Another ugly win for Seahawks—what does it really mean?

Since 2003, the Seattle Mariners have scored fewer runs than their opponents every year—including their only two winning seasons. In 2009, the Mariners posted an 85-77 record—but were out-scored by 52 runs. The Mariners were dead last in the American League in runs scored and one-up from the bottom in batting average. Yet the pitching staff was first in the AL in team ERA. Since then, the team has been 14 out of 14 in runs scored and batting average, and 3^rd, 6^th and 3^rd in team ERA—and have an overall record of 203-283. This is a team that won “ugly” in 2009—a “one-hit wonder” that has since played like the mediocre team they really were, kept from losing much worse by an above average pitching staff. 

And so it is with the Seattle Seahawks. Save for Marshawn Lynch, this team remains as offensively challenged as they have been since 2007; in four of the last five years they have ranked 28^th out of 32 teams in total offense, and no higher than 23^rd in points scored. Defensively, the team has improved dramatically since 2010, which seems to be the only reason the team has a record as “good” as 10-11 since then. This year the team is 2^nd in defense to go along with a 28^th ranked offense both in points scored and yardage—and its 3-2 record that is a bad call from 2-3 reflects that reality. This is not a good “team.” It is a team with an outstanding defense “balanced” by a bad-to-mediocre offense. Teams that win “ugly” to do so because of opportune good fortune (or creating their own luck, as the defense has done), not by any particular competence on offense. And as often occurs, that luck cannot be counted upon every week. Even the 2000 Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens had to have a semblance of offense to win, ranking 14^th and 16^th in points scored and total offense. 

The Seahawks’ win against the Carolina Panthers was another game won ugly, leaving one the feeling that the team deserved to lose despite a stellar defensive effort. Cam Newton is increasingly appearing to be a one-hit wonder; after throwing for back-to-back 400-yard games in the first two games of the 2011 season, Newton seems to be unable to control his impulsiveness. The Seahawk defense took advantage of this, keeping Newton in hibernation for all but one possession late in the game, when he had half of his 12 completions on that drive—and still failed to score the go-ahead touchdown after first-and-goal because he decided to one-hop a pass to a wide-open receiver instead of falling his 6-5 frame over the goal line as was his usual method of operation. Yet the fact that the Seahawks’ offense played just inefficiently enough to keep the Panthers “in the game” does not excite the kind of confidence that you will no doubt hear from the team cheerleaders in post-game “analysis.”

Of course, Russell Wilson hasn’t performed  anywhere close to where Newton was in his rookie season, and some people in this town will think that because he cracked the 200-yard mark for the first time this year, this negates the five interceptions he has thrown the last two games (to only one TD pass). To my eyes, Wilson has not improved over the course of five games, in fact in some ways has regressed. What perhaps has clouded some people’s eyes is how inept the Seahawk’s opponents have been; the Packers are certainly not the team they were the past two years—blowing an 18-point lead against the Colts this weekend—allowing the Seahawks to escape with a disputed victory over them, and the Cowboys deciding to transform into the Nutty Professor the week they played the Seahawks. Wilson’s mediocre play had nothing to do with how badly these teams played, but the Seahawk defense did take full advantage of it. Against a Carolina team that was inert on offense most of the game, the game was still kept within losing distance because, except on a short field after a fumble recovery, Wilson failed on three occasions to convert in the red zone, and threw his first pick-six of the season, which should have been the turning point of the game until the Carolina fumble on their own 27 that led to the Seahawks’ only touchdown. Consider: Wilson was 14 of 16 passing for 160 yards in the first half—and the Seahawks had only two measly field goals to show for it. But Wilson is much like T-Jack, his opening act more impressive than his closing act: 5 for 9 in the second half, 61 yards and two interceptions. If the defense hadn’t stopped the Panthers at the goal line, Wilson would not have done “enough” for the team to win.

Fox Sports gave Wilson the game MVP, but his modest numbers belie the fact that he nearly lost this game for the Seahawks; the Seahawks at one point had out-gained the Panthers 312 to 112 and completely dominated time of possession—and yet were only ahead 16-10, giving Carolina an opportunity to awake from hibernation (as Arizona did in week one), and come within a whisker of winning. The real MVP was the defense and Marshawn Lynch, whose 11-yard run on 3^rd-and-7 with the Seahawks on their own 4-yard line after the goal-line stand demonstrated the lack of confidence in Wilson making a decision on the fly in a potentially perilous situation. Wilson still has only 5 TDs to 6 interceptions in five games (not counting the two interceptions he should have been charged with against Green Bay, had the professional officials been available), and I still maintain that Pete Carroll made a questionable call in starting Wilson over Matt Flynn; “confidence” in Wilson should not be mistaken for hoping that he avoids making the mistakes that make the defense’s efforts moot.