I really don't think it's fair to blame Nate's injury on Forsett. I mean, come on. That's ridiculous.

I put this situation squarely on Homgren's shoulders after the game, personally.

Burleson was far too valuable as our #1 target to have him returning punts this season. There is *so much* talent out there on the waivers for returning punts. 5 yards here and there is real value - but converting 3rd and 7+ is much more important at the end of the bloody day.

Holmgren should have had Josh Wilson back there returning punts. To place your only healthy WR in harms way for no good reason is a mistake.

I personally would have played Morris at returning Punts/Kicks before Burleson. I'd do that because you know if Burleson goes down, the WR corp is far too young and inexperienced to make it out completely on top. If Morris goes down, you got a vet in Jones, a vet in Duckett and a wild card in Forsett...not to mention Weaver who can run and Schmitt who can also help out in that area (blocking or running)...

he should have played Morris if you ask me...

Frank - There is a famous lawsuit called Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road. Read it.

I agree that putting Burleson back there is not a good move at all. I think Wilson would have been smarter or any of the RB's. I just don't get it we have a pluthera of RB's and no WR's????
Don't blame Forsett especially since he might see some time now and that is the last thing we need hanging over an already nervous rookie back.
Are we getting Horn?

Look we all know Nate takes way to many chances when he plays,but in saying that it's one of the reasons he is an exciting player to watch 'cuz you never know what he'll do at any given moment. It sometimes turns out good and sometimes not so good but he plays the game with a certain amount of reckless abandon and even though he's not the best WR in the NFL, I for one think he is very entertaining to watch, even though I have, on more then one occasion questioned his judgement (especially when he carries the ball like a loaf of bread) and hurdling the pile on that return was one of those times. It looked like a bad train wreck waiting to happen and maybe it turned out to be one after all. He definitely got spun around and hammered pretty good. Maybe a little more discretion would have been better but.....I do agree that Holmy shouldn't have risked an injury to Nate putting him in there to return ESPECIALLY knowing how reckless he can be with the injury potential.

For all who are in favor of Wilson, he did fumble in that game. Whether it looked like it or not, Holmgren was coaching to win. He put the best players on the field. I can name 3 games the last couple of years that Burleson won with punt return tds.

So in a word 'No!'

It's really in the hands of the football gods. I think I'll go sacrifice a goat.

Forsett's fumble wasn't the only time he looked bad on punt returns. He just never looked comfortable there. Holmgren would have been crazy to use him. He needs more practice reading the ball and the coverage so that he knows what to do in each situation.

I don't like playing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" game. Hindsight is always 20-20.

Wow, is this how low the blog has descended? What a foolish question or observation, Mr. Hughes. Nothing else to write about?

Blaming a rookie for an injury that was coming because of Nate's high risk running style is football ignorance of a spectacular level yet unseen but often suggested by others here. Why blame Forsett why not Holmgren who put him in, or one of the other WRs who couldn't catch the darn ball? Why not blame Nate for not taking the time assess why he was experiencing pain in his knee or does he get a pass because he wants to compete? Usually if your knee hurts there is reason why. Why blame anyone at all? Sometimes stuff happens, it's really none's fault.

Get serious, write sensibly, quit the soap opera nonsense.

I wouldn't blame Forsett for Holmgrens stupid call on having Burleson return punts in the first place.

For Pete's sake, this is not on Holmgren or Forsett.

If Holmgren had Forsett returning punts and he fumbled one or two, Holmgren would be labeled a moron. "Why does he have a rookie returning punts when Burelson is more than capable." If he has Wilson do it and he gets hurt, Jennings will get hurt and Holmgren will be a moron "Why does Holmgren have our starting Nickel back returning punts?"

When it rains, it pours. Nobody is to blame in this situation. It's not like Burelson had never returned a punt before. He was the punt returner last year, and he gave the best option at the position. Forsett never returned punts in college, and it was evident in the preseason. He's a kick returner.

Stop stirring up poop Frank!

This is a great example of the kind of treatment Holmgren, and Ruskell, get from our local sports "reporters".

Holmgren wouldn't have had Roscoe Parrish of the Bills returning punts either, because he is 5'9" and if you look at his stats he's lost 4 fumbles himself.

Josh Wilson has fumbled, but has also taken one or two to the house.

But taking your only number 1 receiver and letting him get special teams abuse? Dumb.

And while we are at it - what the hell was the plan with the receivers anyway? Looking at the local papers and some national posts - coming from the Hawks office sources no doubt, losing Obamanu is right up there with the Pats losing Brady - when the hell did he become anything but an unknown along with KentPayneBumpusTaylor, except for a bit more experience, but hardly a superstar loss at this point (don't get me wrong, I like him).

We knew Branch was out any number of weeks and maybe for good, and Engram is old and apparently not worth the money that he was holding out for...Burleson had never proved himself and had been outplayed by Hackett.

That was the plan? Ruskell - excuses, Holmgren - excuses. Local media says, "aren't Hasselbeck's press conferences the cutest?".

Unbelievable.

The plan was to use 2 TEs, play Burleson at 1 WR and rotate Taylor, Payne and Kent at the other until Branch and Engram came back.

The problems with this plan:

1. Engram's injury is taking a bit longer to heal.
2. Burleson got hurt.
3. Taylor and Putzier couldn't catch the ball.
4. Holmgren doesn't trust Carlson yet.
5. DBs don't respect Kent and Payne yet and Matt doesn't look for them. That will change.

Interesting thought, I have heard news stories recently about the Seattle media not getting on the local sports teams as much as other markets. Makes me wonder if it ever translates to the players? I.E They know to a point accountability is less. Anyway just a thought.

I think Frank was giving us something to chew on.
It worked didn't it?

Ok there is nothing we can do in the pass. What do we need to do moving foward. Let's put Owen knocking heads on special teams. Cut our punter and find a new WR from free agents and play with more hart and toughness

A little chaos theory for your day... an interesting, albeit worthless point.

We need to run the ball, and now I have no idea how we can since it'll be 8 and 9 man fronts all day.

Some other ideas for discussion:
1. Why did the O-line suck so bad?
2. Where were the running lanes?
3. Were the young WR's just running bad routes?
4. Has Bruce DeHaven lost his special teams mojo?

bad call frank. and bad coaching by holmgren.

Holmgren's inability to trust rookies is what's responsible for the injury not Forsett. How many more chances did Holmgren give Duckett? How many more chances did he give Forsett?

Case closed.

By the way, Holmgren didn't trust Forsett enough to even activate him for the game.

Holmgren is an absolute MORON to have his number 1 WR, AND the ONLY WR with any experience, returning punts. What a complete idiot.

Good questions, and comments to mine.

What was the plan with the running game anyway? We spent millions on JJ, and Duckett, only to see Morris and Weaver for the first half and longer. Not that JJ did anything either, but that was the plan?

And was there any Duckett at all? Not that he was the answer, except that he was supposed to be, but where was the rotation? Especially after it was shown that Morris and Weaver can't pick up a blitz.

How did Jay Cutler (3rd year, has diabetes) make a rookie (Eddie Royal, standing all of 5'10") the leading receiver of the week in his first game, but our rookies and 2 year guys don't know our playbook or routes? How did Darrell Jackson catch a TD when it was his first game as Bronco, yet Branch is still learning to work with Hasselbeck?

I commented here during the game Sunday that the injury occurred on the return.

I think it's mgmt's fault that they have no one to return punts. Last year it was the snapper. And so on. For a team that is SO LOADED with depth, how does this happen?

Holmy's not leaving ANY bullets left in the chamber, and I don't blame him, since its his last season.

How many of you have criticize Holmgren for being TOO CONSERVATIVE? Plenty. Reap what you've sown.

A guy fumbles the ball once in one preseaon game and he's suddenly not trusthworthy to return punts? Wilson fumbles, and so what if he gets hurt. He never plays and can't beat out a bum like Jennings (a couple of wasted 1st and 2nd round draft picks in my view). T.J. Duckett fumbled twice in the pre-season game but they kept his worthless ass on the roster. Although he didn't play last Sunday. If they want 0 mistakes and total perfection all the time, I think they're doomed to disappointment until the game is played by androids. If they fear playing rookies, why have a draft? And if Hasselbeck doesn't "trust" Carlson yet, what does the guy need to do after being targeted four times and catching all four? Bring a note from his mother and a testimonial from his priest?

Personally I think Mr. Hughes asks a legit question. Holmgren's conservatism has sunk this team more than once. I won't be sorry when next season starts and he's not there on the sideline.

1)Why did the o-line suck so bad? Because Spencer and Sims suck so bad, yet they continue be given starters spots. Why? Because they're Ruskell's (wasted) draft picks?

2) Where were the running lanes? See #1. Buffalo stacked the line (and SF is going to do the same thing) and dared us beat them with the pass. Thanks to Burleson, Taylor, Putzier, Kent all dropping passes, their strategy worked.

3) Were the young receivers just running bad routes? Yes. That and Taylor sucks.

4) Has Bruce DeHaven lost his special teams mojo? Did he ever have any? Plus, you have to have the personnel. Tim Ruskell has put together mediocre teams. But wait, what about 2005? Well, what about it? That was his first year here. Does anybody really think Ruskell is the reason that team went to the Super Bowl? No, he wasn't.

To blame Holmgren for an injury is silly. He put the best player on the field where they needed him. Engram used to return punts for us when he was one of our top recievers.

The injury was bad luck.

The lack of depth at WR is inexcusable.

I would just like to know when did the titans sign steve young and why are they concerned he was at a friends house?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/894/story/476158.html

Here's a question for you all:

Is it Frank Hughes fault the Sonics left Seattle?

I mean if he had written better for them as their beat reporter maybe they'd have gotten the support they wanted for a new stadium, then they wouldn't have left.

The logic is similar and equally flawed and as nonsensical as is the premise for this thread.

Meh!

"3) Were the young receivers just running bad routes? Yes. That and Taylor sucks."

Tell that to guys like Earther who kept saying all pre-season long how friggin good Taylor and Kent were going to be....and pigs fly.

"The lack of depth at WR is inexcusable."

Seattle actually is pretty deep when you have your top 3 recievers healthy.

Seattle needs to go out get legitimate young WR's though. We should take at least 2 wr's in 1st 4 rounds. This turning late rounds wr's into 1st round calibre WR's is a friggin nightmare.

I love the question posed by Frank; get off his back he is just trying to get us thinking.

IMO- Holmgren should not have had Burleson back there. I think Wilson or even Duckett would have been better. Sure speed is nice, but Duckett would be a load to bring down and much more expendable than Burleson.

I think we will see a heavy dose of Carlson this week.

If they want a returner, why not use some reserve DB? Other than Wilson. If guys are afraid of getting hurt, or fans or coaches are afraid of them getting hurt, they're in the wrong profession.

What a completely stupid and irresponsible article. Pathetic reporting. How about some news on finding some new recievers? Or progress (if any) on the special teams side? Ridiculous article, Frank. You are better than this...

I wish we'd hear word on a WR signing. Are we going after Horn or KoRo? Maybe Tommie Kane or Darryl Turner are available.

The next report I want to see is how Holmgren and Solari kicked the o-lines butt for 3 hours straight on the practice field today. Then how Holmgren went over and chewed for 45 minutes on the Dehavens butt.

agreed. absolutely terrible and (worse than) useless blog entry. the blog's slowly been getting better as of late, but every once in a while Frank has to throw out a clunker like this. kinda reminds me of Hasselbeck back in the day. :)

Watch, it was all a ploy just to get you all fired up!

I agree joker. Frank is sitting back laughing...I bet they went around the TNT newsroom saying, "What can we post to make all these nut job posters get in a complete tizzy?" If that is the case, then bravo!

Actually, it is quite a legitimate question if you just change the subject line. Forsett didn't cause the injury anymore than he caused Mo Morris's injury by not be so good he could start at RB. He is a rookie who barely made the team. That being said, hindsite (hindsight?) shows how precarious the WR position is for the Seahawks and Burleson shouldn't have been out there. But returning punts is not like shagging flies during batting practice. It is one of the hardest things to do in football. I am sure if Josh Wilson is as capable, he would have been out there doing it. But Holmgren went with the only guy he could trust. Maybe it backfired but I trust his instinct and football acumen more than any of the random armchair GMs posting on here.

I'm not sure if it has been posted yet, but Jordan Kent has been cut.

Schefters blog also has a list of recievers who tried out with the Seahawks today.

http://blogs.nfl.com/category/adam-schefter/

"Does anybody really think Ruskell is the reason that team went to the Super Bowl? No, he wasn't."

There were many reasons why the Seahawks went to the Super Bowl, and YES, Tim Ruskell's personnel moves helped them get there. But apparently, if they don't get back the Super Bowl year after year, it's all his fault, the team sucks, he's an idiot, he needs to be fired....

What an idiotic and mean-spirited question. I have refrained from posting about Frank's tendency to write stupid things, but this is absurd. I think it ironic that this blog reveals Frank's disdain for the readers of this blog.

And now that Forsett has been cut, maybe all of you just might have to admit that perhaps Frank had more insider information as to what the coaches and management thought of his abilities?

I know he was the blogging fan's darling, but the team saw something about him that they determined he wasn't ready for the show this year.

Frank.... I have stayed off of this blog for a while now, because I realized I wasn't welcome here when you kept deleting my (entirely truthful) posts.

Feel free to delete this one if you must... because a little truth hurts I guess, but this is irresponsible journalism at its worst (and I use the word journalism very loosely).

Nate Burleson's knee injury was the result of playing the game of football. To try to stir up crap and blame it on a guy like Justin Forsett is disrespectful and bordering on completely unethical.

If you want to throw up stupid "what-ifs" then why not ask "Is the end of Shaun Alexander's career the fault of Rob Sims?" I think Rob missed a block at some point and Shaun eventually got hurt.

Football is a dangerous sport. Guys get injured all of the time. To try to pin it on somebody who is OUT OF WORK today is just plain wrong. Your soap opera garbage worked when you covered the NBA, but this is not the right time or place for it. Show some respect to the young man who lost his job, and the other young man who lost his ACL and an entire season of his job when he slipped on a WET FIELD ON A PASS PATTERN THAT HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FORSETT.

Maybe a better question is "Is it the pilots fault for flying the team to the game?" or, "Is Tim Ruskell at fault for signing Nate Burleson to an offer sheet in the first place? IF he is in Minnesota on the turf, this injury never happens."

To attempt to blame it on Forsett is really grasping at straws and in my view... PATHETIC.

The headline reads like a tabloid, but with a little rewording, Frank is only questioning Holmy's decision to use Nate...and his distrust of rookies. He also asks...what next? I just got home and there are dozens of postings on this. Isn't that what we want? Stuff to talk...I mean...write about? MHO...is that the coach should put his best players out there and let them play, w/o concern for injury. GO HAWKS!

He doesn't want to get Wallace hurt, so he puts his 1st string and only accomplished wide receiver out there. Makes perfect sense. And that's why he could coach here for 50 more years and we wouldn't ever win the super bowl. God I'm so happy he's got one fat foot out the door.

Frank the Doctor is claiming that Nate actually tore his ACL on a punt return... which would be Forsett's fault because of a fumble in a preseason game.

Sure it is something to discuss... but it is just ridiculous on so many levels.

Anyone here think Eric Williams does better job at cover hawks than frank hughes.

THought how can you blame a rookie who will make mistake and put blame on him for a guy injury that seem low. But than again some reported will stoop that low and you just prove that.

Look guys, it's pretty simple. Burleson was hurt running a PASS ROUTE, not returning a kick.

The O-line was better when it had Vallos at center and Locklear at tackle.

There are plenty of guys on this team to return kicks; Wilson, Wallace, etc. Use them.

db

WOW. The author of this blog is an idiot.