Browns 33, Seahawks 30 (OT)

I can't remember the last time I listened to an entire football game on the radio, but that was the case here as I was driving back from Palo Alto (more on that later).

Listening to the post-game radio show, people are obviously pissed. Personally, I thought the Hawks played pretty well, on the road, against a tough opponent. They were favored to lose by one and, in regulation, they beat the spread with a tie.

When the Hawks went 13-3 in 2005, they won at least two games with just pure luck: the win against the Cowboys after Babineaux's interception, and the OT win against the Giants. You don't win games like that forever, and the Hawks lately have been getting unlucky.

The Hawks should've won both yesterday and against Arizona. Had they done so, they'd be 6-2, and we'd all be talking Super Bowl.

The Hawks are +26 in point differential--that's 4th-best in the NFC, 8th-best in the NFL.

And they play in possibly the worst division in football, so they should--should--be able to capture a playoff berth.

John at Field Gulls says this loss is the coaching staff's fault, citing primarily the fact that the Hawks threw way too much in the second half. I've got to disagree. Cleveland has the worst passing defense in the league, you've got to pass against them. And the offense was moving the ball--it was the run that killed them, especially on the infamous fourth-and-18-inches play (more on that later).

The defense might have played better--Cleveland's averaging about 30 ppg, and that's about what the Hawks allowed--I've come to expect better from the Hawks D. And Hasselbeck--to hear Steve Raible tell it--missed several open receivers in the second half.

But, in the end, it's a road game against one of the better teams in the AFC, and the Hawks were inches away from winning. It's not worth firing the coach over.