Do we really even have to address this?
Are there really Seahawks fans who are unhappy that the Seahawks surprised everyone outside of their own locker room and knocked off Baltimore last weekend, because of what it might mean to their draft position?
Well based off the chatter on sports radio, Twitter, the blogosphere, etc., it seems this is something we have to talk about.
Heading into last week’s game, the Seahawks had lost three in a row, and looked like a team destined for a four- or five-win season. But on Sunday, a developing young team took another step forward, beat one of the best teams in the AFC and suddenly, with a manageable schedule in the second half, six or seven wins seems entirely plausible for Seattle.
Yet for some of you, this seems to be a bad thing. Look, I get that everyone wants this team to finally find its quarterback of the future in next year’s draft, preferably in the first round. And yes, if the Seahawks finish strong and end up picking in the middle of the first round, some of the top names will be gone. But does that mean the Seahawks’ future would be brighter if they went into tailspin from here on out and finished 4-12?
Absolutely not.
Because here’s the deal, folks. If the Seahawks just win one or two more games in what is a much easier stretch of schedule than they’ve played so far, then guess what? This team is more than a stud quarterback away from being a good team.
The 2011 version of the Seahawks has been wildly inconsistent. They’ve played well enough to beat the Ravens and win at the New York Giants, and they’ve also gone two games without a touchdown.
Those ups and downs are much easier to accept given the team’s youth. Head coach Pete Carroll and general manager John Schneider are betting their futures here on the fact that they can tear down a roster, make sound evaluations of talent and rebuild nearly from scratch. And there has been plenty of evidence, particularly on the defensive side of the ball, that suggests they’re off to a good start.
Ahead for Seattle are road games at St. Louis (2-7), Chicago (6-3) and Arizona (3-6) and home games against Washington (3-6), Philadelphia (3-6), San Francisco (8-1) and St. Louis. If this team, which looked so good in beating the Ravens, can’t do better than two wins in that schedule, then what does that tell us about the progress being made?
Carroll and Schneider believe they have a good, young foundation in place for this team. It seems counterproductive to hope that foundation stinks it up for seven games just so the Seahawks have a chance to pick a quarterback a few spots higher in April’s draft.
Will a young quarterback not named Andrew Luck — and make no mistake, Seattle is already out of the Luck sweepstakes — really fix what is wrong if the current team can’t hold its own against a weak schedule the rest of this season? On the other hand, if the Seahawks can finish strong with a 5-3 or 6-2 record in their last eight games, wouldn’t you feel a lot better about their progress heading into next season? They certainly would.
“We had another really good illustration that we can win against a division-leading team when you play good, solid football with the right approach and you take care of the football,” Carroll said. “So to me, it’s about the potential and putting it together and there’s a lot of games out here now.
“There are a lot of games left for us to go out and try to win football games and our guys understand what it takes.”
If you want some historical backing to this argument, look to the 2002 Seahawks, who struggled early in the season before winning their final three games to finish 7-9. Those victories didn’t get the Seahawks into the playoffs, and certainly cost Seattle in terms of draft position, but that team also went into the 2003 season believing it could pick up where it left off. And wouldn’t you know it, the Seahawks made the playoffs for five straight seasons beginning in 2003. Granted, this isn’t a perfect comparison — that team already had Matt Hasselbeck in place — but that 2002 team was also a relatively young team still being reshaped by new leadership.
Yes, we all get that the Seahawks need to get their quarterback, but there are no guarantees — none — that they’ll find that guy at, say No. 8, compared to No. 20. The past three Super Bowl winning quarterbacks, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger, were picked 24th, 32nd and 11th, respectively.
Yes, the brothers Manning, both No. 1 overall picks, also have won Super Bowls, but as the JaMarcus Russells, Ryan Leafs and Rick Mirers of the world have shown us, evaluating quarterback talent is a very, very inexact science.
If the Seahawks are absolutely convinced that a quarterback available ahead of their first-round pick is the long-term answer, they can always trade up. As Schneider has said in the past, there are usually more teams looking to trade back in the first round than move up. So, if the Seahawks are hell-bent on getting USC’s Matt Barkley, Oklahoma’s Landry Jones or Baylor’s Robert Griffin III, they’ll probably be able to make it happen.
Wouldn’t you rather your team have to trade up to get one big piece of its future than find out, over the next seven weeks, that so many other pieces of the future are not nearly as good as Carroll and Schneider thought they were?
Herald Writer John Boyle: jboyle@heraldnet.com. For more Seahawks coverage, check out the Seahawks blog at heraldnet.com/seahawksblog
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
