Welcome to the Frontpage

Welcome to the 1st round of the 2027 draft over and our Seattle Seahawks have been busy with a number of trades and three, yes three 1st round selections, we have a chance to catch up with Seattle GM Thompson

Seattle Times: Thanks for offering to spend some time with us today. You have been busy so far in the draft, but we wanted to ask about one deal that wasn’t done as the rumours suggest you tried to move up to number one to pick QB Husted, is this true and what happened?
Thompson:  Thanks for the welcome. Yes we did make an offer to Baltimore offering both 1st round picks this season and next but they had already verbally agreed a deal with Kansas City so despite getting the offer in early it was still too late. We also tried to move up to 1.5 as well but were outbid there too so stuck at 1.8.

Seattle Times: At 1.8 despite there being a stud DE available you selected Brigham Young WR Raymond Battle, who didn’t have the most productive season in college, what was the reasoning behind this pick?
Thompson: I can understand that as we really rated Greer and in fact also OLB Bower, but with a young QB and WR Applewhite getting old we were looking for someone explosive to play opposite Dunwoody. Battle is a big play WR look at his 40 time (4.30) he is a threat to score from anywhere on the field so if defenses lock onto Dunwoody we feel like we can still make them pay. Remember Grundy has a big arm so with the three WR’s as well as TE’s Garner and Gardocki we hope the offense can create more big plays going forward.

Seattle Times: Then there was some confusion as you made a trade with Green Bay (1.12) and another one was announced by San Diego for 1.11 but was then withdrawn, what happended?
Thompson:  I have to apologise to San Diego GM Wille there, we made an offer for 1.11 as we wanted one of the top tackles in the draft and felt that both Moore and Lynn were worth grabbing as they wouldn’t fall to 1.19. The offer included 1.19 and a number of later picks but we hadn’t got a response when Green Bay offered 1.12 for Jacksonville’s 1st round pick next year and 2.7. This deal ensured we would get one of them so we made the trade.

San Diego then announced the trade for 1.11 and we had to withdraw the offer as we would have had major cap issues, though we could have secured our tackle spots for the next 10 years if we had taken both. That trade with the Chargers was cancelled and thy select tackle Edwin Moore.

With 1.12 we put the card straight in for Cary Lynn out of Portland State as we feel he can play RT from day one and if he improves his pass protection then can move to LT in the future.

Seattle Times: Cary Lynn was awful in college in pass protection and with all the moves over the last couple of years to improve the passing game why select him?
Thompson:  He is fast and agile, the combines indicate he will dominate as a run blocker and you know we want to run the ball. His combine score in the agility test indicated to us we could coach him up in regard to pass protection. We love this kid’s strength and endurance as well. He think he will excel at RT regardless but he has the potential to be a good pass protecting LT going forward.

Seattle Times: Moving on you then traded down from 1.19 to 1.26 (adding a 3rd in 2028 from the Saints) why did you make this move?
Thompson:  We had a number of players highly rated at that point and felt adding a 3rd round pick next year would help as we had already traded away the extra 1st we had next year. We liked DE Andy Weiss, had a couple of high ratings on Guards Bridges and Walters as well as C Garcia and with other quality players like TE Johnson still available felt we could get one of them later.

Johnson went with our pick (1.19), Tackle Brandon, Garcia and Weiss went before our pick at 1.26 so we were left to choose between the Guards, Bridges was the better sized of the Guard options and though his run blocking wasn’t great at Duke we felt this was because he wasn’t asked to run block in college. His 5.00 time in the 40 indicates to us he will be better with some coaching. We like his pass blocking and strength so he will be in the mix with Lee and Lash for a starting job.

Seattle Times: We were wondering why a Guard with Lee and Lash (two 3rd rounders) already on the roster?
Thompson:  We still like both of those players and this was not about getting rid of them or not giving them the opportunity but we felt Bridges was a prospect that was too good to pass on.

Seattle Times: There were rumours you turned down an offer from Miami for the pick
Thompson:  We didn’t turn down the trade we wanted to see who was available but Miami made a deal with Detroit to send their 1st round pick next year to the Lions for 1.31 so the offer was no longer on the table when we were on the clock. If that deal had been available at the point we were on the clock we may well have made the trade.

Seattle Times: You then traded a whole host of picks (3.7, 4.10, 4.20 and 7.7) to the Chargers for their 2nd round pick next year, why?
Thompson:  This deal was about value and positioning ourselves for next year as well. We were not going to have enough roster spots to retain all draft picks this year so we packaged four of them for what we think will be a valuable pick next year. We have made three picks in the 1st round and have another 3 picks left in this draft with one in the 2nd and 3rd round as well as a 5th rounder so hope to be able to add more talent, though we are still open to moving those picks into the future as well.

Seattle Times: Before we let you go, can you update us on free agency as there are few new faces in the building at the moment?
Thompson:  Yes we add RB Derrick Brommell as well as retaining Tucker to support Szporluck in the running game.  We brought in WR Archulata for his mentoring skills as well as his 3rd down catching and kick-off return ability. DE Yonkers was brought in as we liked his pass rush technique and he can play the run as well. We did resign Williams on a two year deal and added another NT in Richard as he can do more in the pass rushing side of the game on obvious passing downs.
The secondary saw the additions of CB Battle and Safety Nahm with both adding much needed depth at a minimum.

Seattle Times: Thank you for your time today, we will look forward to speaking to you in the near future.

"We really like you," they said. "In fact, you may even be our next franchise quarterback," they said.

But so far, no good for James Fones, the bright-armed kid once brought in as an undrafted free agent, accidentally released as a result of some CPU error (), and brought back later to return to his place as Green Bay's hidden ace.

Instead, Fones watched and waited behind the scenes as one after another aging old geezer was brought in to "veteran" the Packers to glory. First was Vinny Maloney. Then Peter Leonas. And now Todd Turnbull.

Fones did get his shot, and he did lead the league's worst passing offense in terms of output that year...but with Leonas's unfortunate retirement, he expected to creep his way back into the starting gig. He's now in his prime, and with another two year wait on the books, he'll wind up a codger himself before his next shot at starting. Perhaps it was just not to be, and perhaps the Packers have taken fancy to a new 'hidden ace up the sleeve'...despite signing Fones to a more than handsome extension at the end of the '26 season, it was fourth-year Alan Marischen who served as the team's #2 in practices and on gamedays all of last season.

Four teams that entered the season with high expectations failed to make the playoffs: Chicago, Miami, Cincinnati and Indianapolis. But which of these teams should be most disappointed to miss the playoffs? In other words, which of them was the best?

In order to answer this question in the simplest and most effective terms, we ought to take a look at an interesting concept: blowout wins.

Blowout wins tell us that teams that win a lot of games big (14 or more points) are usually better than teams that win a lot of close games (8 points or fewer) (ref: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2005/fo-fox-guts-and-stomps). The idea is simple: a close game is won by a great play or a big mistake, and at a given moment, who makes it is a matter of chance. A big win, on the other hand, is a clear statement of who the better team is.

Pythagorean wins, a formula to predict success based on points scored/allowed first used in baseball, is another closely related concept that is worth keeping in mind. Basically, the idea is that teams with better point differential are better. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation#Use_in_pro_football).

These are real life tools, but they work even better in FOF, as concepts such as “clutch” and “effort” are not a factor at all with our byte players and teams.

So this doesn't take all day, let's only look at close wins and assume that wins/losses in close games are random (which is very likely true going by the evidence above, even if it's explicitly stated):

Miami only had 5 close games, and they went 4-1 in those and 6-5 in other games.

Cincinnati was 5-4 in close games and 4-3 in others.

Indy was 3-4 in close games and 4-5 in others.

So far, if we work point differential in, it looks as if Miami might have slightly overachieved their record, if anything. With Cincy and Indy, it's remarkable how their lucky/unlucky streaks in close games defined their seasons: Cincy lost 4 close games during the 6-game losing streak that cost them the playoffs, but went 4-0 in close games during their early-season 6-game winning streak that helped put them in contention. Easy come, easy go.

In similar fashion, Indy was 0-4 in close games during their 1-6 start and 3-0 during their 6-3 finish. In both cases, point differential supports a very similar record for the year than these teams actually had, with Indy maybe underperforming their win total by one and the Bengals right on the money at 9-7.

Then we come to Chicago. The Bears, with one fewer win than the Bengals and two wins fewer than the Dolphins, actually had a very superior point differential (nearly +100). Their W/L record in close games supports the notion that the Bears suffered from a case of abnormal bad luck this year. Chicago went a whopping 3-8 in close games this year, and a categorical 5-0 in all the rest.

The Bears were a very good team that could have won two more games and still be said to suffer from slightly bad luck.

But were the Bears the unluckiest team in history? In the history of the CFL, perhaps, but I had the doubtful pleasure of running the 1993 AUFL Memphis Showboats, a team that missed the playoffs with a 10-6 record after going 1-6 in close games -including five 1-point losses- with a +246 point differential. Now, that's a strong candidate for unluckiest team of all time.

Please post your comments below.