advertising
Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times Reader comments
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events

January 14, 2007

Why did the Hawks come up short?

Comments: 50

Why did the Seahawks come up short in Chicago? Matt Hasselbeck mistakes? Mike Holmgren decisions? Is it too tough to win on the road in the playoffs? Or were the Hawks just beaten by a better team? Let us know what you think.

Read the Seahawks game story

Your comments

Responses will be held for review, and we'll publish a selection.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of other authors or seattletimes.com itself.

Your phone number and e-mail address will be used only if we have a question about your comment. It is not stored for any other purpose. See our privacy statement.

By submitting content for publication by The Seattle Times Company, online or in print, you agree to abide by our terms of service.

Selected comments

Any time you go 0 for 7 on 3rd and short, I think you have to blame the offensive line.

Posted by Marc at 02:58 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Thanks guys the defense was great, best game of the year. You guys finally came around as a team, nothing to be ashamed of. Can't wait for next year!

Posted by Jeff at 03:01 PM, Jan 14, 2007


One decent cornerback and we win that game.

Posted by John at 03:01 PM, Jan 14, 2007


The Bears are a better team, that's why

Posted by duh at 03:02 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I think it was an even game for the most part. Seattle just failed to execute when it most counted.

Posted by Mike Barer at 03:03 PM, Jan 14, 2007


One name:
Matt Hasselbeck. When this patched together team, playing above its head, needed a leader, all it found was Mr. "I'm gonna make a big play" Hasselbeck, forcing plays. Oh, to have a Montana, Young, Favre or, dare I say, Rex Grossman at QB.

Posted by Michael Bicak at 03:06 PM, Jan 14, 2007


i think everyone who trashed nate burleson earlier in the season needs to give the guy his props. he might not have had alot of catches but he consistantly put us in great field postion all game, and all season long (once they gave him the return duties). with him and branch getting more accustomed to the offense over the offseason, we WILL be back!

Posted by DM at 03:07 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Overall, they played well and made a good game of it. I'm proud to be a Seahawk fan!

Posted by Michael at 03:07 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Hasselbeck was too banged up. When you can't handle a snap without pain, it makes evrything more difficult. Good Go SEAHAWKS!!!

Posted by Jay Page at 03:13 PM, Jan 14, 2007


This was an even and really fun game. I wish like heck that the Hawks had won, but playing the #1 seed this close, on the road, after a season of trials, is nothing to be ashamed of. Coulda gone either way.

Posted by Bryan at 03:15 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Where do we go from here? We're super old and have no 1st round pick. either we trade sub-pars like hamlin, branch and fisher or we score in free agency.

Posted by Ethan at 03:15 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Hey, it's a game. If the Bears had just missed the field goal in overtime and the Seahawks had hit one, this title of this comment board would be "What went right."

And there'd be no shortage of people pontificating on how superior a game the Seahawks played.

Posted by Alvis at 03:18 PM, Jan 14, 2007


The fact that they even got 24 against the Bears is impressive. Nothing went wrong, they just played against a superior team. Other than that all I have to say is:

Da Bears!

Posted by DP at 03:19 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I am so proud of the seahawks! Hey they were 9 1/2 points under dog and they did great hurry up summer cant wait until august. Go Hawks!

Posted by hawkman79 at 03:21 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Live by the field goal, die by the field goal.

Posted by Dave in Redmond at 03:23 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I think Holmgren lost the game. His play calling at key moments was horrible. All we needed to win was 15-20 yards and the field goal. Why go for it all on 1st down.

Posted by Shawn at 03:32 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Bears were not better, the 3rd and short play calling, the sack in the 4th when they were 10 yards short of a Brown FG...that's what killed them. It's hard enough to run on the Bears (give Shaun credit for a great game), why not a bootleg with a TE on a couple of those? No imagination, only predictable, stupid run calls on those downs. Arrrgghhhh......I thought Holmgren was done using those stupid play calls a few years back...oh well, they played tough, D was excellent except for a couple of long passes...that no one thought Rex would throw. Go Saints!!

Posted by Josh at 03:33 PM, Jan 14, 2007


What if we had a Trufant, Herdon, Tubbs or D.J. Hackett? Or how about even a really healthy DJ? What might have been?

Posted by John at 03:33 PM, Jan 14, 2007


3rd and two in overtime and we attempt some !@#$%^ rollout pass. Unbelievable.
3rd down play calling killed us.

Posted by David at 03:36 PM, Jan 14, 2007


The under-rated players played over their head and the vet, Matt Hasselbeck did not.

Run tipping formations on 3rd and 4th down showed no creativity or ingenuity.

DBs that get suckered on 3rd and 10...poor arm tackling, still!

Poor conditioning for an undersized team, cost all year.

Time for the entire team to get serious for 20 games if they want the ring.

Posted by Dartman at 03:40 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Hey that was a good game. I'm a huge Seattle fan and I'm proud of the guys. They took it to Chicago. Its a shame someone had to lose. Hawks were just starting to get rolling and if they had less injuries this year the game would have been in Seattle. Next year..here we come

Posted by Paul at 03:44 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I thought the Seahawks had the game and blew it. Why is Hasselbeck throwing deep on 2nd and 10 w/ 30 seconds left when all they need is 10 yards for a JB walk-off 3?

Bears were not the superior team. Seattle blew what would have been a fantastic road win.

Posted by Jeff at 03:45 PM, Jan 14, 2007


With our secondary hurting the way it was, it was only a matter of time until even a guy like Grossman hurt us. I question the decision not to go for it in OT instead of punting though.

Posted by Ryan at 03:46 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Classic choke job by the Seahawks. Terrible playcalling in crunch time. Going away from Sean Alexander right before the end of the 4th quarter cost them the game. I put it mostly on Holmgren and Hasselbeck.

Posted by Double T at 03:49 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Bad play calling by Holmgren, and bad execution of the bad plays by Hasselbeck. 3 pocessions needing only a lousy field goal, and nodda. On 3rd and 2, why would you have your receivers run 15 yard patterns. Holmgren got outcoached last week and got lucky, but no luck this week.

Posted by E at 04:02 PM, Jan 14, 2007


It's a shame they lost but what a great game for a banged up, injured team. Holgrem came so close to coaching a win- wish Hasselbeck could've not thrown that last interception though.

Posted by Ted at 04:03 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Great game guys...i am from Chicago and my hats off to your team! That was one heck of a game...you guys suffered alot of devistating injuries this year and still came back to play a heck of a game...that takes alot of heart!

Posted by Aaron at 04:05 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Seahawks D-Line contained Bear runners, forcing Grossman to beat them. Little things like T Jones tipping the ball to prevent late pick. Bears "bearly" beat a great Seattle team.

Posted by Roger in Chicago at 04:08 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Time for Holmgren to hang it up. Eight seasons is enough. I think his mis-management of these crunch time situations is starting to seriously hold the Seahawks back. A fresh start with a new coach may breathe new life into the Hawks.

Posted by TNT at 04:10 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I'm not a coulda/shoulda type of guy but...I counted at least 6 botched missed calls by our favorite zebras today, Great Hawks season, wish we only had to play one other team, not one plus the refs.

Posted by shawn carlos at 04:11 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I can't believe that some people are knocking Hasselback. Would you really rather have Seneca Wallace at QB for that big game? Come on, let's be serious. We don't have Favre or Montana and (thank God) Rex Grossman. We got a lot farther than we were supposed to and nearly pulled off a HUGE upset. I'm shocked at how far we got and thought we played very well in a hostile environment. Let's get 'em next year.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman at 04:13 PM, Jan 14, 2007


The 4th and short play calls left A LOT to be desired... as did many of the 3rd down plays. Yes, there's execution to be talked about, but in many of those 3rd and 4th down situations it was like Chicago knew what was coming... which means call a different play, Mike!!!

go hawks, draft smart, get healthy, dominate 2007.

Posted by Troy at 04:17 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Anyone notice that Matt Hasselback wasn't out at midfield for the cointoss in OT? Maybe if he exhuberated the same confidence they had against the Packers in 2003, it might have worked this time!

Posted by John Slyfield at 04:18 PM, Jan 14, 2007


The Seahawks as a team should be proud of themselves. Except for Hassleback and Homlgren, they played really well, especially given all the injuries.

Posted by Stephen Drinkard at 04:21 PM, Jan 14, 2007


yes we can criticize, we 2nd guess holmgren's playing calling, but nobody in the world expected us to go nose to nose and down the wire with the bears. we need to stay positive and keep our heads up for the seahawks with regarding injuries and how far they made it to the playoffs. we are very thankful for class act organization to support every sunday. thanks for a great years, SEAHAWKS!

Posted by erik at 04:22 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Personal thoughts from a Bears fan: During the game Aikman said that the Hawks didn't expect to get much up the middle on the run. Having watched this team, that is really about the only way to get any run yardage on them. Blame Holmgren.

Posted by gnjaxon at 05:38 PM, Jan 14, 2007


You must catch the ball in order to maintain a drive. You must not fumble a handoff when you need less than 3 yards for the first down. Most importantly, you can't let your opponent back into the game. All in all the game was lost by turnovers, who ever has the least usually wins.

Posted by DeVon at 05:45 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Nothing went wrong; it was a hard fought game which could have gone either way. I consider this season a success...

Posted by Jake at 05:57 PM, Jan 14, 2007


One word: Hutchinson. To lose him over a half a million dollars that Paul can easily afford led to the demise of the whole season.

Posted by Eric at 06:02 PM, Jan 14, 2007


3 downs killed us. The Hawks need to convert. Period.

Posted by Todd Gig Harbor at 06:05 PM, Jan 14, 2007


What went wrong? A season pounded by injuries. Today was a thrilling game! I'm proud of you and proud to be a fan! I'm sure you'll see some of these readers back ON the bandwagon next season. Looking forward to August - already counting the days!

Posted by Stacy at 06:05 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I think we are one safety away from victory...Had Bab. defensed one of the 5 plays he got burned on would probably be a different story... I wonder what the count for the season was on 40+ yard TD receptions against our secondary?

Posted by Gary at 06:08 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Three things that cost the Seahawks the game
1. Bernard Berrian
2. Robbie Gould
3. Bears D

Posted by Bears Fan at 06:09 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Why all the Hasselbeck ranting? He's one of the BEST QBs in the NFL. Ya'll are crazy to think otherwise. Shall I remind of you the Krieg/Meier/Kitna days? How about how much you adored him last year? That's what I thought. Give the guy a break! Don't be such fairweather fans! MH - Thanks for a great year!

Posted by S at 06:15 PM, Jan 14, 2007


I agree with the comments on nate burleson.. everyone trashed him but he is a threat in the return game now and a good receiver. Once Branch and the rest of the recievers get togethor in pre season i think we will have a great lineup offensively, this year wasn't our year

Posted by Mike at 06:35 PM, Jan 14, 2007


This board is torn between people who are satisfied with getting this far and those who crave a team to play up to there potential. I consider those who are satisfied with our results to be passive/fair weather fans. Those who are frustrated/incensced are true hawks fans. They understand the loads of talent on this team, and expect victory as a result. I am of the latter group, frustrated by unimaginative play calling, poor clutch performances(Hasselbeck anyone?), and disgusted with the apathy displayed both those who are "proud of our little chickens." This team is loaded and should expect nothing short of a victory every time they take the field. Watching them get tripped up over and over by horrendous third down play calling, poor pass protection in critical phases of the game, and bad decisions by our "leader" (green bay, today, the S.B.) frustrated the @#%% out of me. We as Seattle fans deserve better. As the 12th man we need to demand a QB trade, better teaching of fundamentals(tackling), and a different coach (did we have one reverse, trick play, etc.?) As for the pushover fans, you are part of the problem and not the solution.

Posted by Bobby at 06:39 PM, Jan 14, 2007


You hawks fans should have nothing to be ashamed about. Your defense played great, and your o-line did a good job of giving hasselbeck time to throw, not to mention the holes it opened for Alexander. Good luck next year

Posted by Matt from Chicago at 06:50 PM, Jan 14, 2007


They played a great game overall. However, I was disappointed with the poor clock management just prior to regulation. You are supposed to get in field goal position first, then run the clock out - not run the clock out by calling way too many running plays which burns your time outs (which also becomes too predictable), and then not have enough time to get in field goal position. This season, I have felt that Holmgren thinks too much about the clock, and not enough about getting first downs.

Posted by Andrew at 06:51 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Two problems: Mike Holmgren and Matt Hasselbeck

Holmgren plays too conservative at the wrong moments, does not manage the 2:00 minute times well, is very stubborn, and does not change the game plan when things go wrong.

Hasselbeck was drafted by Green Bay to be Brett Favre's backup, not his replacement. I think that says it all.

I hope Paul Allen was watching.

Posted by Geoffrey at 07:07 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Great game, but here are the reasons I can think of why the Hawks lost the game:

1. They never got the big play when they needed one. You simply can't go 0-7 on 3rd down, especially on some of those short yardage situtations.

2. Hasselbeck made a couple of critical mistakes, including that horrible INT, the bumbled snap on 4 and 1 towards the end of regulation, and then taking the sack when the Hawks were getting close to FG range.

3. Some really questionable play calling and time management by Mike Holmgren. They had 3 very good chances to win the game at the end, including overtime. Plus, in the 4th quarter, the Hawks got the ball twice with the lead and did not do anything with the football.

This one hurts because there were so many chances to win it.

Posted by Trapps at 07:20 PM, Jan 14, 2007


Marketplace

advertising

advertising