Answering 4 questions after Seahawks’ loss to Chiefs

SEATTLE – Can the Seahawks still make something of this season in the wake of Saturday’s 24-10 loss at Kansas City, the fifth loss in their past six games?

Were there any positives to take out of the game? And is there any reason to worry about quarterback Geno Smith?

Those questions and more are tackled in this week’s Four Downs review of the game and where things stand with Seahawks beat reporters .

1. What was the most positive thing you saw in the game?

Condotta: Seattle can build on the revival of the running game and the play of Kenneth Walker III the next two weeks – though it’s worth noting the Seahawks finish playing two of the NFL’s top six defenses in yards per carry allowed in the Rams and Jets, both tied for fourth at 4.0.

Walker said he was more decisive in the second half, when he rushed for 91 yards on 17 carries in finishing with 107 on 26, the third-best total of the season. Seattle also ran more with Smith under center in the second half, when Walker had his four biggest runs – 20, 20, 11 and 9 yards. But the running game was still hit and miss. Of Walker’s six runs for negative yards in the game, four came in the second half, and he had just 23 yards on his last nine carries. Maybe the Chiefs figured out some things as the game wore on. Regardless, Seattle will take Walker getting 107 yards every time.

Jude: If we’re feeling generous here around the holidays, we could point out that the Seahawks’ defense did improve Saturday, holding the Chiefs to a season-low 297 yards. That’s progress, for sure. The Seahawks’ run defense, utterly awful in the previous six games, limited the Chiefs to 77 yards on 22 rushes (3.5 per attempt). That’s better, no doubt. And the Seahawks forced four three-and-out drives, the most any defense has forced all season against the Chiefs’ top-ranked offense. That’s good, indeed.

Now, we could also note that the subfreezing temperatures made offensive play a struggle for both teams, that the Seahawks haven’t forced a turnover in three consecutive games and that there’s generally nothing intimidating about this Seahawks defense. But we’ll just focus on the positives, for now.

2. Is Geno Smith hitting a second-half wall?

Jude: It’s possible Geno has become the middling quarterback everyone assumed he was going to be all along. It’s possible, sure. I’m not ready to go there yet, though. He hasn’t been as good lately; that’s been obvious. But I’d suggest his recent slide has more to do with the regression of the offensive line and injuries at the skill positions. I would continue to advocate for a new contract for Geno after this season. The Seahawks have a lot of holes to fill (especially on defense) and a lot of draft picks to help fill them, and it would seem to make things easier for them knowing they have a trusted QB in place. But I also understand there’s an argument to be made that maybe Geno isn’t the long-term answer for this team. He has created just a little bit of doubt, and that could create complications around the Seahawks’ most important question entering the offseason.

Condotta: Saturday was a tough situation playing on the road against a good team, without Tyler Lockett and with no early help from the running game. Smith has had some ill-timed turnovers in recent weeks – though maybe all of them are when you lose five of six. But consider that Saturday, Laquon Treadwell – signed in November to the practice squad – got the second-most snaps of any receiver. The view here is Smith is still not “the problem.” But it’s fair to conclude that these past two games and how Seattle finishes the season could factor significantly into offseason QB decisions.

3. Missing the playoffs would give the Seahawks a better draft pick. Should fans still want them to make the postseason?

Condotta: To clarify, at the moment the Seahawks would have the Nos. 3 and 12 picks of the first round – the first thanks to Denver’s face plant this season and the second due to their record. The Broncos, who fired coach Nathaniel Hackett on Monday, can still finish with the NFL’s worst record. If Seattle makes the playoffs, that second pick can be no higher than No. 19, the lowest any team making the postseason can have. Is sacrificing prime draft positioning worth what might be just one road playoff loss? The view here is yes – Carroll is big on culture and always competing. He’s always felt the unlikely playoff berth in 2010 helped set the stage for all that followed. And players aren’t worried about the future. I think the Seahawks believe there would be a huge benefit in finishing with a winning record and landing in the playoffs in a season that began with few expectations.

Jude: Of course. The playoffs would be a great achievement for a team many pegged to win just three or four games this season. The Seahawks have many young players who should learn a lot going into the playoffs for the first time. And ultimately moving up a couple spots in the draft is far less valuable than the experience this team would have and the momentum it would build by reaching the playoffs. Go for it.

4. OK, let’s cut to the chase: Will Seattle reach the playoffs?

Jude: I don’t like their chances, no. If they do win out and get to 9-8, they’ll have a decent shot. Is that even realistic, though? The Jets are still fighting for a playoff berth, and they’ll get Mike White back to start at QB against the Seahawks, a big boost for their offense. And the Rams, after thumping Denver on Sunday, look motivated to finish the season on a high note with Baker Mayfield (Who the heck saw that coming?). I could see the Seahawks splitting the two games, but it’s difficult to envision them winning both. Even if they do, they would need help to get in the playoffs. The odds are stacked against them.

Condotta: What the heck, I’ll say yes. There’s no reason the Seahawks can’t beat the Jets and Rams with the same effort they turned in during the second half against the Chiefs. And then all they need is Washington and Green Bay – both erratic teams with some tough games left – to lose once each. That’s not too much to ask, is it?