I don't know if this is like the game of telephone, where something is passed on from one person to the next, the context of the message gets changed and the misinformation picks up steam; or whether there is legitimacy to any of it, but the Jim Mora-to-Washington rumors simply will not die.

I was just taking a look at Bob Condotta's blog over at the Times, and he posted an item that says Mora's Wikipedia entry was briefly updated -- then changed -- saying Mora would be announced as UW's coach on Dec. 3. It is an eight-year deal, the item said, before being taken off the site. Here is a link to Bob's post.

I myself have gotten a flurry of emails informing me that Mora would be announced in the next 24 hours; that Paul Allen and Scott Woodward have sat down to discuss the issue; that Mora is definitely going to be the Huskies' next coach and it will be announced any moment. There has been no indication from Renton that anything has changed from Mora's initial -- and only -- statement on the topic, saying he is not a candidate for the position. Yet the rumors will continue in earnest until UW hires a head coach -- whether that is Mora or somebody else.

Here was Holmgren's response to some of the defensive players criticizing the schemes in the loss to Dallas:

“I did not address it with the players because I didn’t know," Holmgren said. "I didn’t know about it. A couple things happened: after you lose a game—an emotional game, and you guys know this—sometimes players say things that they believe, but it’s not necessarily true all the time. In their frame of reference, they think it’s going to work that way, but it doesn’t. The simple fact of the matter is, this season, we have not taken the ball away very much, and that’s a frustration for our defense. And we have not gotten pressure on the quarterback…and that’s been a frustration. So, automatically, if you lose a tough game [you say], ‘Well, we should’ve done this.’ Or, ‘Heck, Coach Holmgren should’ve called more runs.’ Whatever it is. Whatever we did in the game, it didn’t work. So we should’ve done something else. I think you got to be careful with that stuff. When we have blitzed this season, I could show you ten plays where we went after them hard, and they threw the ball downfield for a long touchdown play. So, it’s a frustration more than anything else. The players care, though, which I like. They really do care. And in their mind, if they think a way is better, I think you have to listen to them a little bit. I believe that. If Matt Hasselbeck were to come to me and say, ‘You know what? I think if we try these couple things…’ I would absolutely listen to him. Absolutely listen to him. And then, if I didn’t think that that was the way to go, then I would tell him, and these are the reasons why. But we’ll try this. I think we’ll do some of that, probably…on defense. But you know how it is, I mean, heck, things get said. How much of it is real? I think after they see the film, which they now have seen, they might look at it a little differently.”

Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren said in his Monday news conference that center Chris Spencer very well could be placed on injured reserve. Holmgren said they were going to wait a few days to make sure, but he certainly sounded as if they knew what was wrong with his back -- disc problem -- and that he likely is not going to be able to come back.

Same could be true for Mike Wahle. Holmgren said last week that Wahle should be able to play against the Patriots. But today he said that his shoulder is not responding the way they think it should, and if that too is going to be a long-term thing they are likely to place him on IR as well. It sounds like the Spencer decision is more immediate though since they don't have anyone besides Manny Wrotto to back him up.

=> Read more!

Mike Holmgren is having his regular Monday press conference at 2:15.

Here is a link to a piece I wrote today, in which I basically said it might be a good idea to set aside fair or unfair and start playing the younger players so that Tim Ruskell could get a better evaluation of what he has before he heads into the draft and free agency.

And with the New England Patriots coming to town, I'll pose a question that can carry us until Holmgren meets with the media: It is becoming increasingly clear that the Patriots are not going to be able to afford Matt Cassel, who in Tom Brady's absence has proven to be a very good quarterback, Sunday's performance against the Pittsburgh Steelers notwithstanding. Before that, though, he had back-to-back 400-yard performances and has won player of the week honors. The question is this: If you could get Cassel in free agency at the expense of Matt Hasselbeck, would you do it?

There are obviously many things to consider here, but the first of them is the ages of the players. Hasselbeck is 33. Cassel is 26. Hasselbeck has a bad back. Cassel hasn't had any problems yet. If the organization is starting over -- it has not said it is, just to be clear -- would it be better off starting over with a guy Jim Mora and Company can develop? Or would it be better off having Hasselbeck, who knows the offense so well, carry the team while a draftee serves as Hasselbeck's understudy until he is ready?