Crushed Optimists

We are twin brothers who grew up in Central Washington. This blog is devoted to the life of Seattle sports fans, as well as various other topics that we will espouse for your enjoyment. We could be called another OFFICIAL SEATTLE SEAHAWKS site, but we'll take our uneducated crack at the Mariners, Sonics, and Huskies as well. A Seattle Sports Blog? Must be the land... of crushed optimism!

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Your Friend and Mine, Don Banks...

is BACK with another dandy in his recent CNNSI article where he proclaims proudly in his crystal ball two "truths" that made me laugh more than the "Snickers" commercial where the bald guy uses the candy as a toupee and gets called out by his coworkers (him crying in the car at the end gets to me every time, and, yes, I'm a heartless wretch).

Bankism #1: Expect Seattle to struggle against the Steelers' 3-4 defense. The Seahawks have faced only one 3-4 formation all season, at home against Dallas in Week 7. The Seahawks won 13-10, but they needed a gift Drew Bledsoe interception to help them score 10 points in the game's last 40 seconds in avoiding defeat. Seattle only had 289 yards of offense against the Cowboys, with Shaun Alexander being held to 61 yards on 21 carries. The Seahawks were just 3 of 13 on third downs against Dallas, which stuffed the Seattle ground game by putting so many bodies at the line of scrimmage.

So..... we should struggle against the 3-4 defense? Hmmmm. Let me put a couple of points out there about that Dallas game.

FACT: The Seahawks actually faced TWO 3-4 formations all season. The other formation came on a Sunday night game against the Houston Texans where the Seahawks won 42-10. The Hawks rushed for 320 yards, the offense got 459 yards, and the best receiver in the game was Peter Warrick, who caught 3 passes for 53 yards. Banks, my man, go do some flipping research! C'mon, I'm pretty sure SI pays you enough to Google the Seahawks opponents!

Gavin: FACT: Colin is wrong on his FACT. The Seahawks actually faced three 3-4 formations, as the San Francisco 49ers also play that scheme, so really four games (a quarter of the season if you feel like doing some math). At San Francisco we struggled in the second half as we let our guard down, at home we dominated. Basically, it is pathetic that Banks didn't know this.

FACT: The Seahawks played the game against the Cowboys again without D-Jack and Engram. Their top receiver that game was Stevens, who caught 5 passes for 60 yards. Second up was Urban with 3 catches for 57 yards. That whole 3-13 on third down stat? Hasselbeck sans D-Jack and sans Engram equals fewer weapons.

FACT: The Cowboys have some durn good cornerbacks. In fact, that secondary was the best that we played all year; yes, better than Carolina. Terrance Newman absolutely owned his side of the field in particular. The Pittsburgh secondary, especially the cornerbacks, is not as good as the Cowboys. Polamalu is excellent, but not THAT much better than Roy Williams.

FACT: The "gift" interception came AFTER we had driven down the field to tie the game at 10-10. The momentum was already on our side, and it was very likely that, if we had gotten the ball first in overtime, we would have scored. I get sick and tired of people saying that we were given that win. Ridiculous.

FACT: The reason that Dallas was able to put so many bodies on the line of scrimmage was because of our injured receiving corps; thus, our running game had to go up against 8-9 in the box. Again, do some research, Banks!

Bankism #2: If Pittsburgh races out to an early lead against Seattle, just as it did against Indianapolis and Denver the past two Sundays, Super Bowl XL will be all over but the confetti throwing.

FACT: That's a stupid thing to write. One could just as easily substitute "Seattle" instead of "Pittsburgh", and "Carolina" instead of "Indy and Denver", and the sentence basically also works. If a team gets up by 17-21 points, they will most likely win. Now, if Banks means that the Steelers will definitely win if they get an early 7-10 point lead, I would beg to differ. Seattle has been through some tough games in the past; has taken some body blows, but has come back with some fire in the belly. Think Dallas. Think Washington.

FACT: This is the same person who, last week in his Crystal Ball, predicted that Nick Goings would outgain Shaun by 40 yards. That, in and of itself, should cause us to take everything he writes with a big heaping helping of salt. And yes, I probably will be writing about that prediction ten years from now. It was that awful.

FACT: That is one super schnozz you have there, Don Banks. Almost bigger than mine, and I have a big one. I recommend a mustache, or a picture where half your face isn't masked by the shadow of the schnozz. And the half-smirk, half-smile? Not working either.

posted by colin_hesse @ 11:19 AM  2 comments


At 2:13 PM, Anonymous Gary said...

Adam Schefter of NFL Total Access was using the same line as Banks yesterday (Dallas the only 3-4 we faced). Are these guys just reading each others' stuff? And how is it that you guys can out-research people getting paid for their analysis?

At 2:17 PM, Blogger Gavin said...

Because we have this thing called "the internet" as opposed to "laziness". All it does is cement that we should all pay zero attention to anything Adam Schefter or Don Banks write, because they have not seen the Seahawks actually play.


Post a Comment

<< Home


We Wrote These...