely where the depth has lacked. Darby going down and Mebane coming to fruition was not the kind of injury we lucked into this year.

I am now hoping that in a week or two once we are 'mathematically' out of the running for the playoffs, Homgren steps down and we start looking to the future..

I am having a very hard time figuring out what our backfield will look like next year. Weaver and Morris will both be FA's this offseason and we drafted Schmitt and Forsett who are very cheap, effective options. Duckett and Jones are on contract through next year so they are likely to be around.

We saw the market value of backs hit rock bottom this season. Benson, R. Johnson. SA, these guys did not generate a lot of FA buzz. The only big splurge was Turner and even he is splitting time with Norwood. In the copycat world of the NFL, every GM wanted to grab the next AP. Look at how many rookie backs came right into PT this year:

McFadden, F. Jones, Hightower, Forte, Slaton, Mendenhall, Stewart, etc.

The feeling among teams is that it is smarter to draft a fresh young back then pay a guy who has taken a lot of licks.

The interesting question is what sort of FA demand will Weaver attract?

Weaver is 26 but only became a starter around the middle of last season...  He was hurt when he first got here but has been quite durable otherwise. A lot of us feel like Weaver has the skills to play halfback. Weaver is the perfect singleback, because he can do everything reasonably well. Teams that employ a lot of singleback, which seems like everyone these days, would probably be interested in him.

We have a ton of redundancy in our backfield right now, partly because everyone has been healthy other than Morris for a short stint. My best guess is that we let Weaver and Morris both go because they will cost the most to keep around; Duckett and Jones are already on contract. This may depend somewhat on how their contracts are structured which I would love to hear someone explain.

Bobby Engram has resumed whining about his contract to the media. Here is a recent article I didn't bother reading beyond the headline. There is a twisted argument going around that since we had relatively poor WR play without Engram we should acknowledge his worth and give him a deal. I think the opposite should in fact be drawn from what happened, namely:

1) The quality of this WR corps was not nearly what we, the fans, and the Seattle sports media had thought. We all thought trading away Darrell Jackson was a clear indicator we had a monster WR unit last year. Well it turned out that neither Hackett or Branch could stay healthy (something that could, SHOULD, have been inferred beforehand) and all the wunderkinds are either worthless or a long ways away (take your pick). We finally gave in and brought in McMullen and he has played quite well. Not to slam our players, but we just don't have anyone I would call a top receiver or 'matchup issue' for opposing teams. In other words, Engram has stood out by default.

2) The reason we don't want to extend Engram is because of the age/injury issue and the fact that he got hurt corroborates that concern.

Engram is important to this team but that is an issue we need to address in the draft and/or FA (or see what happens with Koren, Keary, and Billy). Throwing money at him at his age is senseless.

I am against the whining and getting an extension ploy in general. The team signed you to a contract and guaranteed you money to fix the rate at which your services could be acquired for. The Giants hit a home run signing Burress on the cheap after he had played two disappointing seasons in a row for the Steelers. They deserve to reap the rewards of taking the chance they took on him. Engram is no superstar but he does what he does well and for a low price. That is the recipe for a winning team. Every team has an all-pro or two that are getting 10 million dollars a year. It's the quality rotation player or starter who is getting peanuts that makes a team great.

Obviously I understand it is a business for both sides and if it works you might as well do it. I wonder if anyone will give Bobby a multi-year deal next year. I am pretty sure the Hawks would offer him 1 or 2 on the cheap, I wonder what else is out there. He won't be that useful or see much playing time on any other squad at his age so I would hate to see him go after so much selfless service.

That said I am stoked to see Bobby get back on the field. He DOES WHAT HE DOES very well and his rap with Hasselbeck is tangible when they are out there. Branch was amazing when healthy last year and I would love to see him get back to that quickly. Lets not forget he is still 29 and still has the potential to be the deadly weapon we so badly wanted that we traded a first rounder for him. We can start the T.J. Housh free agency posts in a few weeks if these guys go down again ( I suspect Cincy will be rebuilding and letting him go at his age), but for now its time for some Deion and Bobby like its supposed to be (even if Bobby thinks he's criminally underpaid).

Clearly Russell is not particularly beloved in this neck of the woods. Russell is not making much money so I would not be stunned if the team actually did can him. It would surprise me a bit because his play was atrocious last year as well and we didn't do anything about it. Still, he supposedly was helping the 'deep ball' issue of 2006 and we were winning games and putting up good defensive numbers so that probably led to hesitation to shake things up. Three things are different now:

1. Russell seems to have declined even further.

2. We were burned deep in both games so far.

3. We are losing and someone has to take the fall, might as well be the right person.

What this all leads to is... who should the other starting safety be? Obviously Grant will continue to start. I am not making any FS / SS distinctions because our system does not really distinguish the position and Grant is versatile enough anyways.

Forsett has returned a kick and a punt for 48 yards combined in the first quarter....

Overreacting about one fumble caused us to lose Burleson. Not Forsett himself as some have argued.

Stupidity on the part of the Hawks. Using Wallace in the return game will further compound such stupidity. Hopefully Bumpus succeeds as a returner. I don't want to see Trufant, Wallace, or anyone else mentioned in that mix. Maybe Coutu can return kicks.

I went through the Redskins preseason to see what McMullen had done. I was hoping he was productive because he was a veteran working against second rate coverage. He was extremely productive! It is understandable the Skins didn't take a journeyman like McMullen with vets like Moss, Randle El, and young prospects like Malcom Kelly. Since Zorn supposedly brought the Holmgren offense over to Washington he should be pretty near ready to go. McMullen caught passes from four different Redskins quarterbacks (including Derek Devine!). He caught balls deep and short. I am really hoping this guy turns into a real diamond in the rough.

Targets: 31
Catches: 22
Rate: %71
Yards : 243
Yards / Target: 7.84
Yards / Catch: 11.05
First Downs: 12
FD / Target: %39
FD / Catch: %55

Here is my methodology:

1. Defensive Pass interference against McMullen I count as catches. Offensive pass interference by McMullen I count as - 10 yards, 0 targets, 0 catches (as there is no loss of down).
2. False Starts on McMullen I count as -5 yards, 0 targets, 0 completions (as there is no loss of down).
3. I ignore stats for plays nullified by a penalty like a holding, but keep them if it was a defensive penalty that was declined.
4. Personal Fouls, etc. after the play is dead are ignored (the foul, not the play) if McMullen isn’t committing them.

Here is the data:

Redskins vs. Colts (HOF Week)
2nd Quarter:

2-1-WAS 42       (13:01) PENALTY on WAS-16-B.McMullen, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at
WAS 42 - No Play.

2-7-WAS 31       (9:01) 15-T.Collins pass incomplete deep left to 16-B.McMullen. PENALTY
on WAS-69-J.Fabini, Chop Block, 15 yards, enforced at WAS 31 - No Play

3rd Quarter:
3-7-WAS 29       (10:44) 5-C.Brennan pass deep left to 16-B.McMullen to IND 37 for 34
yards (49-J.Senn).

3-2-IND 41       (3:08) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen. PENALTY
on IND-95-D.Reid, Defensive Offside, 5 yards, enforced at IND 41 - No Play.


Redskins vs. Bills (Week 1)
2nd Quarter:
1-10-WAS 35       (13:41) 15-T.Collins pass short left to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 38 for 3
yards (26-A.Youboty).

3-7-WAS 38       (12:57) 15-T.Collins pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to BUF 49 for 13
yards (27-R.Corner).

2-9-WAS 26       (2:21) 15-T.Collins pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen.

3-9-WAS 26      (2:18) 15-T.Collins pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 36 for 10
yards (95-K.Williams, 97-J.McCargo).

3rd Quarter:
1-10-BUF 37       (12:28) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete deep left to 16-B.McMullen.

3-7-BUF 34       (11:40) 5-C.Brennan pass short right to 16-B.McMullen to BUF 28 for 6
yards (28-L.McKelvin).

3-7-WAS 36       (7:34) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 49 for 13
yards (26-A.Youboty).

1-10-WAS 49       (6:50) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete short middle to 16-B.McMullen.

4th Quarter:
3-6-WAS 41       (11:20) 2-D.Devine pass incomplete short middle to 16-B.McMullen (27-
R.Corner).

1-10-WAS 26       (8:48) 2-D.Devine pass short right to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 36 for 10
yards (29-J.Wendling).

Redskins @ Jets (Week 2)
1st Quarter:
3-7-NYJ 27       (2:14) 17-J.Campbell pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen (25-K.Rhodes). PENALTY on NYJ-36-D.Barrett, Defensive Pass Interference, 8 yards, enforced at NYJ 27 - No Play.

2nd Quarter:
3-5-WAS 46 (9:03) 15-T.Collins pass short right to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 49 for 3 yards (30-D.Coleman).

1-10-NYJ 11 (4:20) 15-T.Collins pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen. PENALTY on WAS-16-B.McMullen, Offensive Pass Interference, 10 yards, enforced at NYJ 11 - No Play.

1-10-NYJ 47 (:24) 15-T.Collins pass incomplete deep left to 16-B.McMullen.

3rd Quarter:
2-6-WAS 45 (13:43) 15-T.Collins pass short left to 16-B.McMullen to NYJ 42 for 13 yards (58-M.Chatham).

4th Quarter:
1-10-WAS 20 (2:04) 5-C.Brennan pass deep right to 16-B.McMullen to NYJ 43 for 37 yards (42-A.Carroll).

Redskins @ Panthers (Week 3)
3rd Quarter:
1-10-WAS 20 (9:40) 15-T.Collins pass short right to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 27 for 7 yards (31-R.Marshall).

1-10-CAR 46 (7:51) 15-T.Collins pass short left to 16-B.McMullen to CAR 30 for 16 yards (75-S.McClover).

1-10-CAR 30 (7:14) 15-T.Collins pass incomplete short right to 16-B.McMullen.

3-20-CAR 27 (6:17) 15-T.Collins pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to CAR 15 for 12 yards (59-A.Seward, 31-R.Marshall).

1-10-WAS 37 (1:28) 15-T.Collins pass short left to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 41 for 4 yards (22-R.Colclough).

4th Quarter:
2-10-WAS 25 (9:47) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 30 for 5 yards (22-R.Colclough).

3-5-WAS 30 (9:40) 5-C.Brennan pass short right to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 41 for 11 yards (54-L.Johnson).

3-6-CAR 31 (5:40) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen (22-R.Colclough).

1-10-WAS 40 (2:00) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete short left to 16-B.McMullen (57-D.Connor).

Redskins vs. Jaguars (Week 4)
2nd Quarter:
2-8-WAS 42 (10:01) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 48 for 6 yards (26-M.Grant).

3-13-JAC 35 (7:23) (Shotgun) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to JAC 28 for 7 yards (51-C.Ingram) [93-Q.Groves].

3rd Quarter:
2-5-WAS 41 (9:14) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete deep right to 16-B.McMullen. PENALTY on JAC-22-Tr.Williams, Defensive Pass Interference, 23 yards, enforced at WAS 41 - No Play.

2-26-WAS 48 (8:06) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to JAC 47 for 5 yards (50-T.Gilbert). PENALTY on JAC-53-Th.Williams, Personal Foul, 15 yards, enforced at JAC 47.

4th Quarter:
3-9-WAS 43 (13:49) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen pushed ob at JAC 25 for 32 yards (23-J.Fudge). PENALTY on WAS-62-D.Clark, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at WAS 43 - No Play.

2-10-WAS 17 (11:57) 5-C.Brennan pass short middle to 16-B.McMullen to WAS 29 for 12 yards (22-Tr.Williams). JAC-75D-J.Lewis was injured during the play. His return is Questionable. Penalty on JAC-22-Tr.Williams, Defensive Holding, declined.

1-10-WAS 29 (11:27) 5-C.Brennan pass incomplete short middle to 16-B.McMullen.

I do.

We played without (for a game or more):

Tubbs

Locklear

Hasselbeck

Tobeck

Engram

Darell Jackson

Hackett

Stevens

Alexander

Trufant

Herndon

And we didn't even have Grant, Kerney, Wahle, Mebane, L.Jackson, Carlson.

The only guy I can think of from 2006 I would want now is Mack Strong. Damn I like writing that name.

We were a field goal away from the NFC championship game in 2006 and we were already without Hutch and we are much better now.

With John Carlson finally taking the field and turning heads initially at training camp, we can begin to ponder what the success or failure of Carlson will do to Ruskell's reputation as a talent evaluator. First a little review:

Ruskell inherited a strong offensive team when he took over. The core pieces were already in place for the offense (Jones, Strong, Hasselbeck, Jackson, Stevens, Alexander, Hutchinson, Locklear, Tobeck). The defense needed work so the next drafts and FA signings were focused on that side of the ball.

Here is a look at Key additions and busts from the Ruskell era. I am ignoring very late round picks and cheap FA signings, in other words, low risk propositions which did not involve significant resources and therefore do not weigh heavily in grading Ruskell.

Key additions (good or great moves):

Defense:

FA - Kerney, Grant, Peterson

Draft - Tatupu, Hill, Jennings, Tapp, Mebane

Offense:

FA - Burleson

Draft - Sims

Questionable additions:

Defense:

FA - Russell

Draft - None

Offense:

FA - Pollard, Branch (trade)

Draft - Willis, Spencer

Busts:

Defense:

FA - None

Draft - None

Offense:

FA - None

Draft - David Greene

Not enough info yet:

Defense:

FA - None

Draft - Wilson, Bryant, L. Jackson, Atkins

Offense:

FA - Wahle, Jones, Duckett

Draft - Carlson, Wrotto

One of the first thing one notices is that Ruskell has only once used a high pick (4th or higher) or top-FA dollar  on a true bust. That distinction goes to David Greene, who missed his window to convince the coaching staff he was a legitimate backup. Defensively, Ruskell has clearly been an ace, with almost all the defensive starters being recent Ruskell acquisitions. The only misfire Ruskell has had on defense was Russell, who still has the opportunity to get on the key additions list with a strong 2008 (unlikely though). Still, Russell was not a major signing and hasn't been a total bust. The offense has been a different story. The only bona fide hits Ruskell has had on offense have been Burleson and Sims. Even these two aren't perfect though and both could slip to the questionable list if they have a poor 2008. While there haven't been any other total busts other than Greene, the Branch trade is looking like more and more of a reach, as are linemen Spencer and Willis.

I am not considering 'non-moves' such as not resigning Hutch, or not resigning Hamlin. I am also ignoring re-signings such as Tatupu and Trufant. This is because deciding what to do with players on your team who your coaches already have extensive experience with is obviously a lot different from scouting the outside.

Unfortunately, I still do not think we will really know whether Ruskell can evaluate offensive talent for a while longer. Even in this past year's draft we took defensive players with two of our top three picks. Carlson is the x-factor here. It wasn't a huge gamble since he was a second rounder. He also fits the usual Ruskell mold of being very likely to contribute, but not likely to be confused with the league's best player at his position. Still, since he was the top TE drafted, expect criticism for Ruskell if he doesn't turn out to be the best TE in his class. He has the advantage of being #1 on the depth chart immediately and playing in a good pass offense. We should finally get an extended look at the young receivers, but none of them were drafted any higher than Taylor with a 6th round pick. Young OL projects Willis and Wrotto probably won't crack the lineup this year unless there are injuries. Wahle will be considered in a similar light to Carlson, a sub-blockbuster move that is likely to end up as another high-value contributor.

In conclusion, while Ruskell has been a genius on Defense, he has been able to ride the talent that was here when he arrived on offense. With a lot of defenders locked up for a while now, next years draft and FA period will probably be Ruskell's most offense-oriented to date and we'll have to wait and see for that. If Wahle and Carlson meet or exceed expectations and Spencer and Sims improve on a setback 2007, then Ruskell's 2008 will be less crucial to his offensive rep.

I am a Sonics fan (or was) and fell like venting some aggression on the blazers. The blazers are thieves, constantly stealing talent from bad teams that really need it.

#1 Roy - Foye Trade.

Ridiculous. This is why the Wolves will always stink. These two guys are nearly the same age (Roy slightly younger) and were both sophomores. Pretty similar scoring and rebounding numbers. A couple differences though. The main difference is Roy shot better than 50% from the field both of his years in college. Foye was hovering just over 40%. This is a MAJOR difference. Efficiency is everything, everyone scores if they keep shooting. Any guard that can average better than 50% for an entire multi-year college career is amazing. The better scoring % is a result of being better at getting to the rim and being a better outside shooter, in other words, a vastly superior offensive player. But Foye is a PG right?  I mean, he makes up for inferior scoring ability by distributing to teammates? Oh wait, Roy averaged way more assists in college than Foye (which has contintued in the NBA). Roy isn't a 'true PG', he's too big and strong, wouldn't want a guy like that on your team.  This trade will always  mystify me. Why on earth do you take the guard thats smaller and not as good at basketball?

This is a trend we will see the sneaky Blazers repeat, ie, taking great basketball players instead of scout-fetish low-lives.

#2 The Aldridge - Thomas trade.

Again, total steal by the blazers. These two had similar numbers in college. Thomas was more of an athlete and Aldridge more of a basketball player though. I will never understand why these scouts and their teams go crazy over these athletic projects. Great athletes don't all that often figure out how to succeed in the NBA. Great basketball players are usually a lot better off. Everyone assumes you can teach basketball to an athlete. This thinking is crazy, anyone who's played basketball knows that the way they do it in the pros you either got it or you don't by the time your 20. Its actually a lot easier to take a guy who can really play the game and help him become a better athlete. The Blazers correctly predicted that Thomas wouldn't have size and athleticism advantages over NBA opponents and that would be pretty much it for him. Aldridge has had to work to improve in the NBA, but being good at playing basketball has really smoothed things over for him.

#3 Bayless

Another year, another stupid draft for most teams. Why on earth does chicago take Rose? Rose is definitely overrated. He is a great athlete, but is he a great basketball player? He's definitely not a bad player, but is he a #1 pick GREAT player? Westbrook, Rose, Bayless, etc. these guys are all great athletes, what makes Rose so superior? How did he earn the ever-elusive 'pure PG' label? Did any of these scouts watch a Memphis game? Clearly CDR was doing a big chunk of the ball handling for that squad. Memphis was a great team and Rose was a part of that, but they were also a stacked team, and Rose was not responsible for that. Enter Jerryd Bayless: Great player. Knows how to play the game like a pro. Doesn't have the 'mechanics' scouts drool over, but somehow manages to be a dead-eye shooter anyways. Only via complete and utter theft do the Blazers get this player about five spots later than he should have gone.

Ridiculous.

The Bulls won championships all through the 90's. They deserve to suck for a long time. They were even in the playoffs most of the last few years. All of the sudden they get a #1 pick? So unfair. They then blow it on a position they are OK at. Hinrich is a pretty solid point, why reach for rose? They've needed an inside scorer for years and I don't think Drew Gooden solved the problem. They had Beasley (great basketball player btw) for the taking. Stupid.

Thieves.

Hey folks,

I am moving to Atlanta from NYC to go to Tech. I am from Seattle though and a huge Seahawks fan. I don't think I can get DirecTV in my apartment so I am trying to gather some intel on the sports bar scene in the midtown-GT area. The biggest priority for me is a place that will have the Seahawks game. So that basically means a place that has a ton of TV's and plays every game. If a place is really crowded though than that makes it hard to find a seat by the one TV playing the game. Lastly, cheap beer and food are also good...

So, what the best ATL sports bar based on the above criteria?

Also, I figure I might as well start following the falcons a bit, whats the best bar in my area for the Falcon's game?

I was born in Seattle but moved away in 2003 for college. Over the past year I have participated in the NYC Seahawks Meetup at the Crow's Nest on 2nd Avenue in Manhattan. We had anywhere from a dozen to 50+ people on any given Sunday.

Does anyone else participate in organized Seahawks meetups outside of the Northwest? I know some of the others from the Crow's Nest read this blog. I am wondering what else is out there.

I am also moving to Atlanta in a few weeks to start up at a new school. Is anyone here an Atlanta Seahawks fan? Or do you know anyone you want to refer to me?

Its better to be organized. In New York since we had such a big crew we were always guaranteed to have the Hawks game on all the big screens and even drink/food specials from time to time.

I am a little afraid of being that guy who is sitting alone in the corner of the bar screaming at a little TV, "AHHH!!! HE THREW THAT RIGHT INTO COVERAGE!!!"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3423170

The cowboys major deals since last offseason now include: Romo, Owens, Barber, Newman, Pacman, and Flozelle Adams since last offseason.

Compare that with the Hawks major deals: Locklear, Tatupu, Trufant, Julius Jones, Wahle

The Hawks and Cowboys have been the only two consistently excellent teams in the NFC the past few years. The other good NFC teams the last few years have been up and down (Saints, Bears, Packers, Giant, Eagles, Bucs). Both teams have improved over the offseason and not given up much. Although everyone thinks the Vikings are the hottest thing since the big bang, they don't have a good QB. People seem to confuse 'young' and 'going to be great next year' way too often. Anyhow, it stands to reason that Dallas is the team to beat in the NFC this year. Compounding this reality is the fact that the Hawks and Cowboys are going to play this season... A matchup that has been in the hawks favor in recent years.

The Cowboys have the most talent in the NFC but they are their own worst enemies. Tank Johnson, Pacman Jones, Terrell Owens, Ken Hamlin, and others have well documented off-field troubles. This sort of character depravity makes Jerry Jones look like a shrewd genius when the team is winning. Of course, should the Cowboys start off the year with, say, three wins and four losses, we all know what will happen. Owens will start crying about touches. Tank Johnson will shoot someone. Pacman will shoot someone. The list goes on... These guys will chew each other out because they just aren't team players.

The Hawks, on the other hand, are a high character bunch and will not self destruct if things don't start out perfectly. last year's 4-4 start is a good example, as well as two years ago with all the injuries.

I keep hearing stuff about Jerry Jones doing all these big-money signings because of a potential uncapped year approaching and a bunch of other loopholes. I haven't heard a fully coherent explanation though. I hope this isn't turning into a MLB/Yankees type of situation. Letting Jones buy all the top talent will make for a lot of unexciting Sundays.