Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

28 Dec 2007

Hasselbeck, Seattle Flying Under the Radar

A look at the third-best team in the NFC.

Posted by: Michael David Smith on 28 Dec 2007

21 comments, Last at 02 Jan 2008, 6:52pm by gmc

Comments

1
by Steve Nolan (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 2:34am

Will they ever be "above" the radar? It seems like this happens every year.

2
by John (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 3:51am

You mean on the radar.

3
by putnamp (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 7:38am

I believe the "we want the ball and we're gonna score" game was actually in Seattle, though it doesn't really matter all that much.

4
by Otis Taylor 89 (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 9:40am

Umm, who have they played? They are the West Coast version of TB, easy schedule, stats look good because of easy schedule, wins look good because of easy schedule, losses look good because of easy schedule.
Teams that play easy schedules during reg. season don't usually go far in the playoffs. One exception is the '72 Dolphins - the '07 Seahawks aren't the'72 Dolphins.

5
by BadgerT1000 (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 10:04am

Put:

When Matt uttered that phrase the game was in Green Bay.

While I have little goodwill towards the Seattle head coach there are still few better at gameplanning. That gives this team a legit shot in any game.

Though I will mention again that Holmgren looks TERRIBLE. Did a family member die? Not being a wiseguy. MH looks as if he has aged 20 years the past 6 months.

6
by Chris (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 11:55am

A few weeks ago I picked up some NFL futures for the Seahawks at 50/1. 50/1 for a team that finished the year with an easy schedule to finish in the 3 slot?

I don't think they are going to win it, but if they beat Washington/Minny in round 1 ( which they should) then you have a team in the Elite 8 at 50/1 and can hedge your way to profitability.

7
by John Morgan (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 1:53pm

Wow, you guys are lobbing softballs for me.

Hasselbeck doesn't get rid of that ball quickly, and takes a lot of coverage sacks. We actually refer to him as the objectivist, because he'd rather take a hit than trust his weak willed receivers.

Walter Jones had a shaky start, but has rebounded nicely. The Hawks pass blocking on the whole has been very good. Hasselbeck frequently has plenty of time in the pocket, but suffers coverage sacks, both because teams tend to load up against the pass versus Seattle, and because, as previously mentioned, he's very conservative and, rarely, rarely, throws into coverage.

Otherwise I agree. Beck has been the man this season, succeeding despite a broken rushing attack and a coach more than willing to tell opposing coordinators that he will be passing early and often.

8
by Steve Nolan (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 2:49pm

If not being noticed gets to be "under the radar" I'm calling a team with a lot of publicity "above the radar."

9
by Balaji (not verified) :: Sat, 12/29/2007 - 5:11pm

#8: Er, yes, except that the phrase "under the radar" originally referred to military pilots flying close enough to the ground that they couldn't be spotted on radar - quite literally "under the radar". If you're not under the radar, you're on it - "above the radar" doesn't make any sense. Perhaps we should throw that phrase under the bus instead.

10
by Bobman (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2007 - 3:34am

John Morgan, wow, Howard Roark, John Galt, and Ayn Rand would be so pleased. Actually they'd be pretty damn indifferent, but you get the idea. I just love this site. And our hyper-literary corner of the country.

11
by Chris (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2007 - 3:45am

Who is John Gault?

12
by B (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2007 - 12:21pm

I guess radar has a hard time working in the rain and fog.

13
by John (not verified) :: Sun, 12/30/2007 - 9:46pm
14
by bigmaq (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2007 - 12:10am

The Hawks have not beaten a winning team in which the starting QB played the entire game. They not only have played in the weakest division, but, have only beaten either patsies or injury depleted teams. Otherwise they have lost.

15
by Tom (not verified) :: Mon, 12/31/2007 - 12:19pm

According to this article, the Seahawks are a very good team because they have a worthless offensive line, a canadian league quality RB, a decent but aging WR/TE, and a QB who is best known for sucking in the playoffs?

This just seems like an article where the hypothesis was decided, the facts came in and did not support the hypothesis, and the hypothesis was not changed in the final version.

the team is 10-6, has not beaten a single even...mediocre team, much less good or playoff quality team.

16
by Kilcin (not verified) :: Tue, 01/01/2008 - 2:42am

#14: Didn't the 'Hawks defense take out a couple of starting QBs in the games they played this year, which helped their team win? So are you saying that the defense shouldn't do that since it lessens the significance of their wins?

It's funny, I remember so many sports writers talking about how much stronger the NFC West was suppose to be this year, but look how badly it turned out. The 'Hawks are decent, but not great. Alexander has suffered this season but showed some return to form in the last couple of games. I'm glad to see the 'Hawks in the playoffs, think they'll make it to the conference game, but don't see them going to the Super Bowl.

17
by mush (not verified) :: Wed, 01/02/2008 - 2:38am

3: It was in Green Bay, not that it's all that big of a deal (link at name). I suppose there probably wouldn't be a Lambeau Leap if the Harris TD came at Qwest Field.

For grins, name the seven Seattle players who caught a pass in that game. Only two of them are still with the club.

18
by mooresy (not verified) :: Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:40pm

17: I actually vividly remember Steve Hutchinson catching a tipped pass and advancing it, so there's one. I'd also go with Darrell Jackson, Koren Robinson, Bobby Engram, Jerramy Stevens and Shaun Alexander.

How's that?

19
by mooresy (not verified) :: Wed, 01/02/2008 - 5:44pm

Oops, I guess thats only 6 - How bout Itula Mili?

20
by JonL (not verified) :: Wed, 01/02/2008 - 6:29pm

I just want to know why no one's calling it RADAR. It's an acronym, people. Even SCUBA divers know that.

21
by gmc (not verified) :: Wed, 01/02/2008 - 6:52pm

Seattle is perpetually overrated (as is everyone in the NFC West, including the Niners, which is pretty sad since everyone already says they're the wors team in football). They have a running back committee consisting of a league average back and a guy who used to be pretty good back when they had a pretty good line. They have Hasselbeck, about whom you can say he's legitimately better than Jon Kitna.

Their offense, actually, is terrible. However, they have a brilliant defense led by three genuine stars (Tatupu, Trufant, Kerney), and that means they have a shot against any team in the NFC. Of course, the four best teams in football are all in the AFC...