Seahawks go Big

The Seahawks have a Big Game on Sunday.

I have taken the liberty of capitalizing the first letters to distinguish this Big Game from the other big games that football teams inevitably encounter over the course of the season.

A big game is one that appears likely to affect the trajectory of one team’s season. It is an inflection point. Something of a fork in the road. When the Washington Huskies, coming off a home loss to Ohio State, traveled across the country to face an undefeated Maryland team? That was a big game. If the Huskies lost, it would be hard to see them being much better than they had been last year.

But when the 9-2 New Orleans Saints came to Seattle to face the 10-1 Seahawks on Monday night back in December 2013? That was a Big Game not just because of the potential impact on playoff seeding, but the underlying question of whether Seattle’s defense could stymie or at least slow down Drew Brees and the Saints’ passing attack (spoiler alert: they could and they did).

It occurs to me there are three specific criteria that distinguish a Big Game from a big game:

1. Both teams involved have a record sufficiently impressive to be mentioned as championship contenders;

2. The game is equally important for both teams;

3. There must be an element of pride involved.

The Seattle Seahawks and the Los Angeles Rams are both 7-2, tied not just atop the NFC West but in a three-way knot with Philadelphia for the best overall record in the NFC.

The Seahawks and Rams have each won four in a row. Seattle has the second-best point differential in the league while the Rams have won their past four games, each by 14 or more points.

The Seahawks’ Jaxson Smith-Njigba has been the single most productive receiver in the league this season while the Rams’ Matthew Stafford has thrown the most touchdown passes (25) and hasn’t been picked off since September.

By my count, this is the Seahawks’ first Big Game was the 2019 regular-season finale when Seattle hosted San Francisco and the Seahawks came within a foot of winning the division only to have tight end Jacob Hollister stopped short of the goal line by Dre Greenlaw.

Here are some other Big Games from the past 15 years:

Now, I will admit that this is a little early for a Big Game. In fact, the Seahawks and Rams will play again in December, this time at Lumen Field and it’s possible that game will be even more important than this one.

I’m not sure about that, though. These sort of games tend to have something that tech people refer to as a “long tail” meaning there are some trickle-down effects. More specifically, when teams lose a showdown like this it can trigger something of a skid or a crisis in confidence.

The winner of this game, however? That team is going to have the inside lane in the division AND stay abreast of Philadelphia in the race for the only playoff bye in the NFC.

I felt bad for Jedd Fisch when I saw the headline that appeared on a story published by Newsweek.

The reason I felt bad is because I recognize how flimsy the factual foundation of that story is.

1. The author of the story is summarizing what others have written, a practice that journalists refer to as aggregation. He is not quoting anyone he spoke to. He is not citing any independent sources of his own. He is rephrasing what others have reported.

2. The reports he’s citing are based entirely on anonymous sources. One of the facts stated—that UCLA thought about “poaching” Fisch from Washington in February 2024—is laughable on its face.

3. I believe it is fundamentally unfair and pretty unethical to speculate on the family life of a person you’re covering without giving that person the chance to discuss it.

I can see why Fisch would be angry about that story. I think he has a valid objection.

So was I rolling my eyes as he spent 2 minutes Monday complaining about the way the college-coaching rumor mill functions?

I don’t like it when coaches complain about the speculation regarding their potential departure. The reason I don’t like it is because this speculation is the understandable and logical result of a system that allows college coaches to leave for bigger, better-paying job regardless of how much time is remaining on the contract with their current employer.

If Jedd Fisch wants to eliminate conjecture about what job he might take and where he might take it, he could always amend or re-do his contract with Washington to eliminate that uncertainty. He’s also free to pledge he’ll be back.

He has not done either of those things, and while I am not disappointed by this nor did I expect him to, I’m also not at all interested in hearing him discuss how complicated this makes his job.

You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, too, Jedd, and what I mean by that is that you can’t preserve your freedom and wiggle room to potentially land what you believe is a better gig and then complain that anyone might suggest you’re going to bolt.

Does it mean that I think the Newsweek story was right? Nope. I think it’s a something you should wear rubber gloves to touch. But I do think that sort of conjecture is inevitable given the way the college coaches change jobs, and if you—as a coach—don’t like it, there are some clear steps you can take to prevent or at least temper that sort of speculation.