HawkShack.com

I haven't looked at the numbers yet today, but it would appear from watching the game that we're spreading the ball around a lot more. Lockett got a lot of targets and of course Baldwin got loose for a couple of big plays. Luke Willson made a couple of nice catch and runs, as did Rawls, and our running game is improved. Even the invisible Jermaine Kearse had a pass that he should have caught. Our red zone offense looks as good as it's looked all year. Russell's efficiency had to be almost perfect. I can think of only a couple of passes he missed badly on.

So is there a relationship there? Are we a better team when we are not trying to force the ball to Graham just to make this ill advised trade look good?

I think not. The FO just needs to figure out how to get everyone involved and not force it to someone just because we traded a lot for a player. If the player can't handle the lack of targets, bench him or trade him. That type attitude is not worth it if it's losing us games. I don't think that was the case though.

To answer the Topic - No not having Jimmy G is a very bad thing.

Hawktown wrote:I think not. The FO just needs to figure out how to get everyone involved and not force it to someone just because we traded a lot for a player. If the player can't handle the lack of targets, bench him or trade him. That type attitude is not worth it if it's losing us games. I don't think that was the case though.

I don't think I'd go so far as to blame Graham for any of our offensive woes prior to his going down. IMO it's more of us trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

[/quote]

I don't think I'd go so far as to blame Graham for any of our offensive woes prior to his going down. IMO it's more of us trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.[/quote]

I wouldn't blame JG either. As I said, the coaches need to figure out how to properly use all players. Gifted players are never a bad thing (unless your Percy Harvin).

No. Look at the guys last game. He was dominating. It was starting to click. The catch on the 1, not too many guys can scoop that.

No Seattle can still win obviously but its never good to lose a weapon like that. For all the square peg stuff he was our leading receiver when he went down or near to it

. Imagine what it would have been when it got completely cranked up?

Hawktawk wrote:No. Look at the guys last game. He was dominating. It was starting to click. The catch on the 1, not too many guys can scoop that.

No Seattle can still win obviously but its never good to lose a weapon like that. For all the square peg stuff he was our leading receiver when he went down or near to it

. Imagine what it would have been when it got completely cranked up?

I don't know if I would say that Graham was "dominant" in his last game. 4 catches for 75 yards and no TD's doesn't fit my idea of domination. He was beginning to contribute. He was our leading receiver, but he was not producing in the red zone as was the expectation.

But Graham's performance was only one part of the larger equation of the Seahawks offense. IMO the Hawks without Graham are now involving more receivers, specifically Baldwin and Lockett, and their offense is more productive because of it.

I don't know how much more the Seahawks offense can get cranked up than it has been the past two weeks.

It is good an bad; good in the sense it is forcing the offense to use everybody. I do like the fact that Luke Willson will get more involved. I would really like to see him progress even more, and it ain't bad at all to see Lockett get involved more.

It is bad in the sense that it was looking to me that Jimmy and Russell were starting to come on. Yes, 4-75-0 wasn't a great stat line in the Pittsburgh game, but Graham was making some tough catches, and I even liked how he was getting physical in stiff arming guys for first downs. I don't remember what quarter he went down, but there's no telling if he would have increased his stat line, and it is entirely possible he'd have had a good game against the Vikings.

Bottom line is, it is survivable. The Seahawks look back to playing the kind of football we have been accustom to seeing.

If Grahams patella didn't rupture I think it would have been catch 5 for a TD on the play.

The pass was underthrown by quite a bit. IMO he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of catching that one.

I just hope he gets back to 100% by sometime next year. From what I've read (admittedly not researched, just reading comments), this type of injury can be difficult to recover fully from.
He could be a good addition at about game 5 or 6, if it takes that long to be fully healed.

RiverDog wrote:The pass was underthrown by quite a bit. IMO he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of catching that one.

Kinda hard to tell where the pass was going to wind up RD when the guy goes down like a sack of potatoes and trust me when you snap a patella thats exactly what happens.
I think it was in the target area but who knows.Horrible situation for Graham.