|
Matt Hasselbeck has struggled this season, throwing seven interceptions
in four games, but he has retained the confidence he had last year
during Seattle's Super Bowl run.
Seahawks choosing to ignore Super Bowl jinx
Posted: Tuesday October 3, 2006 12:24PM; Updated: Tuesday October 3, 2006 12:31PM
Seattle coach Mike Holmgren delivered the speech early in
training camp, almost as an obligation, and then he was done with the
whole issue. He told his players about all the recent teams that had
lost in the Super Bowl and then failed to make the playoffs the
following season and why the Seahawks shouldn't be dwelling on such a
fate. All they could do was control what was ahead of them this season.
So
this is how the Seahawks are going to cope with the notion that their
Super Bowl loss last season automatically equates to a lousy season
this year -- by acting like it's a complete load of b.s.? To be
honest, I agree with them on that one. They may have gotten fleeced by
the Minnesota Vikings this offseason (when the Vikes signed away free
agent Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson), and they may have lost MVP running back Shaun Alexander
to a broken left foot for a few weeks, but the Seahawks aren't heading
south any time soon. Even with the 37-6 shellacking they suffered in
Chicago on Sunday night, they're still one of the elite squads in the
NFC.
The Seahawks aren't in any position to worry about a Super
Bowl hangover. After all, the idea of a team falling apart after a
championship-game loss suggests that such a team is still reeling from
the emotional impact of just missing out on its title hopes, and I
don't see or hear the Seahawks acting like that defeat to Pittsburgh
left a collective hole in their hearts, one large enough for John Madden
to squeeze through. They realize, as everybody else should, that Super
Bowl hangovers have more to do with specific circumstances than with
anything that ties a bunch of runners-up together.
Just look at
the Super Bowl losers since the 2000 season. One team, the New York
Giants, was notoriously inconsistent under former head coach Jim Fassel
(whose teams missed the postseason after every year that they qualified
for the postseason during his seven-year tenure with that franchise).
The Oakland Raiders, the 2002 AFC champs, had a head coach in Bill Callahan who really didn't deserve the job after Jon Gruden
left town and eventually inspired a mutiny with his callous approach.
The other three runners-up all had at least one star player sidelined
for more than half the season. (St. Louis lost Kurt Warner; Carolina lost Steve Smith, Kris Jenkins and Stephen Davis, among others; and Philadelphia had to deal with Donovan McNabb's sports hernia as well as all the pain caused by Terrell Owens.)
Thus
far, the Seahawks do have Alexander off to a slow start, but all
indications are that he could be back by the end of this month. Tight
end Jerramy Stevens also is sidelined, with a knee injury that
should heal by Week 6. After that, Seattle is fairly healthy, and if
that weren't enough, it also still competes in a weak NFC West, a
division where only the surprising 3-1 St. Louis Rams pose a serious
threat. This isn't to say they have an easy road back to the NFC
championship, but the Seahawks are in better shape than most Super Bowl
runners-up have been in their first seasons back from that
disappointment.
In fact, the Seahawks have bolstered their roster in several areas. They added an athletic, playmaking linebacker in Julian Peterson. Their hard-hitting safety, Ken Hamlin,
has returned to the field after missing nearly all of last season
following a fight in a Seattle bar that left him hospitalized. They
deepened their receiving corps with the additions of Deion Branch and Nate Burleson, and
they've decided to use more four-receiver sets to create mismatches in
the passing game. They realize their window of opportunity probably
won't stay open much longer, so they have to make the most of it now.
To
those who think that the loss to Chicago was an indication of where the
Seahawks are heading, I will say you're wrong. That rout was more an
indication of how strong the Bears can be when they are clicking on all
facets of the game. The Seahawks left Soldier Field clearly stunned by
their inability to execute anything against Chicago, but they didn't
leave with any evident concerns about their strategies or their
personnel. If anything, they saw it for what it was: the type of
butt-kicking that every team takes sooner or later.
What is easy
to forget about Seahawks is that they have plenty of resilience. Let's
not forget that they've had plenty of ups and downs during the Holmgren
era, and they were supposed to be championship-caliber long before they
reached last year's Super Bowl. It's those kinds of experiences that
give them an advantage when it comes to rebounding from a Super Bowl
loss. If you don't believe me, check back with them in mid- to late
January. It says here that they'll still have more games to play and
more reasons to prove that they're not like the other recent Super Bowl
losers.
|