So, my in-box got a taste of Seattle's frustration after Sunday's season-opening loss in Arizona, and I thought I'd take this opportunity to empty it out for your viewing pleasure.

Here's a sampling of comment cards that came flowing to doneil@seattletimes.com:

If Russell Wilson has "It" then he should have ran the rock into the endzone when he was getting all that pressure. He's going to be under constant pressure all season, He's a rook. Defenses love rooks. Time will tell if he can handle it, obviously. That is the only problem really with going with a younger guy. He may have all the tools and the "It" factor, but until the games start counting you never know how the kid is going to respond.

I just hope Wilson rebounds quick for his sake, for Pete Carroll's sake, and for the teams sake. If not, the Seahawks are going to be 7-9 or 8-8 once again.
    -- Peter

The question about the lack of quarterback scrambles is a good one. When Seattle took three cracks down inside the 5-yard line to end the game, it never once moved the pocket with Wilson.

As for the idea that one game is the ultimate litmus test on whether a rookie has the essence of a successful quarterback, I'm going to go ahead and leave you out on the ledge with that one. Peyton Manning lost his first four starts, and he turned out to be OK. Rick Mirer was the AFC Rookie of the Year, and he did not. So color me cautious on jumping to any conclusions on that one.

Not a bad review of the game, but you could have explained that Russell Wilson kept the Seahawks in the the game, and that at the very end, three of his four passes could have been caught. Again, could have been caught. I am not here to malign the receivers, but Wilson put three passes into the end zone on time, in place and the receivers couldn't make the catch. If I wanted to be snarky, I would say that better receivers could have given Wilson better targets, and -- I'll say it again -- he would have put the pass on time, in place -- for a touchdown. Final question: did you watch the game, or just drum up some words from the wire reports?

I think you ... are intellectually dishonest (or just dumb and stupid) if you think this game and Wilson's debut were less than a great start. Nothing about the outcome had to do with Wilson's height and/or ability compared to the other four rookie QBs.

And yes, good teams lose. Sometimes good teams lose to bad teams and that's just competition. What I saw was two good teams and one got the breaks (no pun intended, but if Skelton had stayed in - Seattle wins) and the other was one catch away from a win with three on-the-money passes - after the Rookie QB got them downfield in time.
    -- Sam Gainor, Atlanta, Ga.

First off, this was a professionally written letter in terms of grammar and punctuation. Seriously, it was perfect, and you had a very strong argument backed up with evidence. It's what I would characterize as effective writing.

I will point out this marks the first time that I have been accused of intellectual dishonesty with regard to an individual's height. After all, I'm the one who still harbors a grudge against my freshman high-school P.E. teacher from Mazama High School (Hi, Mrs. Houston) because she logged my height as 4-11.5 on the final day of my ninth grade year. Why couldn't you give me 5 feet you Grinch-hearted, kickball forbidding crone?

As for the assertion that Wilson played great, I'm going to have to disagree. He did not. He did not play poorly. He was not the reason Seattle lost this game, and he deserves credit for putting the Seahawks in position to win, but while his overall performance was better than Charlie Whitehurst (vintage: 2011), it was also a notch below an average Matt Hasselbeck performance in the pantheon of recent Seahawks quarterbacks. That's given the caveat that Hasselbeck very well might have been sacked seven times if subject to the pressure Wilson faced.

"Kool Aid Alert: Danny O'Neil, 'The real story in training camp is the discovery and development of Sweezy.' "

Umm, yeah. Glug, glug.

Why did you -- or anybody else so far I have read -- not mention the fact that the Hawks never tried one single run play in the last 2 minutes? At the 4 yd line with 4 downs that was a no-brainer (i.e. at least try ONE to break things up?). I was yelling, "Run, run, run," but time after time a pass play. It was like they don't have a run game this season or Carroll was trying to show their back up QB that ours is better and take that? Once again why no mention(criticism) of the lack of a few RUN plays at the end?
    -- Harold

Well, to be fair, the Seahawks did run the ball. Once. It was on first down from the Seattle 6, and Marshawn Lynch gained 2 yards. Then the Seahawks called timeout. They had 30 seconds remaining and three plays left, and called a pass on every one of them.

As for why the lack of criticism, I'll let Pete Carroll answer that one when he was asked if the time handcuffed the team, essentially forcing them to pass on the final three plays:

"No, you can run it," Carroll said. "At the 7-yard line, remember we did run it in the sequence, and that was with the thought we could. We had a timeout to do that, and all that. But you could run it, it's just a long ways to get in there in case it doesn't get iclean. Really, we had four really good calls. We had time to talk about them, and to call things that we liked, and things we had been working, and unfortunately we just didn't get the play made."