Ryan from Seattle writes: Hey, Sando, guess who is 13th in the league for solo tackles? That's right, David Hawthorne, backup middle linebacker for the Seahawks. What's more impressive is that he's only started in five of those games, with minimal playing time at the Mike in two others. In an otherwise bleak year for the Seahawks, he's been quite fun to watch, and has upstaged highly-touted draft pick Aaron Curry in most cases. Not bad for a second-year undrafted free agent.
We'll see if he can continue this production, but if he does, I'm sure that there will be cries for a switch to a 3-4 just to keep our young defensive playmakers on the field. It might be a bit of a stretch with regards to the D-line, but we've seen crazier things happen in the NFL.
Mike Sando: Hawthorne's emergence is indeed a good story. It's also part of a big problem for the Seahawks. Mike Holmgren used to always talk about how a team needed its best players to play their best for a team to achieve something meaningful. The Seahawks are getting some of their best performances from players who shouldn't even be on the field.
Hawthorne and running back Justin Forsett have been more impressive than Patrick Kerney, Leroy Hill, Marcus Trufant, Brandon Mebane and recent first-round draft choices such as Curry and Lawrence Jackson. That's great for Hawthorne and Forsett, but not so great for the team.
Johnny49ers from Florida writes: The 9ers are 4-6 at this point.next 2 games are against 'poor' teams that in my opinion are winnable games. That would bring them to 6-6. Looking at what happened to Kurt Warner on Sunday, do you think there's a slight chance that the 49ers can still get into the playoffs? They play the Cards, Philly, Detroit and St. Louis. That's of course saying that they buckle up an all the players start playing their roles including the OL.
Mike Sando: The four division winners in the NFC appear pretty much set. The Vikings and Saints will definitely win their divisions. The Cowboys and Cardinals will very likely win their divisions. The 49ers currently trail the Eagles, Giants, Packers and Falcons in the race for two wild-card playoff berths. The Packers and Falcons have already defeated San Francisco. The Eagles will probably defeat the 49ers as well (the game is at Philadelphia). Even if the 49ers could match those teams' records, which seems questionable, those teams would hold the tiebreakers. That makes it tough for the 49ers.
Craig from Tucson writes: I have lived in Tucson all my life, so I am a long time Cardinals fan. When the Cardinals drafted Matt Leinart, I thought we might have a franchise quaterback. Why do you think Leinart struggles so much when he's in the game? He seems to be tentative and holds on to the ball way too long when I watch him play.
Mike Sando: He could be afraid to make the critical mistake. He could need more time in the offense to get comfortable. He might feel pressure to live up to Warner's standard. He might not be very good. I do not think you or the Cardinals should give up on him based on what we've seen. I'd like to see him start for a full season before fully analyzing him.
Jeff from San Jose writes: What are the implications of the so-called "uncapped year"? Does it just mean that any player at the end of their contract can be signed by any team without regard to the salary cap? Will certain players in this scenario not be eligible for free agency? Once they get the collective barganing agreement done, how will the league treat the teams that are way over the new cap?
Mike Sando: I've found some good resources on this subject. John Clayton wrote about which teams would be set up best -- and worst -- to handle an uncapped year. Andrew Brandt of National Football Post outlined some of the implications here and here. Pat Kirwan of NFL.com offers some insights from an ownership perspective here.
Rajeev from Denver writes: Your article on Arizona losing Kurt Warner was a nice hatchet job on Matt Leinert. Now let me say i have no vested interest in either Arizona or USC for that matter. But as a sports fan that article was fairly poor in terms of reporting. For example, you failed to mention Leinart likely did not get many reps in practice. Also, to place it in context, take a look at what Charlie Batch did or Chris Simms did as backups coming into a game. Would be nice if you presented information in some sort of context.
Mike Sando: It's a given that Leinart didn't take many snaps in practice. I think football fans know the deal there. I also said it's unfair to hold Leinart to Warner's standard, but a touchdown every so often would be nice. Not sure that qualifies as a hatchet job.
Yuri from San Francisco writes: Mike, spreadsheet guru extraordinaire, do you know what Alex Smith's stats are (attemps, completions, TDs, INTs, passer ratting, etc.) under center vs. in the shotgun? Much has been made of this, but it would be interesting to see the numbers. Thanks.
Mike Sando: Smith has completed 58 of 92 passes for 641 yards with seven touchdowns, three interceptions and a 95.4 rating from the shotgun, according to ESPN Stats & Information. He has the eighth-highest shotgun rating in the league among quarterbacks with at least 15 attempts from the formation (the Cardinals' Warner has a 91.8 rating from the shotgun this season).
He has completed 37 of 63 attempts for 394 yards with two touchdowns, four interceptions and a 61.2 rating from under center.
egravning from Santa Monica writes: A few facts about the upcoming game between Seattle and St. Louis: The Rams have played the toughest schedule in the NFL this year. Their opponents are 20 games over .500. Bad teams need winnable games at home. Green Bay, Minnesota, Indy, New Orleans, and Arizona -- the Rams opponents in St. Louis -- have a combined record of 42-8. Over the last four weeks, the Rams are 1-2 and the Seahawks are 1-3. Both teams beat Detroit, but the Rams did it on the road and Seattle did it at home. Both of the Ram losses were by one score (five points and eight points to the Saints and Cardinals, respectively). All three of the Seahawk losses were by double-digits. Two of them were embarrassing blowouts. Seattle will be the first bad team to travel to St. Louis this season. If Marc Bulger is healthy, the Rams are going to win this game, aren't they?
Mike Sando: We've received our answer to that last part since egravning reached out through the mailbag. Bulger will not play. I think injuries are dragging down the Rams and giving the Seahawks a better chance to win this game. No outcome would surprise me. You're right about the Rams' schedule. It's been a tough one.
The Packers' victory over the Lions means the Rams' home opponents this season have a 43-8 combined record, counting victories over St. Louis. Does anyone know where to find an online strength-of-schedule calculator based on 2009 results to date? Would be nice to take a look at it.
Jeremy from Phoenix writes: Hey, Mike. About eight months ago I made a prediction that Michael Crabtree would end up being a bust in San Francisco. You resonded in your mailbag by asking me if I would retract my statement if my prediction were wrong. Not that anyone cares what I think, but I told you I would and I am a man of my word. While a contract dispute almost proved my prediction accurate, Crabtree's performance on the field has not. While this might be a little premature yet, I think it's safe to say he is on track to becoming a very productive and successful WR in this league. Good pickup by the 49ers.
Mike Sando: No doubt about it. Crabtree can play.
Ocho from Seattle writes: Sando, I am hoping you can provide some insight into a question that I've been thinking about for a while. Why is it that last year, the Seahawks (who were more injured than they are now) would find themselves at least able to compete with teams much better than them and come close to winning some? I'm thinking about the games against the Dolphins, Pats, Redskins and Cardinals. Recently, even with Matt Hasselbeck, it seems we are completely overmatched -- and as the game goes on, we don't rally so much as just fall apart. We should have a better team now than in 2008, in theory, due to better talent and better overall health.
Mike Sando: Great points. The one thing the 2008 team had going for it was long-term knowledge of the systems on both sides of the ball. The current team still looks like it's trying to figure out some things, particularly on offense. Thing is, one strength of the new offensive scheme was supposed to be how easy it would be to master relative to the previous scheme. There's no excuse for how the team is playing.
TrueHawkForLife from Wenatchee, Wash., writes: Mike, do you know of any resource where we can look up each players salary (cap hit)? I have a friend who is convinced that Nate Burleson is making $7 million a year. Also, I would be interested to see what kind of cap hit the Vikings are taking for Steve Hutchinson in the last three years of his contract. I'm quessing $8 million to $10 million. Seems awful high for a guard, even if he is one of the best.
Mike Sando: Burleson's deal is counting about $4 million against the cap this year. His deal is not worth $7 million per year. Hutchinson's deal counts $7.5 million against the cap this year and as much as $8.6 million over the next few years. There are various places online where you can find salary information, but it's generally incomplete.
Tim from St. Louis writes: I'm wondering if we do decide to get rid of Marc Bulger, is it possible to get something in return unlike we have in the past, i.e. Torry Holt? Is Bulger good enough to be traded to say the Oakland Raiders for a second-round or maybe third- and seventh-rounders? Basically, what is Bulger's worth if we do go for a QB in the draft? Do we get rid of him or is he a mentor for a young QB?
Mike Sando: Bulger's salary for next season makes it unlikely another team would acquire him. Bulger would only stay as a mentor, in my view, at a reduced price.
Vince from Wenatchee, Wash., writes: Hey Sando, I usually like your take on all things NFC West, but your gut feeling that bringing in Mike Holmgren would put Jim Mora in a tough spot is irrelevant. Coaches are always telling players (Mora in particular) that adversity brings opportunity. Mora would be in a tough spot, but isn't he putting himself in that spot by his inability to scheme and prepare his team (hey Mora, try winning one on the road, that's all I ask).
It seems a little pressure may go a long way with a head coach that has had ample opportunity to evaluate the players on his roster. Speaking of players, isn't Matt Hasselbeck done? I can't remeber when he brought the team back from a deficit or sustained offensive production for four quaters. I have all the respect in the world for Matt, but I think the Pro Bowl days are gone. Holmgren would be perfect in teaching the next Seahakws franchise QB. Just Sayin. Thanks for NFC West info brotha.
Mike Sando: I don't think Mora is suffering from a lack of pressure. He is 3-7 in his first 10 games. That predicament brings plenty of pressure. The thing I've pointed out consistently is that Holmgren's run as general manager was panned harshly at the time.
Ben from Los Angeles writes: Sando, we all heard about the Niners and Rams having "physical" training camps. I think that the Niners started out really well because they were ready to be physical from Day One. But recently, the Niners have fallen off (with a lot of injuries). It seems that if you have full-contact training camps, you are starting the season four weeks early. Are the Niners getting physically tired and beat down by week 11? Well, the Rams are horrible no matter what, and though they are playing better recently, you can't ignore their list of injuries to starters.
The Cardinals and Seahawks, on the other hand, had "soft" training camps and started the first few weeks like they were slow and hadn't quite reacclimated themselves to the speed and physical nature of the game. I think the Niners surprised both teams early in the season. Both teams started slow, and recently have played much better. The Cardinals appear to be primed for a great second half of the season. Maybe some of this has to do with scheduling and luck, but I also think that having a physical training camp means you start fast against other teams who haven't gotten back up to speed but eventually get worn down by week 11 or 12.
Any truth to back up my hypothesis?
Mike Sando: Yeah, I think there could be something to it. It was something I alluded to during the offseason by writing, "One question now would be whether the 49ers' approach to training camp made them vulnerable to wearing down, or if it steeled them for a late push." I posed the question to Singletary and he said he thought it would make them stronger.
Styles of camps do not always seem to influence injuries, though. Holmgren was very much concerned with keeping players healthy through camps, but his 2008 Seattle team suffered through a horrendous run of injuries.
We'll see if he can continue this production, but if he does, I'm sure that there will be cries for a switch to a 3-4 just to keep our young defensive playmakers on the field. It might be a bit of a stretch with regards to the D-line, but we've seen crazier things happen in the NFL.
Mike Sando: Hawthorne's emergence is indeed a good story. It's also part of a big problem for the Seahawks. Mike Holmgren used to always talk about how a team needed its best players to play their best for a team to achieve something meaningful. The Seahawks are getting some of their best performances from players who shouldn't even be on the field.
Hawthorne and running back Justin Forsett have been more impressive than Patrick Kerney, Leroy Hill, Marcus Trufant, Brandon Mebane and recent first-round draft choices such as Curry and Lawrence Jackson. That's great for Hawthorne and Forsett, but not so great for the team.
Johnny49ers from Florida writes: The 9ers are 4-6 at this point.next 2 games are against 'poor' teams that in my opinion are winnable games. That would bring them to 6-6. Looking at what happened to Kurt Warner on Sunday, do you think there's a slight chance that the 49ers can still get into the playoffs? They play the Cards, Philly, Detroit and St. Louis. That's of course saying that they buckle up an all the players start playing their roles including the OL.
Mike Sando: The four division winners in the NFC appear pretty much set. The Vikings and Saints will definitely win their divisions. The Cowboys and Cardinals will very likely win their divisions. The 49ers currently trail the Eagles, Giants, Packers and Falcons in the race for two wild-card playoff berths. The Packers and Falcons have already defeated San Francisco. The Eagles will probably defeat the 49ers as well (the game is at Philadelphia). Even if the 49ers could match those teams' records, which seems questionable, those teams would hold the tiebreakers. That makes it tough for the 49ers.
Craig from Tucson writes: I have lived in Tucson all my life, so I am a long time Cardinals fan. When the Cardinals drafted Matt Leinart, I thought we might have a franchise quaterback. Why do you think Leinart struggles so much when he's in the game? He seems to be tentative and holds on to the ball way too long when I watch him play.
Mike Sando: He could be afraid to make the critical mistake. He could need more time in the offense to get comfortable. He might feel pressure to live up to Warner's standard. He might not be very good. I do not think you or the Cardinals should give up on him based on what we've seen. I'd like to see him start for a full season before fully analyzing him.
Jeff from San Jose writes: What are the implications of the so-called "uncapped year"? Does it just mean that any player at the end of their contract can be signed by any team without regard to the salary cap? Will certain players in this scenario not be eligible for free agency? Once they get the collective barganing agreement done, how will the league treat the teams that are way over the new cap?
Mike Sando: I've found some good resources on this subject. John Clayton wrote about which teams would be set up best -- and worst -- to handle an uncapped year. Andrew Brandt of National Football Post outlined some of the implications here and here. Pat Kirwan of NFL.com offers some insights from an ownership perspective here.
Rajeev from Denver writes: Your article on Arizona losing Kurt Warner was a nice hatchet job on Matt Leinert. Now let me say i have no vested interest in either Arizona or USC for that matter. But as a sports fan that article was fairly poor in terms of reporting. For example, you failed to mention Leinart likely did not get many reps in practice. Also, to place it in context, take a look at what Charlie Batch did or Chris Simms did as backups coming into a game. Would be nice if you presented information in some sort of context.
Mike Sando: It's a given that Leinart didn't take many snaps in practice. I think football fans know the deal there. I also said it's unfair to hold Leinart to Warner's standard, but a touchdown every so often would be nice. Not sure that qualifies as a hatchet job.
Yuri from San Francisco writes: Mike, spreadsheet guru extraordinaire, do you know what Alex Smith's stats are (attemps, completions, TDs, INTs, passer ratting, etc.) under center vs. in the shotgun? Much has been made of this, but it would be interesting to see the numbers. Thanks.
Mike Sando: Smith has completed 58 of 92 passes for 641 yards with seven touchdowns, three interceptions and a 95.4 rating from the shotgun, according to ESPN Stats & Information. He has the eighth-highest shotgun rating in the league among quarterbacks with at least 15 attempts from the formation (the Cardinals' Warner has a 91.8 rating from the shotgun this season).
He has completed 37 of 63 attempts for 394 yards with two touchdowns, four interceptions and a 61.2 rating from under center.
egravning from Santa Monica writes: A few facts about the upcoming game between Seattle and St. Louis: The Rams have played the toughest schedule in the NFL this year. Their opponents are 20 games over .500. Bad teams need winnable games at home. Green Bay, Minnesota, Indy, New Orleans, and Arizona -- the Rams opponents in St. Louis -- have a combined record of 42-8. Over the last four weeks, the Rams are 1-2 and the Seahawks are 1-3. Both teams beat Detroit, but the Rams did it on the road and Seattle did it at home. Both of the Ram losses were by one score (five points and eight points to the Saints and Cardinals, respectively). All three of the Seahawk losses were by double-digits. Two of them were embarrassing blowouts. Seattle will be the first bad team to travel to St. Louis this season. If Marc Bulger is healthy, the Rams are going to win this game, aren't they?
Mike Sando: We've received our answer to that last part since egravning reached out through the mailbag. Bulger will not play. I think injuries are dragging down the Rams and giving the Seahawks a better chance to win this game. No outcome would surprise me. You're right about the Rams' schedule. It's been a tough one.
The Packers' victory over the Lions means the Rams' home opponents this season have a 43-8 combined record, counting victories over St. Louis. Does anyone know where to find an online strength-of-schedule calculator based on 2009 results to date? Would be nice to take a look at it.
Jeremy from Phoenix writes: Hey, Mike. About eight months ago I made a prediction that Michael Crabtree would end up being a bust in San Francisco. You resonded in your mailbag by asking me if I would retract my statement if my prediction were wrong. Not that anyone cares what I think, but I told you I would and I am a man of my word. While a contract dispute almost proved my prediction accurate, Crabtree's performance on the field has not. While this might be a little premature yet, I think it's safe to say he is on track to becoming a very productive and successful WR in this league. Good pickup by the 49ers.
Mike Sando: No doubt about it. Crabtree can play.
Ocho from Seattle writes: Sando, I am hoping you can provide some insight into a question that I've been thinking about for a while. Why is it that last year, the Seahawks (who were more injured than they are now) would find themselves at least able to compete with teams much better than them and come close to winning some? I'm thinking about the games against the Dolphins, Pats, Redskins and Cardinals. Recently, even with Matt Hasselbeck, it seems we are completely overmatched -- and as the game goes on, we don't rally so much as just fall apart. We should have a better team now than in 2008, in theory, due to better talent and better overall health.
Mike Sando: Great points. The one thing the 2008 team had going for it was long-term knowledge of the systems on both sides of the ball. The current team still looks like it's trying to figure out some things, particularly on offense. Thing is, one strength of the new offensive scheme was supposed to be how easy it would be to master relative to the previous scheme. There's no excuse for how the team is playing.
TrueHawkForLife from Wenatchee, Wash., writes: Mike, do you know of any resource where we can look up each players salary (cap hit)? I have a friend who is convinced that Nate Burleson is making $7 million a year. Also, I would be interested to see what kind of cap hit the Vikings are taking for Steve Hutchinson in the last three years of his contract. I'm quessing $8 million to $10 million. Seems awful high for a guard, even if he is one of the best.
Mike Sando: Burleson's deal is counting about $4 million against the cap this year. His deal is not worth $7 million per year. Hutchinson's deal counts $7.5 million against the cap this year and as much as $8.6 million over the next few years. There are various places online where you can find salary information, but it's generally incomplete.
Tim from St. Louis writes: I'm wondering if we do decide to get rid of Marc Bulger, is it possible to get something in return unlike we have in the past, i.e. Torry Holt? Is Bulger good enough to be traded to say the Oakland Raiders for a second-round or maybe third- and seventh-rounders? Basically, what is Bulger's worth if we do go for a QB in the draft? Do we get rid of him or is he a mentor for a young QB?
Mike Sando: Bulger's salary for next season makes it unlikely another team would acquire him. Bulger would only stay as a mentor, in my view, at a reduced price.
Vince from Wenatchee, Wash., writes: Hey Sando, I usually like your take on all things NFC West, but your gut feeling that bringing in Mike Holmgren would put Jim Mora in a tough spot is irrelevant. Coaches are always telling players (Mora in particular) that adversity brings opportunity. Mora would be in a tough spot, but isn't he putting himself in that spot by his inability to scheme and prepare his team (hey Mora, try winning one on the road, that's all I ask).
It seems a little pressure may go a long way with a head coach that has had ample opportunity to evaluate the players on his roster. Speaking of players, isn't Matt Hasselbeck done? I can't remeber when he brought the team back from a deficit or sustained offensive production for four quaters. I have all the respect in the world for Matt, but I think the Pro Bowl days are gone. Holmgren would be perfect in teaching the next Seahakws franchise QB. Just Sayin. Thanks for NFC West info brotha.
Mike Sando: I don't think Mora is suffering from a lack of pressure. He is 3-7 in his first 10 games. That predicament brings plenty of pressure. The thing I've pointed out consistently is that Holmgren's run as general manager was panned harshly at the time.
Ben from Los Angeles writes: Sando, we all heard about the Niners and Rams having "physical" training camps. I think that the Niners started out really well because they were ready to be physical from Day One. But recently, the Niners have fallen off (with a lot of injuries). It seems that if you have full-contact training camps, you are starting the season four weeks early. Are the Niners getting physically tired and beat down by week 11? Well, the Rams are horrible no matter what, and though they are playing better recently, you can't ignore their list of injuries to starters.
The Cardinals and Seahawks, on the other hand, had "soft" training camps and started the first few weeks like they were slow and hadn't quite reacclimated themselves to the speed and physical nature of the game. I think the Niners surprised both teams early in the season. Both teams started slow, and recently have played much better. The Cardinals appear to be primed for a great second half of the season. Maybe some of this has to do with scheduling and luck, but I also think that having a physical training camp means you start fast against other teams who haven't gotten back up to speed but eventually get worn down by week 11 or 12.
Any truth to back up my hypothesis?
Mike Sando: Yeah, I think there could be something to it. It was something I alluded to during the offseason by writing, "One question now would be whether the 49ers' approach to training camp made them vulnerable to wearing down, or if it steeled them for a late push." I posed the question to Singletary and he said he thought it would make them stronger.
Styles of camps do not always seem to influence injuries, though. Holmgren was very much concerned with keeping players healthy through camps, but his 2008 Seattle team suffered through a horrendous run of injuries.
Sort comments by: Most Recent | First Posted
Comments that include profanity, or personal attacks, or antisocial behavior such as "spamming" or "trolling," or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our terms of use. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
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.
