Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando
Josh from Coronoa, Calif., writes: Mike, I wrote in a couple of weeks ago saying how it was a ridiculous idea that the niners will lose game 1 against the cards and you were right! The niners just gave up too many Turnovers! No one can win with that many turnovers! But i do think if they fix the turn overs they have a good shot at the west! What are your thoughts on this weekend's matchup with seattle???
Mike Sando: You won't hear me crowing about picking games correctly. So many strange things can happen. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. The goal is to anticipate potential scenarios and to make sense of what happens.
I never thought Chicago would win in Indianapolis, and I never thought Seattle would lose by 24 points at Buffalo, and I never thought the Rams would get blown out in Philadelphia. Wait, I did think the Rams would get blown out in Philadelphia. But you see what I'm saying.
The 49ers' performance against the Cardinals stands as an improvement from what we saw last season. The offense appears to have potential. J.T. O'Sullivan averaged better than 9 yards per pass play. That's a great number and double what the team averaged last season. No team is going to turn it over five times a game.
If I'm the 49ers, I feel better about heading to Seattle based on what we saw in Week 1. The 49ers ran the ball pretty much at will in the Arizona game. They just couldn't stay on the field with the turnovers and sustained drives by Arizona's offense.
The 49ers hit on some passes down the field. I still don't know if the 49ers have the outside threats to make this offense work consistently, but we are going to see flashes with the 49ers this season -- and that's more than we saw last season.
Seattle should be able to beat the 49ers at Qwest Field. I would expect to see a more inspired Seattle team playing with urgency. O'Sullivan could have a hard time dealing with the crowd noise. However, if the 49ers establish the run and stick with it, they can put the pressure on Seattle's offense to score points. Then it becomes interesting.
Andrew and Heather from Beaumont, Texas, writes: Why do the Seahawks play so poorly on the road when they know they have to play on the road in various conditions. They constantly look like they are not prepared to play, is this a player issue or a coaching issue?
Mike Sando: Both. The staff and players share responsibility for what happened in this game against Buffalo. There's no way a team with a veteran quarterback, veteran head coach and talented defense should suffer that kind of humiliation against a good (but not great) team.
DubJ from Greenlake, Wash., writes: Why aren't we seeing Justin Forsett return kick-offs and punt returns? Why risk our starters in that position? Also with Morris injured will we see more Forsett and Schmitt?
Mike Sando: Seattle already had five running backs active. Fullback Owen Schmitt had some value because Seattle is low on linebackers and Schmitt fits the linebacker mold in terms of special-teams body type. That would probably be the thinking. Maurice Morris' injury could change the dynamics of the 45-man game-day roster. Seattle also has to make choices when activating Jordan Babineaux and Rocky Bernard today. Forsett could factor into those plans.
Freestyle from Salinas, Calif., writes: What the hell is going on with this 4-3 def. vs the 3-4? The 49ers have great lbs with a great lb coach why change now?
Mike Sando: The 49ers want their best 11 on the field. Justin Smith is a big part of that. They aren't going to play him solely as a traditional weak outside backer in a 3-4. I didn't see anything wrong with the 49ers' approach against the Cardinals in terms of defensive alignment. This is a multiple defense. It's not like the 49ers have a dominant nose tackle and dominant "Ted" backer, either.
Terry from parts unknown writes: Mike, a few things. Why do the 'Hawks keep letting Kelly Jennings go up against tall receivers when he is so short ? - Why don't the 'Hawks just leave for east coast games on Thursday instead? They could practice on Friday and Saturday at a local high school and then they'd be acclimated to the time zone change by the time Sunday morning came around. - I believe Spencer and Sims are the O line's main problem. Thoughts ? - How did we let go of both Scobey and JP Darche ? It seems we don't keep good special teamers... We stink on special teams, (Plack was terrible) and it needs emergency help ...Thoughts ? - Is Matt really "ok" back-wise? I have a feeling he is still not healed. - Why didn't Holmy throw the damn red flag earlier? -
Mike Sando: Whew, that is one frustrated fan. Hang in there, Terry. It's only Week 2. I was looking for safety help on one of the deep sideline balls to Lee Evans. That seemed to be a gamble by Seattle, or a breakdown.
Where would the Seahawks practice if they left for the East Coast a few days early? I think it would disrupt their week in a lot of ways. Seattle is now 5-5 in 10 a.m. PT games over the last two seasons. More than anything, the Seahawks need to fight through it and persevere. No excuses.
Chris Spencer missed training camp, and I think that hurt him. He is a big, physical man, however, and sometimes you need that bulk against a Marcus Stroud type. Steve Vallos did impress during preseason. I'm just not sure you want to keep Spencer on the bench. He needs to play and improve. If he doesn't improve, then make a change.
The Seahawks thought J.P. Darche's injury might affect him, and they wanted a bigger snapper for punt-coverage purposes. Letting him go was a mistake by just about any measure. I tend to believe Matt Hasselbeck when he says the back is not bothering him right now, but he does have an incentive to downplay the issue. The last thing he wants is for opponents to target the back.
Ken from San Francisco writes: I want to know your thoughts on the 49ers and how they played, I also want to know did your prediction of this team change over this last game for the worse or better?
Mike Sando: In general, like the 49ers better now than before the opener. J.T. O'Sullivan did not implode. The running game was effective. The offensive line was physical. Tony Wragge did a nice job at center when Eric Heitmann left the game. The defense did not allow big plays. Ball security is something a team can improve upon. I'm not going to revisit the schedule and start penciling in victories, but the 49ers do look like a team capable of competing.
Per from Portland, Ore., writes: With Brady's season done, it got me thinking & which NFC West team would be hurt most by a similar injury? The natural thought is Seattle since they have the most expectations, but Wallace has shown to be a pretty decent stand-in. I think St. Louis would be hurt most, just because even their backup (Green) is a big injury risk and there's no one behind him. What are your thoughts, Mike?
Mike Sando: Oddly, the 49ers might be hurt the most because they don't have another quarterback with experience in the Mike Martz offense. Also, Alex Smith is hurt. I also think the Cardinals would have lost with Matt Leinart at quarterback Sunday, based on how Kurt Warner dealt with pressure.
Marlene from parts unknown writes: I was terribly disappointed in the Seahawks effor. I was wondering why they did't try to force the tempo a bit by going no huddle, but maybe that was because of all the young receivers. I only seen the Hawks go that way once last year when the offense was stagnant and it seemed to help. Your thoughts?
Mike Sando: Seattle was once a great up-tempo team, even without the no-huddle. I think a few things have happened over the years. Matt Hasselbeck's development has led him to spend more time surveying the defense and making adjustments, sometimes at the expense of tempo. Being on the road in a loud environment can make overall offensive efficiency tougher. And then, yes, the young receivers were having a hard enough time functioning at regular speed.
Lebowski from Los Angeles writes: Mike - great blog thanks for the hard work. Shouldn't it be troubling to fans that during the Nolan era, his defense does not create turnovers? He continues to go out and spend big money on defensive free agents, while wasting draft picks on bench riding guys with possibly more talent.
Mike Sando: Interesting point. We did see Tully Banta-Cain on the inactive list Sunday. I think a better offense would help the 49ers force turnovers. It's easier to force turnovers when the other team is trailing and taking chances in the passing game. Teams have been able to play more conservatively against the 49ers and that is exactly what we saw in the opener.
Grant from Salt Lake writes: Sando! Many have said it before, but I have to echo the sentiment that it's great to have you covering the NFC West. I was wondering though, when was the last time the Arizona Cardinals had sole possession of 1st place in this or any other division? Thanks for all your work. It's a joy to read your blog.
Mike Sando: Thanks, Grant. The Cardinals and Seahawks were both 3-2 last season, but Arizona had defeated Seattle in the second game. That was the last time. Looking quickly at the Cardinals' results, I see they were 1-1 to start the 2002 season, which was the first season with the eight four-team divisions. Seattle started 0-3. The Rams started 0-5. The 49ers were also 1-1.
Optimistichawkfan from parts unknown writes: The Seahawks didn't look bad in the first quarter but the ST and dropped passes by the WR's kept the defense on the field too long. What does Holmy do to get some balance in this offense?
Mike Sando: Seattle has to improve the passing game, plain and simple. Teams must function at a baseline level to keep defenses honest. Very few teams can simply line up and pound the ball. Baltimore did it with Jamal Lewis several years ago. Seattle had some success that way in 2005, but the passing game was also very good.
That game in Buffalo changes if the Seahawks sustain drives by eliminating the dropped passes. Jeb Putzier's drops come to mind. The Bills probably would have won the game anyway, but the Seahawks made it easy. If I'm Holmgren, I emphasize the things that are easily controlled. Throw the ball. Catch the ball. See what happens.
Blaine from Seattle writes: Sando, like others have said before, great job with this blog. Good to see that, even though you've covered the Seahawks for a while, you don't really seem that biased in your coverage and commentary. Anyway, my questions after watching Sunday's "game" in which the Seahawks "played" the Bills in Buffalo.
1) How high are the Seahawks on the their young receiving corps now? Will/Should this showing in Buffalo force the organization to look for a few free agents to stop the bleeding until Branch/Engram/Burleson get back? (My mostly serious considerations include Joe Horn, and "Third Down" Freddie Mitchell)
2) What happened to last year's improved secondary?! Front 7 looked good (in my opinion, anyway), but Kelly Jennings was just getting OWNED by the Edwards-to-Evans hookup, and for big, big gains. Didn't the Seahawks tout him has a very good cover cornerback? Where was the safety help?
3) Did the loss of Rocky and Babs REALLY make that much of a difference on special teams? I really doubt that either of them play on kicks and punts (except maybe Babs), but if so, would that account for the sloppy special teams play?
4) Finally, isn't the long travel to the Eastern Time Zone just an excuse for poor play? Granted I don't go east to play professional football, but I'm not THAT jetlagged when I visit family in PA or Key West? Keep up the good work, Mike! Turn it around, Hawks!
Mike Sando: Thanks, Blaine. The Seahawks were high on their young receivers as depth, not as starters. It's one thing to like Courtney Taylor as your fourth or fifth guy. It's another thing to send him onto the field with Logan Payne on third down at Buffalo. We need to be clear on what it means to like young players at a position.
On defense, the Seahawks simply aren't that aggressive on the road, it seems. I didn't see the blitzing, cut-it-loose approach we've often seen at home. The Bills did make Seattle pay for a blitz by handing off for the TD run, but overall the plan didn't seem as aggressive. That's not necessarily bad, either. The Bills had trouble doing anything offensively early in the game. They did better as the field got shorter, thanks to special teams and an inept Seattle offense.
I cannot explain the sloppy special-teams play. The roster issues do have an effect, but not to that degree. The time-zone issue is real. It's tough waking up at 5 a.m. PT for a game. But the Seahawks are 5-5 in 10 a.m. PT games over the last two seasons.
Andy from Portland writes: Mike, in a game full of problems for the seahawks,, the problem I found most troubling was how poorly
the offensive line played. They got completely dominated by the Bills, leaving Hasselbeck and the running game completely ineffective. Do you know why this happened? I kept reading about how much the O-Line was supposed to have improved this year.
Mike Sando: This was indeed surprising. Chris Spencer's rust probably showed. Continuity figures to improve as they play together longer. Matt Hasselbeck said the overall communication wasn't as good, perhaps due to the crowd noise. He wasn't talking about the line specifically, but those things are related.
Joe from Davis, Calif., writes: Sando, why don't the 49ers fire Nolan now? I mean, at this point it seems as close to a foregone conclusion as anything. Why should we wait for a bye week when we're sitting at 2-6 to attempt to right the ship when we can begin that process now with Martz, Singletary, and Manusky?
Mike Sando: If you're going to fire a coach after one game, you should have fired him before one game.
Iampok from Tuscson, Ariz., writes: Mike, The Seahawks-Bills game was painful to watch, but not because they lost or they got owned on special teams. I cannot believe the number of dropped passes and undercut routes that Putizer and Tyalor "performed" in the game. Yes, Matt was pressured, but if they catch even half of the passes he threw them then the Seahawks would have been in that game, if not won it outright. What so you think are the chances of dropping the dead weight (both these players) and either 1) picking up a veteran, 2) converting Morris/Wallace to receiver or 3) simply waiting for the return of Branch and Engram?
Mike Sando: I do expect the Seahawks to consider signing a veteran for the short term. Maurice Morris isn't going to play receiver. He was effective at running back until the knee injury intervened. I would consider giving Wallace significant reps at receiver.
Andrew from Cave Creek, Ariz., writes: Sando, what do you make of the Cardinals deactivating Early Doucet for the game against the 49ers. Are they that deep that they can afford to do that? Or are they just protecting themselves in case a starter goes down?
Mike Sando: Doucet missed much of camp with a hamstring injury. Steve Breaston and Jerheme Urban are ahead of him on the depth chart for now, and Sean Morey is needed on special teams. It's the dreaded numbers game. Doucet has to earn it in practice before he gets the call on game days, most likely.
Adam from Sacramento, Calif., writes: Your boy, the "up and coming" Leroy Hill just got CRACKED on that Parrish punt returnd TD... god I love football Sundays... I will give him credit for making a 2nd effort and whiffing again at his feet just before he crossed the goal line
Mike Sando: Thanks for keeping me honest, Adam! I love football Sundays too.
Sort comments by: Most Recent | First Posted
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Mike Sando
Sando joined ESPN.com in 2007 after nine seasons covering the Seattle Seahawks for the Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune. He lives in the Seattle-Tacoma area with his wife and two sons.