Seahawks sign former Buc who has been out of the league since 2008

[michael89156]

Patrick Chukwurah | Defensive Lineman

Team:  Seattle Seahawks
Age / DOB:   (33) / 3/1/1979
Ht / Wt:   6'1' / 250
College:  Wyoming


Seahawks signed DE Patrick Chukwurah.He's taking DE Chris Clemons' (torn ACL) roster spot. It's another unorthodox signing for GM John Schneider and coach Pete Carroll, as Chukwurah has been out of the league since 2008. The 2001 fifth-round pick shined in the UFL, however. Chukwurah should be little more than a feel-good story during the Seahawks' playoff run, as he's extremely unlikely to play more than a handful of snaps on defense

. Jan 8 - 9:33 PM

Source: Ian Rapoport on Twitter

[Buc on the Move]

Way to stick with it Chuk.  Does this guy have a connection with Pete Carrol or the GM, or just one hell of an agent?

[The Anti-Java]

Good way to get a Super Bowl ring for a few weeks work.

[NotDeadYet]

   A 5th round pick by the Vikings in 2002. Now 33. Obviously the guy loves football, to be playing in the 'minors' at that age...

[chace1986]

Good way to get a Super Bowl ring for a few weeks work.

Doubt they make it out of ATL with a win, TBH.

[The Anti-Java]

Good way to get a Super Bowl ring for a few weeks work.

Doubt they make it out of ATL with a win, TBH.

I expect the annual , you can set your calender by it........Matty Ice meltdown.

Seahawks      38

Falcons          14

[chace1986]

27-17. Falcons.

I would like the Seahawks to make it. I like Carroll and a lot of players on that team. I just think with the back to back cross country trips and the Falcons desperation to get the monkey off their backs...Mike Smith and crew will take the divisional round game and trip up in the conference championship game.

[McCoy93]

Patrick Chuck? wow i remember that guy; him and Jimmy Wilkerson.

[BucNY]

Good way to get a Super Bowl ring for a few weeks work.

Doubt they make it out of ATL with a win, TBH.

We went into Atlanta and handed them their first home loss of the season. Seattle defense is much much better and their offense is clicking right now. Seattle is a very hard beat right now. I see Seattle winning my 5-8 points.

[chace1986]

Pretty sure Atlanta will be a little more prepared and focused on a game that actually matters. I have no problem with the prediction of Seattle winning, but to say that just because the Bucs beat them, that means Seattle should too, is ridiculous. Using that logic, the Saints should not have won the 2009 SB since the 3-13 Bucs beat them at home in week 16.

[Cerious]

Pretty sure Atlanta will be a little more prepared and focused on a game that actually matters. I have no problem with the prediction of Seattle winning, but to say that just because the Bucs beat them, that means Seattle should too, is ridiculous. Using that logic, the Saints should not have won the 2009 SB since the 3-13 Bucs beat them at home in week 16.

Obviously the game mattered to Mike Smith. Why else would he play his starters the entire game? The Saints on the other hand didn't play their starters the entire game. What did Mike Smith have to prove by playing his starters if the game was really meaningless. I don't understand that logic.

[lyronmewis]

Pretty sure Atlanta will be a little more prepared and focused on a game that actually matters. I have no problem with the prediction of Seattle winning, but to say that just because the Bucs beat them, that means Seattle should too, is ridiculous. Using that logic, the Saints should not have won the 2009 SB since the 3-13 Bucs beat them at home in week 16.

Obviously the game mattered to Mike Smith. Why else would he play his starters the entire game? The Saints on the other hand didn't play their starters the entire game. What did Mike Smith have to prove by playing his starters if the game was really meaningless. I don't understand that logic.

You're thinking about 2010. The 2009 game against the Saints was in week 16, not 17, and they were playing their starters all game and trying to win. They just lost because of a Spurlock punt return, missed FG, and the defense running out of steam in OT.

The Falcons did try to win the game though, but it really doesn't have any meaning in the long run. Sometimes a good team loses to a less talented team.

[chace1986]

Pretty sure Atlanta will be a little more prepared and focused on a game that actually matters. I have no problem with the prediction of Seattle winning, but to say that just because the Bucs beat them, that means Seattle should too, is ridiculous. Using that logic, the Saints should not have won the 2009 SB since the 3-13 Bucs beat them at home in week 16.

Obviously the game mattered to Mike Smith. Why else would he play his starters the entire game? The Saints on the other hand didn't play their starters the entire game. What did Mike Smith have to prove by playing his starters if the game was really meaningless. I don't understand that logic.

You're thinking about 2010. The 2009 game against the Saints was in week 16, not 17, and they were playing their starters all game and trying to win. They just lost because of a Spurlock punt return, missed FG, and the defense running out of steam in OT.

The Falcons did try to win the game though, but it really doesn't have any meaning in the long run. Sometimes a good team loses to a less talented team.

Yup. Wrong year Cerious. Anyway. I never implied that the Falcons didn't try to win that game, just that they would obviously be more focused on a game that determines whether they continue their season vs a game that pretty much the only benefit of winning was pride.

[Cerious]

Gotcha. I do think we exposed the Falcons though, focus or not. Mat Ryan took some shots from Bowers in that game. You would think that they would have easily carved us up but they didn't, I'm not sure what they're going to do against an all around better defense and the rushing attack of Marshawn Lynch.

[BucBalla85]

I could see the Seahawks surprising them there. Atl cant come out flat.