SB Nation User Blog: michaelfox99

What it takes to be great

michaelfox99 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:29:20 -0000

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...

Grading the Ken Lucas Signing

michaelfox99 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:31:58 -0000

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

Rick Sund, I said it.

michaelfox99 — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:57:41 -0000

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.

Cowboys cut Williams (the safety), should Hawks consider?

michaelfox99 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:16:10 -0000

"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?

Dan Carpenter

michaelfox99 — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:39:56 -0000

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!

Offseason Satefy Shakeup

michaelfox99 — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:25:14 -0000

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.

Strength of Schedule

michaelfox99 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:59 -0000

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..

Resign Weaver?

michaelfox99 — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:15:09 -0000

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.

Engram's Contract Gripes

michaelfox99 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:56:12 -0000

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).

Who should replace Russell?

michaelfox99 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:07:57 -0000

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.

Poll

Who do you put at Safety?

Jordan Babineaux

36 votes

C.J. Wallace

8 votes

Jamar Adams

38 votes

Other / Free Agent

17 votes

99 votes | Poll has closed