Inbox: This team will keep working at it

Jeffery from Eveleth, MN

I, for one, am not going to miss Pete Carroll's sideline strutting and gum chewing while he complains about every call by the refs on Sunday night. Sorry. But I feel so much better now.

Happy to help.

Gordon from Newport Beach, CA

Guys, the Packers rarely win in Seattle. What gives?

They haven't played there in six years and have played there only once in the last nine.

Lee from Citrus Heights, CA

I am hoping for rain in the 'Hawks nest. What will be the biggest challenge for the Packers in this game?

Not allowing the crowd to believe it's having an impact.

Dan from Catonsville, MD

What do we have to do to beat the Seahawks?

Don't let Geno Smith get comfortable and into a rhythm. If the defense can disrupt him, the offense should put up enough points to win as long as it protects the ball.

Josh from Seattle, WA

Geno is going to be ripe for picking. A strong start can quiet the Seattle crowd too. Seattle fans only like cheering for winners. I won't call them fair-weather fans, because you know, rain. But, if we can start with strong complementary football it will make the second half crowd sit down and help the offense a ton!

Heard from a resident.

Caleb from Knoxville, TN

Who is the most underrated player on the Seahawks right now, and why?

Probably kicker Jason Myers. He's missed only one field goal inside 50 yards this season (though he has missed three PATs). He's also 7-of-9 from 50-plus. And yes, I'm trying to jinx him.

Gary from Davenport, IA

Mike, I just watched the "Three Things" video and apparently Larry didn't get the memo that we're not supposed to discuss the "game that shan't be discussed." Even though the 10th anniversary of that game is coming up next month, it's still too soon to talk about it. It might even be too soon in another 10 years. I could tell by the look on your face that those memories weren't pleasant for you to hear, too.

It was that obvious, huh?

Greg from Perkasie, PA

I would push back a little on Jayden Reed's lack of involvement being a "non-story." Two, three and one targets for your best receiver in a span of four games since the bye seems like something to talk about and to fix moving forward. The fourth game in that stretch? Six targets, and two touchdowns. He produces when he's involved, so getting him involved early and often seems like it should be a logical priority.

LaFleur indicated this week there's a relatively simple fix – having Reed in two-WR sets more so if the offense doesn't have three WR on the field, his snaps aren't diminished.

Jon from Chicago, IL

Regarding Scott from Noblesville: No need to get "defensive." I think his point was valid. In particular, on the last two drives, if you give up an explosive or even a touchdown, at least you get the ball back quickly. They needed to get the defense off the field one way or the other. Sending the house was a risk worth taking. And while I agree the defense is improved, that was a mistake by Hafley and I hope he approaches it differently next time.

So if second-and-17 becomes a 37-yard TD against an all-out blitz with three of your top five DBs injured, you're sitting there on your couch saying, "Well, at least we got the ball back"? Ha, sure. C'mon, get serious. The Packers, in a tough spot personnel-wise, had a great chance to stop them without risking the farm. They didn't get it done, and if not for willful blindness it would've been second-and-27 and an even better chance. The strategy was sound. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean it was wrong.

Daniel from Lakeland, FL

In your reply to Kevin from Kirkland, IL, you stated in part, " … their spacing slightly off by a step or two, which creates throwing lanes." When one considers a step or two at game speed, it makes one appreciate the skill of an NFL QB fitting in a pass in such a tight space, of a receiver snaring a pass in such tight spaces, and a defensive back correcting his position a step or two and breaking up the play.

The margins in this league are forever small. It shows up on the all-22, all the time.

Tom from Keota, IA

Seahawks have had some good players over the years, but if anyone asks me, my favorite all-time Seahawk is Marshawn Lynch, for one overriding reason – he's the one player from that team who admitted publicly, first time he was asked, that Golden Tate didn't catch that ball for a TD. Love me some Beast Mode.

Mine's Steve Largent. I wasn't aware of that with Lynch, but if true, mad respect.

Mel from Eau Claire, WI

All-time favorite Seahawk: Dave Krieg.

That's a Wisconsin answer if I've ever heard one. My favorite Krieg moment was him being on the QB end of Derrick Thomas' single-game NFL record seven sacks at Arrowhead in 1990, but on the final play, he wiggled out of an eighth Thomas sack and threw a game-winning TD pass.

Richard from Woodruff, WI

Hi guys, here we are in December '24 with just two home games left on the schedule. Assuming (and hopefully) the Packers get a wild card, is there a way that Green Bay can host another game? Thanks. GPG!

It's highly unlikely. The only way a wild card can host in the divisional round is for the 2-3-4 seeds to all lose so the 5 hosts the 6. And the only way in the conference championship is for the four division winners to all be eliminated so the game is between two wild cards.

Brian from Fort Wayne, IN

I would love to see the wild cards seeded better than some division winners with a lesser record. The NFC North this year clearly has the best division, yet two of the (other) three division winners will have a lesser record but a better seed. With the current way seeding is done it leads to a lot more contests between members of the same division and they already play each other twice a year. Do you think there is any chance of that happening?

Changing the seeding process? No. This comes up all the time, almost annually, when a wild-card team has a better record than a division winner, but it's not changing. The league owners have been adamant that winning your division means you get to host a playoff game. End of story.

Thomas from Cedar Rapids, IA

Cardinals, 49ers, Colts, Dolphins. Each of those teams would have a winning record had they been able to beat the Packers. So can we please stop with the nonsense that Green Bay can't beat a winning team. Green Bay directly caused four opponents to NOT be winning teams. The first rule of Inbox? For Mike and Wes, it's mastering "Serenity Now." If it were me, I'd be handing out bans like Oprah. You get banned, and you get banned …

So you're saying the Packers could be 7-6 with two wins over teams with winning records? Funny how that works.

Steve from Scranton, PA

Mike, make the playoffs and take your best shot, like you've always said. Regular-season record determines seeding/home-field advantage, but every playoff game starts off 0-0 on the scoreboard. With that said, do you agree that not every playoff team has a realistic chance of winning the Super Bowl? I tend to view teams in tiers...which is why Sunday is a tipping-point game. Are we truly up there with DET, PHI and MIN, none of whom we've beaten? A road W in a tough environment would show a lot!

It certainly would, but all that "show" is just for fans and analysts. Sure, last year the Packers had beaten the Lions on the road and Chiefs at home as they turned it around, but as we've been mentioning, after those Giants, Bucs and Panthers games, where were they, really? Yet they snuck in, blew out a 2 seed that was unbeaten at home, and took the 49ers, who easily could've won the Super Bowl, to the wire. I also think back to '15 when the Packers limped into the playoffs with two ugly losses, fell behind Washington in the wild-card game 11-0 early in the second quarter, and a few blinks later were suddenly playing overtime in the divisional round in Arizona, almost making it to the NFC title game. That's why I say you just never know. Earn those dice and roll 'em.

Erich from Sheboygan, WI

We don't really bash officials here, we just bash the NFL for not caring and helping them more.

Or both, but the latter certainly bothers me more.

Jake from Orem, UT

Hey Mike, I read an article today about the NFL considering replay assistance for facemask penalties. Maybe they've been reading what you've said repeatedly in this column! Hoping that, like you've pulled for, this is just the beginning of considering expanding replay assistance for player safety penalties.

I would appreciate some of the blue leaving my face.

Jim from Tempe, AZ

The first horrible call I remember was the 1980 AFC Championship when an Oilers game-winning TD was denied. So the problem is nothing new to the NFL. The speed of the game and how quick plays occur is a common reason for missed calls. I have long wondered why the NFL, NFLPA and NFLRA don't create a pathway for the hundreds of players whose NFL careers end after just 3-4 years. Young men who have played the game at the highest level, are accustomed to the speed, seems like an ideal talent pool.

You'd be surprised how many players reach this level and aren't all that well versed in the rules. As for the 1980 AFC title game, I remember that and it bummed me out. Not that I had anything against the Steelers, but they'd had their time, and I loved those Earl Campbell/Oilers teams and wanted to see them make a Super Bowl.

Arn from Kenosha, WI

In response to officiating rating suggestion from Hudson reader, Mike said "Such a system would provide only the illusion of comprehensive knowledge for the public." I would settle for an illusion of consistency – even in the absence of knowledge!

Sorry, I can't quite get my brain around that one.

Mike from Dubuque, IA

Insiders, Kurt Benkert had a very interesting take on GB's biggest problem in the Lions game. He showed the competitive disadvantage Josh Myers was up against trying to block his man due to the silent count used. In MLF's Monday press conference he noted that Detroit did a good job in timing up the snap without addressing the whys and whether any adjustments were being considered. It seems like some adjustments would be prudent given the fact there are games coming in Seattle and Minnesota.

Last year down the stretch in road games, at Minnesota and Dallas in particular, Love did an exemplary job of varying the silent cadence to get the defense to declare, allowing him to make adjustments at the line. Perhaps more variation is needed now, and the sooner the call comes in and the offense breaks the huddle, the more flexibility he has.

Charlie from Morgan Hill, CA

I would love to hear your thoughts on Jordan Love's struggles against the blitz. He's at the bottom of the league statistically. This would seem to be an issue opponents continue to take advantage of that isn't being talked about.

I think a QB's success against the blitz is mostly predicated on the pass-pro unit's efficiency at picking up blitzes, not on the QB himself, aside from how he makes protection adjustments at the line, which is one of Love's strengths.

Jacob from Decorah, IA

The thing everyone keeps missing in the Bills loss last week is that LA also had six-plus TDs and no turnovers which took that stat of 245-0 and made it 246-1 in the same game. Crazy stuff.

Indeed.

Matt from Middleton, WI

So a blocked punt returned for a TD isn't considered a turnover?

Statistically, no, though of course it's effectively the same as an INT or fumble returned for a score.

Dave from Germantown, TN

Spoff, another nice job on WYMM. How much did it pain you to write the last line of several of the plays … but to no avail as the Lions converted on the next play?

Not gonna lie, it got old.

Tom from Helena, MT

Mike, just a general observation. That being that the Packers are, on the whole, just a little bit off being in sync. The potential is clearly there and my hope is that we will see that come around in the Seattle game. It's like momentum, something that is real and affects the game a great deal but you can't just dial it up when you need it.

I truly believe they're getting closer. I may be wrong, but as long as games and opportunities remain, I know this team will keep working at it.

Dale from Prescott, WI

Well, at least the injury report looks better. So we got that going for us, which is nice.

I'm not about to discount that, especially this time of year.

Tyler from Stetsonville, WI

"We can stop acting like Green Bay is getting run out of these stadiums anytime you guys wish." That was a good one. Thank you for being a dose of reality where, if left to our own devices, would convince ourselves that everything is horrible because Reed didn't get 12 targets, the defense didn't get a stop in the fourth quarter, or we didn't get eight sacks. The business end of the season has arrived. Deep breathes, all. As a wise wizard once said, "It's the deep breath before the plunge."

"The business end of the season has arrived" is the really good one.

Brett from Lakewood, CO

"The NY Times simulator says we've got a 98% chance to make the playoffs. Let's shoot for a third-place schedule next year and also not show too much in the Seattle game." Sounds like the Coach of the Year candidates in the Inbox are guiding us to the 8 seed.

Happy Friday.