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. 

After endorsing McKenna for governor, the Seattle Times not eager to find those helping buy the state for him

Having endorsed the very unmoderate empty-suit Republican Rob McKenna for governor—whose only experience as a lawmaker was his divisive, unproductive stint on the King County Council where he remained fixated on taxes and opposition to light rail, and whose only notable “accomplishment” as state attorney general was to add his name to the anti-healthcare reform movement—the Seattle Times is either silent on or misrepresenting the way that Republican campaign donors have been pouring money into the state in order to buy the Washington governor’s election. The only article I found (on-line, not in print), tried to say that both the McKenna and Democrat Jay Inslee have a similar amount of funds in their campaign coffers. But that was only true partly because the Times didn’t find—or didn’t look for—any Republican donors in the state, and didn’t take into consideration the potential for millions in secret donations masquerading as “social welfare” and other “contributions” that are unreported as campaign contributions, which the wealthy supporters of Republicans have become very good at, particularly since the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Instead, the Times had to combine both in-state and out-of-state donors for Inslee against only a partial finding of the out-of-state donors for McKenna to come-up with “parity.” Those numbers that the Times did deign to “find” are telling: The out-of-state donors to McKenna’s campaign—including the Koch brothers—have donated three-times the amount of money that Inslee’s campaign has received. The larger in-state donations Inslee has received are from mainly organizations interested in the public good—apparently those donating to the McKenna campaign prefer to remain “confidential,” both in who they are and the amounts they are giving. In the wake the Citizens United decision, the wealthy and corporate right-wing are finding ever more new and creative ways in which to hide both their influence on elections, and their intentions; this is not, of course, within the purview of the Times' "intentions."

It was admitted that the Karl Rove machine hasn’t been accounted for, and other usually generous right-wing PACs haven’t “returned their calls”—I wonder why—but there is little doubt that in the last few weeks to the run-up to election day we will see many more attack ads like the one the Republican Governors Association has been running non-stop on TV and on the radio, accusing Inslee of voting for an $800 billion program that didn’t create jobs and a “massive tax hike” on small businesses. These ads have very little validity; in 2010, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the 2009 stimulus program had an effect on the addition of up to 3.6 million jobs. On the other hand, the so-called “tax hike” in the first instance refers to the clause in the health care reform act which “penalizes” employers who do not offer health care benefits to employees. However, it is not “small businesses” which are affected as insinuated in the ad, but those that employ fifty or more people; businesses that employ fifty or more people are likely to receive deeper discounts from insurers than those with only a handful or less employees—which insurers treat like “individuals.” The “message” of the ad—delivered in a condescending tone by a white female with an extremely irritating voice—was so obviously biased and without substance that it was not likely to fool anyone but those already pre-disposed to it; but if it was the tone that impacted the listener, then there is always the possibility of persuading a voter willing to direct his or her frustration and anger in the direction the ad wants them to go—even if it is clearly against their best interest.

But this is not just going on in Washington. According to a discussion with a democracy for the people advocate Trevor Potter—a former campaign staffer for Sen. John McCain—on Bill Moyers’ public radio show a few weeks ago, the money trail is well hidden, and countless PACs and “non-profit” organizations appear overnight with only a P.O. box and one person on their "board of directors"; they are not even required to report their existence, how much money they “donated” and what it was used for until after an election. On Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report,” Potter guided host Stephen Colbert through the process of creating your own “Super PAC”—or a tax-free secret campaign fund that no one knows exists, masquerading as a non-profit “social welfare” organization known under the IRS tax code as a 501(c)(4):

Colbert: So how do I gets me one, Trevor?

Potter: Well, lawyers often form Delaware corporations, which we call shell corporations, that just sit there until they're needed.

Colbert: Like, so some anonymous shell corporation?

Potter: Right. And, and I happen to have one here in my briefcase.

Colbert: Let's see it. Okay, what's it called?

Potter: It's called, “Anonymous Shell Corporation.”

Colbert: “Anonymous Shell Corporation” filed in Delaware? Okay, I got this. So now, now I have a (c)(4)?

Potter: Right. Now we need to turn it into your shell corporation, your anonymous one. And we do that by having normally a board of directors meeting.

Colbert: And who's on the board of directors?

Potter: Well, just you. We can just have you do this--

Colbert: Sounds like a nice group of people.

Potter: So--

Colbert: All right, called to order. Let's do this thing.

Potter: All right, so this says that you are the sole director of the corporation.

Colbert: I am.

Potter: And that you are now electing yourself president, secretary, and treasurer.

Colbert: Sounds like a great board.

Potter: And you are authorizing the corporation to file the papers with the I.R.S. in May, 2013.

Colbert: So I could get money for my (c)(4), use that for political purposes, and nobody knows anything about it till six months after the election?

Potter: That's right. And even then, they won't know who your donors are.

Colbert: That's my kind of campaign finance restriction.

Many of these shell companies, in order to avoid disclosing their donors and how much money they have received, call themselves non-profit “social welfare” groups. An environmental group putting out ads opposing a candidate with a poor environmental record is a “social welfare” organization; but these almost all new right-wing “social welfare” organizations only appear months before an election, and disappear just as quickly after the election. They hope never to explain what their purpose was. They have no agenda save to defeat or elect a candidate using the current talking points about health care, taxes and the deficit. These all could be classified as “social welfare” issues under certain circumstances, but the fact is that in context they are meant to have nothing to do “social welfare.” The irony is that a nameless donor can contribute millions of dollars as a tax-free “gift” that will be used to defeat “social welfare” programs.  

Trade organizations, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are also non-profits that do not have to disclose their donors, although one assumes they know who they would be. But the American Petroleum Institute—an umbrella organization that lobbies for hundreds of oil companies and their subsidiaries—funnel part of Big Oil’s hundreds of billions of dollars in profit into political campaign ads that no one knows from whom or how much, solely to the purpose of advancing their own goal of gaining more profit and reducing even more the regulation that could have prevented the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; of the “public welfare,” they have no interest.  

The above mentioned anti-Inslee ad claimed that it was not “endorsed by any candidate for governor.” Potter would deride this kind of hypocrisy, noting that court decisions that claimed that Super PACs are “totally independent” of candidates is “baloney.” These organizations are buying “access” to candidates, and they are not “independent” of what the candidate they are supporting wishes, becoming virtual “shadow party committees.” They all have “great names” like the “Government Integrity Fund”—and that is just enough to fool voters into thinking they actually have the public interest in mind without asking questions about who and what they are. And what they are trying to “buy.”

Moyers—one of the few journalists still alive from the Edward R, Murrow school of journalistic integrity—noted that The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza reported that “pro-Romney outside groups have paid for three out of four of the ads supporting him in this election cycle while pro-Obama outside groups have paid for one in every five ads backing the president. The conservative groups, Cillizza writes, ‘have kept Romney in the game’ and he should be able to ‘outspend Obama rather significantly in the final weeks of the race.’ So whether you want to call it an arms race, a plague of Biblical proportions, or the death spiral of democracy, take it seriously.” 

The Seattle Times’ endorsement of a Republican whose only apparent “qualification” is that he looks like a “nerd” while taking-up space in an office room is indicative of this newspaper’s preference for attacking people trying to be public-spirited citizens—like William Gates Sr. and Chris Hansen—while supporting candidates and “causes” that tend to make the problems the state faces even more unbearable for its most vulnerable citizens and institutions. Its refusal to reveal the full extent of the right’s attempt to buy the state for McKenna and his one-percent cronies is also indicative its complicity against democracy for and by the people.

Badgers' lousy offensive line play turning Montee Ball's 2013 dreams into a nightmare

Coming into the season, USC’s Matt Barkley was considered the odds-on favorite to enter the next NFL draft as the most coveted quarterback. After a poor performance in a loss to an Andrew Luck-less Stanford team, Barkley’s stock has slipped, the way Oklahoma’s Landry Jones' stock slipped last season—enough to convince Jones to stay in school one more year. On the other hand, the eye-popping performance by West Virginia’s Geno Smith has eclipsed Barkley–similar to the way Robert Griffin III came out of nowhere in mid-season last year to win the Heisman Trophy over Luck. But at this point, it is hard to imagine a more devastating loss of status than that of Wisconsin running back Montee Ball. Like RG3, Ball didn’t come to the attention of Heisman voters until rather late, but leading the nation in rushing yardage (1,923) and touchdowns (39) was enough to make him a finalist in the Heisman sweepstakes last year. Ball gladdened the hearts of many a Badger fan by announcing he was returning for his senior season. Given the fact that running backs are treated like a dime a dozen in the pass-happy NFL, Ball is now likely ruing that decision. 

Balls’ numbers through five games:

Carries: 125 

Yards: 450

Avg: 3.6

Longest run: 22

TDs: 6

One must bear in mind that Wisconsin never schedules top-twenty non-conference opponents, against whom Ball would be expected to pad his numbers. So what has happened? Ball has had a “tumultuous” off-season, to be certain. During the annual off-campus Mifflin Street Block Party, Ball had the misfortune of encountering a homeowner who did not like the idea of a black man standing in his front lawn, and Ball received a citation from police for trespassing. In July, Ball was “present” during a brawl between football players and students, although he was cleared of involvement; but within a week of that incident, Ball was assaulted in the early morning hours by a group of thugs in what was suspected to be a “retaliatory” action. But most observers doubt that these events have anything to do with Ball’s poor on-field performance.

The “true” culprit, it seems, is the horrible offensive line play, which has caught fans, team and coaches off-guard. One may have seen this coming, since the Badgers have lost six top-shelf starting offensive linemen the past two years: Gabe Carimi, John Moffitt and Bill Nagy from the 2010 Rose Bowl team, and Peter Konz, Kevin Zeitler and Josh Oglesby from the 2011 Rose Bowl team. For the past twenty years since the start of the Barry Alvarez era, Wisconsin’s success has in large part been based on acquiring the best talent (or biggest bodies) available on both side of the line, and that has helped the team to five Rose Bowl appearances, the first three ending in victories. 

But it seems that for the time being, the well has run dry. Badger head coach Bret Bielema fired the old/new offensive line coach Mike Markuson two games into the season; Markuson had replaced Bob Bostad, who left Wisconsin for the Tampa Bay Buccaneer offensive line coach job. Players complained about a supposed lack of communication with Markuson, who had instituted a zone-blocking scheme that his linemen apparently had trouble grasping. But the real reason for the breakdown is that the Badgers—despite playing in back-to-back Rose Bowls—have had mediocre draft classes the past four seasons; although Wisconsin has a history of transforming two-star recruits into NFL prospects, this time the Badgers have not developed top-shelf juniors or seniors on the offensive line to immediately replace those it has lost. 

Markuson was replaced with a young gun named Bart Miller, but no immediate difference is apparent, judging from another tepid running attack in a loss at Nebraska, after the Badgers squandered a 17-point lead in the third quarter. In making the coaching change, the Badgers had hoped to revive “one of the signature plays in its old-school ground game,” wrote Tom Oates of Madison’s Wisconsin State Journal. “Instead of trying to find holes on running plays, the Badgers would start making them again.” But as Jim Polzin of the Journal noted, Ball frequently “had one or more Nebraska defenders in his face” before he even received the hand-off. 

At this point, it is too early to determine how Ball’s draft status in 2013 will be impacted, but his poor start does not bode well. Despite his Heisman finalist credentials, Mel Kiper Jr. only rated him the fifth best running back in 2011, which seems to have prompted Ball to try to improve his draft status by returning this year. But before the season even started, some draft analysts, like the Bleacher Report’s Sigmund Bloom, were critical of Ball’s NFL potential: “Ball tends to get swallowed up by defensive linemen when he meets them in the backfield, he rarely drags tacklers or pushes them backwards, and when he does, it is a case of will, not one of an outstanding power back.” Bloom also questioned Ball’s “vision” in finding holes; as I recall, this was also a criticism of Ron Dayne, who didn’t follow-up his Heisman Trophy career with a successful NFL career. 

Perhaps as in the case of Russell Wilson, observers have been led astray by the Badgers’ offensive line prowess that in the past made average talent seem “elite.” This year, without a powerful offensive line, the team that only recruits “high character” (name your euphemism) players has been for the time being exposed.

What is the truth about the Seahawks? Plenty of people not to ask

It was frustrating listening to Brock and Salk begging Pete Carroll to confirm their belief that Wilson isn't to blame for anything that is wrong with the Seahawks; in fact Salk went so far as to insist that the team doesn’t need to change “anything” about its offensive game plan, that the onus was on the players around Wilson, who had to step-up their play—apparently to compensate for Wilson’s inadequacies. In regard to Wilson’s three interceptions against the Rams, Salk pitiably beseeched Carroll to tell everyone that they were not “really” Wilson’s fault. Although Carroll wasn’t willing to go that far, it is doubtful that Brock or Salk heard even his tepid critique of Wilson’s play. If Carroll goes into the meeting room and actually says this, then he shouldn't be coach. As Hugh Millen pointed out on KJR (the ESPN affiliate lacks any competent play analysts) the interceptions could have been avoided if Wilson had thrown a more accurate pass in the first instance, in the second instance if he not wasted time moving around to find his "spot," and in the third if Wilson had made the proper read of the "cloud" coverage he had seen all day, in which a DB sat on McCoy's route (so close McCoy stepped on the defender’s foot) ready to make a play on the ball because he knew he had safety help--but which left the middle of the field open for Baldwin; instead of throwing to the wide-open Baldwin, Wilson made a risky throw clear across the field. In all instances, Wilson’s height issue and inability to see the field in front of him played a factor in the result. 

The fact that Wilson is averaging less than 10 yards per completion (less than 6 per pass attempt) is telling. Teams that do that generally use short passes as virtual run plays because they are high percentage plays; in Wilson’s case, it is because it is a matter of his limitations. This is the likely reason why the playbook hasn't been "opened-up" for Wilson; trusting his down field vision is risky, and unfortunately this is going to be a career-long issue with Wilson. It also suggests that his true future is that of a back-up who plays well in spot starts if teams have not game-planned for him. Why should we be attacked for pointing out the truth? Isn't "winning" the ultimate goal?

But what really disturbs me is that you really can't believe anything that Carroll says (let alone Brock and Salk). When are they going to stop treating us like we are mentally-challenged? Over on KJR again, they dug-up an interview that Carroll gave on September 20 before the Packer game, in which he said the complete opposite of what he said about Flynn being physically unable to play today. He said that Flynn was physically ready and raring to go against his old team, and that he was ready to step-in in the first quarter. He said Flynn had been doing his best Aaron Rodgers impression for the defense all week (frankly, I'd take a Rodgers imitator any day). Carroll's only caveat was that Flynn still has to "compete," which is frankly offensive after what we've seen from Wilson so far. The truth may be in between, but there is some speculation that Carroll will sink the team ship to prove he is "right" about Wilson, and I wouldn't put it past him to deliberately limit Flynn's reps in order to get Wilson "right." Frankly, I am willing to bet if you got Flynn on the phone right now, he would tell you that not only is he ready to go now, he has been ready for some time.

It should be clear now that Wilson’s preseason performances gave a false impression of what he would do in the regular season. Nevertheless, Wilson’s partisans say he’s just a rookie, all he needs is “seasoning.” Yet Wilson’s fourth game was his worst outing so far against a team that was awful last year, and there has been little indication that he has been “growing.” What will it take to convince people to grudgingly accept the fact that Flynn is more polished than Wilson is, and that it wouldn’t kill them to see what Flynn can do? Why are they so afraid to see what Flynn can do?  Are they so enamored with Wilson that they are willing for the team to potentially throw away the season just because they don’t want to see better quarterback play—from another quarterback?  And it angers me that people insist on ignoring Flynn’s starts against New England and Detroit as if they never happened. This guy is a trained pure passer from an outstanding organization that has produced one Hall of Fame quarterback, and another who sat on the bench for three years who will likely be one; is there something wrong with that?