What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of Pete Carroll's cranial cavity. I know, ewww, but it'd be nice to get some clarity amidst our bias and preconception. We've all got the quarterback candidates pigeonholed pretty well for ourselves by now. Tarvaris Jackson represents strength, toughness, experience, and incumbency. Matt Flynn represents the poise, mental acuity, technical skill, and the "Rodgers Factor" of developing over time. And Russell Wilson represents the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild. It's not surprising to see the fan base divided so sharply into camps depending on what they value.
Problem is, Pete may actually mean it when he says he doesn't have any more clarity than we do. I don't think people want to believe that right now. Some are worried about the declining returns of dividing camp snaps, some honestly can't imagine Flynn NOT currently being the best of the bunch so why wait, and some people aren't reading for any words except "Tarvaris Jackson cut". There's an edge of worry that's starting to seep into our opinions the longer this goes on, especially now that T-Jack is still getting significant time with the first team in camp. This stymies some people, since it's popularly assumed that Jackson is the worst QB on the roster.
This is forcing people into a tough quandary: Either Pete's full of it, or he knows something we don't. Most people assume the former, that Pete is just way too enamored with his "competition" mantra, needs to quit grandstanding and just hand the job to Flynn already. Because he won the job the moment he was signed, right? Problem is, this requires rationalization and speculation that's almost on the level of conspiracy theory. Pete's just pushing the QB's, he's trying to bump up Jackson's miniscule trade value, all his comments to the media are to be ignored, etc. And I don't want to go that route. I've learned to trust Pete. Isn't it possible that he's simply got different yardsticks for the competition than we do? And isn't it possible that Flynn might not be all that he was advertised?
It's funny that Flynn is so often compared to Matt Hasselbeck, because I think a hint to better understanding this competition might lie in revisiting Hasselbeck's final seasons in Seattle (Hawkblogger's breakdowns of Matt Flynn and Russell Wilson also demand a read).
Different Kinds of 7-9
In any comparison of Tarvaris Jackson and 2010 Matt Hasselbeck, Jackson obviously fails the eye test much more readily. His inaccuracy, lack of pocket presence, and struggles with quick progressions jump out to even a casual viewer. It took a more savvy watcher to recognize Hasselbeck's late-career issues, because he retained all the fundamentals of QB play - footwork, vision, progressions, defensive reads, throwing technique. He was a far, far, far more complete player than Jackson was, and very likely, ever will be. Therefore, it was far more reasonable to sit around waiting for that elusive Hasselbeck resurgence than to project growth for Jackson.
Yet at the end of the day, 2010 Hasselbeck and Jackson produced near-identical records and strikingly similar stat lines. Poor pass protection and WR inconsistency were a factor both years and so can be set aside as quick explanations. What is the significance of two much, much, much stylistically different quarterbacks generating similar results? How is this possible when we know Hasselbeck to be the much stronger player? You would think that the more complete player would find SOME way to stand out.
Truth is, there's more than one way for a quarterback to win. Or to suck. This reality is absolutely crucial to the QB discussion. It immediately hints that our quest to arrange and compare Jackson, Flynn, and Wilson might be a flawed approach. It's an apples-and-oranges deal; they're all very different kind of QB's and need to be evaluated differently. But how?
I turn to another question that's being begged. Since Hasselbeck and Jackson were different QB's, they each produced a very different kind of 7-9 record. Some of us, pissy and impatient for W's, don't care about the route taken if the results are the same. But we're not the one making the decision. If Pete Carroll had to choose between the 7-9 of 2010 and the 7-9 of 2011, would he make a distinction? Would he prefer one type of losing season over another?
I believe he would, and the reasons can be found in three years' worth of his comments to the Seattle media over what kind of team he envisions. Basically, he wants a TEAM, not a gaggle of bit guys surrounding an epic quarterback who throws forty times a game. He wants to involve every phase of the team in victory, give everyone a chance to make that game-changing play. He wants his team to finish every game strong. He wants the team to be hanging around by the fourth quarter, ready to win ugly.
And for that, he needs ball security. Turnovers. It's about turnovers. We've all known that Pete is pretty phobic of those things, to the point of naming a day of the week after them in his practice program. But even though ball security is doubtless a big component of Pete's rubric, for some reason, I haven't seen it brought up much in fan discussion circles. I'd say it's a pretty big deal. (I suppose I might have missed something in the deluge of content that is Fieldgulls these days.)
Once turnover concerns are brought into the picture, the QB race is open to different interpretation. Putting aside the playoff ticket handed to us by 2010's weak NFC West, I do think Pete would make a distinction between the 2010 7-9 and the 2011 7-9. Specifically, he'd prefer the 2011 version, and for one simple reason: in 2011, even during losses, the team was usually hanging around in the fourth quarter with the chance to win.
2010 was nothing like that. Does anyone miss the double-digit blowouts and being down by three scores, essentially out of the game, by the third quarter? I don't. Those largely went away in 2011 (Pittsburgh being a painful exception), and I believe Pete sees that as progress. No, Tarvaris Jackson didn't have it in him to clinch those games in the fourth quarter. But at least he had the chance. Or at least the defensive backs had a chance to grab a game-winning pick-six. At least a lucky bounce had the power to change the outcome. At least the team was hanging around with the chance to win ugly, instead of just trudging through garbage time. At least SOMEBODY could have done something. And on a few occasions, they did.
It's being commonly said that Tarvaris Jackson was "dragged" to 7-9 and played no real role in those wins. I beg to differ. I think it could have been much worse. In fact I think it's downright ironic that a Seahawks fan would disagree, because Seahawks fans SAW much worse with Matt Hasselbeck just two seasons ago.
I'm sorry to dig up this dead horse, but I believe it applies here. There's no way the 2011 Seahawks would have been able to hang around in games with Matt Hasselbeck still at the helm. Easy for me to say, but you know what the Seahawks looked like after 2007. Every loss was a blowout, usually decided by early in the third quarter, and often because of turnovers. That exciting running game and defense that supposedly vaulted us past Jackson's incompetency to seven wins in 2011? They wouldn't have had a chance behind a QB averaging three turnovers a game. Run games are the first thing to get tossed aside when your team slips into a hole; Carroll was forced to surrender it quite a bit in 2010. Defenses, while still very relevant, don't score points. They cannot be expected to start in their own territory five extra times and still save the game, such as in the second San Francisco game of 2010. There would have been no winning ugly. With turnovers, you're out of the game before it's even halfway over. "Staying out of the way" is not at the bottom of the QB quality scale. "Holding the team back with turnovers" is.
This is what Pete was getting at earlier this year when he expressed a desire for a "game manager" QB. I remember panicking inside when I read that, naively thinking he simply shared some fans' desire to settle for a Trent Dilfer rather than risk drafting a first-round QB. But it's really about turnovers, about Pete wanting to keep his entire team in the game for four quarters. QB turnovers take a team OUT of the equation faster than anything, put the burden of catching up on the shoulders of the QB who threw the pick in the first place. THAT's what Pete is trying to avoid - not necessarily an emphasis on the pass, but the loss of balance and control. He sounds for all the world like he'd rather have a QB who throws 1 TD and 0 INT than one who throws 2 TD and 2 IN.
My stab at Pete's thinking felt like guesswork as I wrote it, I'll admit. But I think it fits. It fits with the history of comments from Pete and John, with the manner in which the team and coaching staff have been built, and with the way the QB competition has been handled thus far.
Unless, of course, you're one of those annoying conspiracy theorists who refuse to take Pete at his word, instead insisting that Flynn has already been given the starting (wink-nudge-)nod and that no blurbs to the contrary should be taken at face value. After all, Pete Carroll is a competito-psychological mad scientist and has no greater priority than getting rid of Tarvaris Jackson, right?
When I watch Jackson on my television, I'll admit that I'm not inspired. Hunt for crumbs of hope amongst the stats and game contexts all you want - I know what a limited QB looks like when I look at my screen. Most of us do.
BUT...perspective. Jackson was not a 0-16 QB, which you could assume from reading some people's "I won't watch if he starts!" whining. As limited as he is, his career line reveals a very dead-even QB. .500 record as a starter, score-to-turnover ratio of about 1-1, and that improved last year behind the running of the Beast. He's relatively safe and is seemingly becoming safer. It's true that his late-season efficiency came against an easy schedule and was accompanied by a suspicious increase in fumbles, but in general, Tarvaris is not the most turnover-prone QB to ever exist.
He also has far, far more gameday experience and primary reps than anyone else on the roster. That's an intangible but valuable commodity. I've always been skeptical that Seattle would jettison any veteran experience from the roster in favor of Josh Portis, a long-shot project who showed a few preseason flashes against San Diego's third-stringers and promptly became the next Charlie Whitehurst. Yes, some people sniff at Jackson's "experience", but again - he wasn't 0-16 last year, folks. He was 7-8. It's amazing how many people are incapable of appreciating that. It's actually a pretty good baseline for a backup. No, he didn't get there in pretty fashion, but numbers are numbers. Some amongst the 12th Man need some perspective - go spend some time being fans of a team who would kill for a .500 starter. Arizona and Miami spring to mind.
I'm fully aware that Jackson is unlikely to improve...much. If he had Green Bay' wide receivers, Seattle's 2005 offensive line, the 49ers' defense and special teams (and health), and 2007's slate of opponents, he'd probably look just dandy. But that's unlikely to happen to any QB. Sitting around waiting for a struggling QB to get the perfect team is a long wait for nothing. Heck, in these parts, just asking for health is asking too much. But it's still worth noting that if the running game stays on its upward trajectory (teeheehee BEASTURBIN!!!), the O-line and Jackson's pecs hold together - and Golden Tate's hand, and the small Doug Baldwin, and Sidney Rice's whatever-it-is-this-week, Jackson's play could sneak upwards a bit. He was 7-8 without all those things.
Even assuming that Jackson will not improve, he still represents ball security, scheme fit, and continuity to Pete Carroll. Those are no small things to him. They're probably much higher on his list of priorities than they are on ours. This might help explain the apparent gap between what he sees and what we see. If you're willing to take Pete's actions at face value, it becomes clear that T-Jack still has a place in the discussion as the team's "safe" option, and Pete's priorities give him some real durability there.
But the question remains...how could Matt Flynn possibly be worse?
Flynn's positives have already been enumerated by an eager fan base who latched onto the first glimmer of hope to arrive this year, so I won't repeat them. I hope you won't see that as a dismissal or a determination to see the negative - I just don't see the need to retread ground. (What I like most about Flynn is that he'll win a lot of downs before the snap and knows how to use his tight ends.)
It's understandable for the back of people's minds to tell them that Flynn is the inevitable winner. His acquisition just FEELS that way to some. He's being paid more - not enough to automatically land him in the starting spot or hurt Seattle should he be cut, but more nevertheless. He belongs to a very familiar QB model. He had the stamp of approval from the NFL hype machine. He put up numbers against Detroit that look spectacular at first glance.
But if you're willing to step outside of this for a moment, take a gander at a list of what Flynn has NOT done:
- Played more than four total NFL games
- Played with anything but the best receiving corps in the NFL
- Played with anything but the best offensive coaching staff in the NFL
- Played against anything but the worst secondaries in the NFL
- Played for a team that he hadn't already been practicing with for four years
- Played with the pressure of earning and keeping a starting job
- Played with the pressure of a full season
- Played full games back-to-back
- Played long enough for other teams to accumulate his tape and analyze his traits
- Played long enough to develop documentable traits in the first place
- Played in a run-first offense
- Played with significant snaps from under center
That's a considerable list. Given that many changes, it's hard to expect Flynn to automatically translate his Green Bay excellence to Seattle. He is no doubt headed for some kind of dropoff, and that dropoff could be anything from mild-but-recoverable to downright precipitous. That degree is the real question - not whether there WILL be a dropoff. There will be. I would like to examine it for a moment.
You have to remember that a backup like Matt Flynn could not ask for a more comfortable berth from which to advertise himself than sitting behind Aaron Rodgers. There, he enjoyed an offense that substituted the short pass (his strength) for the running game and thus let him play mostly from the gun. He enjoyed a WR corps chosen for their precise separation and ability to sweep away massive windows in coverage. His playbook dealt in frequent 4-WR sets and flood concepts that had defenses playing from back on their heels.
Flynn will have none of that in Seattle. Here, he'll be a play-action QB throwing out of "22", "21", and "13" personnel sets along with frequent bootlegs and rollouts. It's easy to assume that changing to a run-first offense would protect Flynn more than expose him - "fewer pass attempts to screw up" is usually what we think. But it's not that simple. A run-first offense won't put Flynn in the shotgun as much as the Packers' offense, where play action was not a prominent feature (Flynn played almost entirely from the shotgun during that famous Detroit game). He'll have to develop consistency in faking handoffs and then turning around to re-establish reads downfield after the fake. This isn't something Green Bay ever required him to develop, and it shows in that he's markedly more ponderous in his decision-making in play action. I can't say that this is an area he's already nailed down. Can he? Sure. But there will be an adjustment.
You may think me harsh and unfalsifiable in treating pressure and temperament as a variable, but anyone who's ever watched Matt Hasselbeck knows that temperament is very much a factor. Hasselbeck was capable of great efficiency at his peak, but when things weren't going right, it became clear that he did not have the temperament of a game manager. Flynn hasn't even had the chance to develop a temperament yet, much less have it tested, and Seattle is very much looking for a specific kind of composure in their QB. This is another variable.
And this is all without even addressing the inherent turnover risk that comes with mediocre arm strength and mobility. We've all seen some wobbly passes, but it's more than that. As Hawkblogger recently documented, Flynn's completion percentage drops off sharply when he's passing further than ten yards. He has a nice deep-ball percentage, but that stems partially from terrific WR's winning jump balls and enjoying numerous blown coverages from the Detroit game. That's another issue with the switch to a run-first offense - a QB's first read after play-action is often a deep one. Flynn's strength is the short pass, which the Packers utilized to open up other opportunities downfield. Nothing about Pete's choices on offense suggest that he's happy with a passing game of less than ten yards. He's been said to be running the West Coast Offense, but even if you believe that "WCO = short passes" (it's more complicated than that), Seattle still has a clear propensity to become a vertical team. That desire is written all over our playbook and our player acquisitions. Flynn doesn't easily fit this. Nor does he easily fit the "tilt the field" thing, because he's an anticipation thrower who relies on the separation abilities of his receivers. A strong-armed guy can throw WR's open, fit balls into tighter windows more safely, and make more things happen on his own.
Combine all this with the dramatically smaller separation windows that Flynn will get from Seattle's current stable of receivers, and you see why I want to quantify his floor. Much of the discussion so far has focused on his ceiling. We really have no idea what he could be. I agree that Flynn could be quite good, but I also think he could be fairly bad. The math is simple: new team + inexperience + mediocre arm + lack of plus mobility + well-documented blind spot for safeties down the middle + WR's not known for separation + limited experience under center = very real turnover risk. That's probably how we'd be judging Flynn were he on any other team. The Rams, for instance.
Oh, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not concerned with his crazy stats from the Detroit game. In fact, it means less to me every time someone cites it. Flynn deserves credit for what he did, but he did it in Week 17 against a terrible, banged-up secondary that had already made the playoffs, using the league's best separation receivers. Three of his TD's were a 2-yard dumpoff with crazy YAC, a 8-yard crossing pattern with crazy YAC, and a swing pass where the WR stiff-armed his one defender into oblivion. Since when does the QB get any credit for that kind of stuff? I find his station-to-station performance against New England far more informative.
I'm not saying Flynn WILL be bad; I'm saying his mental excellence may not necessarily preclude him from being so, as many have assumed. I'm not saying Flynn can't adjust to Pete's offense, nor vice versa; I'm simply saying there will BE an adjustment. People like his decisivness and willingness to take risks, but nobody liked those qualities when it was Matt Hasselbeck and the result was interceptions (we called it "recklessness" instead). Flynn is often compared to the 2003 model of Hasselbeck, but imagine that model NOT throwing behind an all-star offensive line to system-correct timing receivers like Bobby Engram. Nor will Flynn now be throwing to Mike Williams, whose presence was a plus for Flynn for many people.
Then there's the fact that Seattle never treated Flynn like a destined starter at any time. They didn't even pursue him until he became cheap. He went all the way to Miami and back before settling with Seattle. His contract is easy to escape and screams "better stopgap". They went out and drafted Russell Wilson AFTER signing him. Pete knows the locker-room value of requiring the starter to EARN the job. Seattle has built an offense around play-action, moving QB's, and deep downfield plays, something that Flynn fits worse than the other two QB's. And they already have a "safe option" in Tarvaris Jackson.
Nothing in any of this suggests that Flynn's starting gig is secure. The competition is much closer than people have given it credit for. To what degree is the documented Matt Flynn defined by the Green Bay Packers? We are still, in many ways, dealing with an unknown QB here, with quite a few things to prove. Flynn will have to earn the job. Maybe he will. It also depends on...
Once again, I know that appealing to physical potential is a pretty low baseline for the QB search. I'll also admit that it's perfectly possible for Russell Wilson's height to create schematic holes for the offense the same as Flynn's arm. I do not think the guy is a slam dunk. But he is, in my eyes, the most exciting QB Seattle has on the roster, with the highest ceiling. (Insert tired height pun here.)
Many have dismissed Wilson because they don't trust short QB's and they don't trust third-round QB's. Since Wilson is both, he must be hosed. But if you want to bring up the higher bust rate of third-round QB's, you're preaching to the choir. I was all about that last year. First-round QB's are the least risky of a very risky set of options.
But WHY was Wilson a third-rounder? From everything I've read, purely because of his height. I haven't been able to find another reason for his draft-day fall. John Schneider almost took him in the second round. Without the height bugaboo, we're looking at an impressive talent with a lot of first-round earmarks. He is not a member of the typical "not-first-round" subset.
Because Wilson is only 5'10", Seattle will probably have to scheme Wilson very specifically - as Tony Softli recently pointed out, they'll have to deploy him like Wisconsin did. The thing is, Seattle is already deploying their quarterbacks that way. Play-action, deep drops, downfield strikes, rollouts and moving pockets. We're already there. Wilson is the first quarterback Seattle has obtained that fits what Seattle wants to do offensively and actually has the mental prowess to go with it. Far from being an automatic disqualifier, Wilson's height may actually play right into his hands when it comes to his chances in Seattle.
As for being barred from seeing over his offensive linemen, there is evidence that Wilson will not be hamstrung by this. Or perhaps more appropriately, there is a striking lack of the evidence that you'd expect to see if Wilson were hamstrung. A QB who can't see over his line would be throwing a high number of interceptions and batted balls. Yet in his senior season at Wisconsin, those picks and bats were not there. Boy, were they not there. He threw only four picks and something like four batted balls in an entire season against 33 TD's a completion percentage of 73%. That stat line would take any college QB and make him a prospect. With Wilson's height, behind one of college football's tallest O-lines, to uremarkable receivers, against some of its strongest competitors? The statement Wilson makes with those numbers could be precedent-breaking.
Yes, history says that short QB's don't succeed. But history doesn't have much to say on guys with Wilson's production. And it doesn't differentiate between the NFL's failure to enable such QB's and their failure to give such guys a chance. (Maybe the reason few short QB's succeed is because few are drafted to begin with?) And if you're looking for reasons that might explain Wilson's ability to defy his height, there are plenty to choose from. Reliance on throwing lanes being an underrated factor, Wilson's very high release point (higher than Brock Osweiler's), his mobility and talent in throwing on the run, the offense's emphasis on getting him outside the pocket (again, something we see in Seattle a lot).
Some people absolutely refuse to believe that a short QB can succeed. The "can't see over the line" justification feels right on the surface, and the number of short QB busts seems to bear it out. But that's not any kind of deep analysis; it leaves out way too much. Beyond the stuff I've already listed, what if lack of height was only an extra problem for all those busted smurfs, added to a host of other stuff? Last I checked, it's just plain hard for any college QB to hack it in the pros. Those who do are part of an incredibly small group. If you want to explain away busts like Troy Smith or Seneca Wallace, you don't have to use height to do it. There are any number of other explaining factors.
And NONE of them are shared by Russell Wilson. He's not a "project" as the word is commonly used. His polish has been largely ignored. He's a passer. When I look at Wilson, I see a bevy of the "little things" elite quarterbacks do that set them apart. Making progressions, looking off safeties, using arm motions to draw and fake DB's, selling play-action absolutely brilliantly, throwing on the run with pinpoint accuracy, sliding at the end of runs, pocket awareness, professional-grade footwork and throwing motion. I see NFL mechanics and the presence of mind that people are grinding their teeth over NOT seeing in Tarvaris Jackson. It's been said for good reason that if Wilson were 6'3", he'd have been drafted ahead of Robert Griffin III.
Training camp has backed all this up. Wilson has been shaky, but only rookie-shaky and not short-shaky. From all accounts, Wilson has been making all the plays you'd expect a dynamic rookie to make. Height has not been an issue. He's improving from the pocket and learning to run only when the opportunity presents itself (and as a QB who usually knows when to slide, he should be able to make a good side living off of that).
Now throw in a few more facts:
* Wilson attempted 1,489 passes in college. Flynn attempted 437. That's four seasons's worth to one. Could this somewhat equalize Flynn's perceived "experience" advantage?
* Wilson's very worst situational passer rating in college, on 3rd-and-long, was not terrible. The rest were the very epitome of efficiency - a key word in Carroll's offensive vision.
* Wilson displays a remarkably consistent completion percentage from EVERY part of the field and performs well even when his team is behind or tied - another item from the "not T-Jack" shelf.
Wilson's camp performance is a hodgepodge of confidence, promise, and rookie mistakes. He may very well not be ready to start yet. That's fine. He doesn't have to, not with both Jackson and Flynn around. But Wilson is a dynamic, multi-dimensional talent who can stretch the field with both his arms and his legs, and still flashes Flynn's analytical skills and confidence. He might very well be the one guy who fell into the third round without a good reason. And you know Pete and John are just the kind of guys to spot that diamond in the rough. For me, honestly, it's Wilson who FEELS like the big acquisition here.
Tarvaris Jackson is not the complete package, but he's the "safe" option that the team clearly feels they can muddle through with. Matt Flynn is not the complete package - could hold the reins, also shows signs of being a turnover machine. Russell Wilson is the complete package minus a few inches of height and fits Seattle's parameters to a tee.
When the Carroll mindset is analyzed, it seems to me that Russell Wilson has by far the best chance of becoming Seattle's long-term starter...eventually. He started fast in the competition but slowed down a bit as his rookie nature got exposed. Carroll is one who carefully deploys his QB, is slow to change, and gives the impression of not trusting rookies. Barring a downright explosive statement from Wilson in the preseason, and especially considering Flynn's presence, I doubt Wilson wins.
In fact, until yesterday when Jackson resurfaced with more camp reps, I would have guessed that Flynn would indeed win the competition. He does look promising. I still give him the greatest probability. But now, no combination of the three would really surprise me, not even Jackson starting. If that happened, the likely explanation would be concern over Flynn's turnover-proneness and Wilson's rookieness. And since we know Pete is committed to simply fielding the best QB, a Jackson victory would carry the implication that Flynn would have done no better. Flynn has a number of heretofore-unappreciated hurdles to clear, primarily shifting to a philosophically different and less talented offense and assuring Pete of his ability to protect the ball. Because of this, I believe that Flynn's margin of victory over the other QB's will need to be considerable. Being only slightly better than Tarvaris Jackson may not be enough to offset the increased risk of turnovers that inherently comes with a physically limited QB. He'll need to make a strong statement, and he hasn't yet.
I hate to be the one to say this, but we should brace for the possibility that Seattle has not significantly improved its QB situation for 2012 at all. Between Jackson's static nature, Flynn's riskiness, and Wilson's learning curve, it's a possibility. I do think we have hope for 2013 for sure, between Russell Wilson and a draft that seems to offer several promising quarterbacks (though not much else). Flynn might provide an upgraded stopgap, but playoff-caliber QB play in the rising NFC West? Not sure we're out of the woods in the short term.
Basically, I've just written over five thousand words to tell you that I don't know what will happen. But it took some doing, and deserved the doing, because many people have already decided that they can see the future. My opinion: between the limited value of camp performances as a measuring device, Flynn's only modest separation from the other guys, the declining WR situation (upon which Flynn is most dependent as an anticipation thrower), and the fact that he doesn't perfectly fit the Seahawks' offensive vision anyway, he'll find it a little harder to dislodge T-Jack from his "safe option" entrenchment that some people think. It won't be difficult, exactly - Jackson's struggles with the hot read and the third down obviously make him very vulnerable.
But the competition is still wide open, just as Pete said, because he places ball security very high on his list. Every QB on this roster has an adjustment to make. As NFL Network's Daniel Jeremiah said recently,
"I've seen Russell Wilson at Wisconsin, I've seen Matt Flynn in college, I've seen Matt Flynn in Green Bay, but I have not seen either one of them with the Seahawks. Once I see them in the preseason, I think it will be a little easier to make a guess on that. Going through training camp you still don't know what you have in either one of these guys."Yes, this means we may need to dig in for another season of Tarvaris Jackson's "win ugly" style. But Pete's earned our trust by now. The team's still in flux, still building. Let's sit back and see where preseason takes us.