Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: June USA Today / SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings Released


spread the word

The Core

It was bound to happen sometime. Somehow my recording crapped out halfway into the second quarter. I have a backup so The Tape will return tomorrow. Since we have this unexpected open day, let's tackle a hot topic up for much debate: The Seattle Seahawks Core. The talent they will build their next great team upon.

I'll split this into a few simple categories.

Current Contributors:

Marcus Trufant: The soon to be 28 Trufant just makes the cut. He should hold his current level of play until roughly 2012. Peak Potential: All-Pro CB

Brandon Mebane: Just 23, Mebane is a year or two from entering his prime. He should still be valuable in 2016. Peak Potential: All-Pro DT

Lofa Tatupu: Tatupu turned 26 on Saturday. He's looked a little better as a blitzer this season, but for the most part, Tatupu has maxed out his talent. Improved contributions from Tatupu are dependent on surrounding talent, especially at DT. I love Tats and all, but I think we'll be hungering for a new MLB in 2013. Peak Potential: HOF MLB.

LeRoy Hill: Hill is also 26, but unlike Tatupu has some room for improvement. It's debatable whether Hill ever turns the corner as a cover linebacker, but skill improvements are possible throughout a player's career. Thanks to a little better quickness and agility, Hill could decline a bit more gracefully than Tatupu. Contingent on Seattle re-signing him. Peak Potential: Pro Bowl OLB.

Julian Peterson: Pete's 30, but three to four more years of top play is not unlikely. He won't make it, but I think in terms of pure contributions, Peterson has the potential peak value of a Hall of Famer. If this team is able to retool before he declines, don't be surprised if he pulls a career year at 31, 32 or 33. Peak Potential: All-Pro OLB

Current Role Players:

Darryl Tapp: Is this Tapp good enough? He's about a year from his peak (Tapp is 24), but it's unwise to think he's set to bust out. No, this is Tapp: Disruptive, a good pass rusher and capable of cutting into runs, but not great holding the point and not nearly an elite rusher. Tapp is a great situational player and better in space than most ends, but if Lawrence Jackson and Tapp are thought of as the ends of the future, Seattle might have to continuously insert hired-gun free agents to fill out their rotation. Peak Potential: Top 20 DE

Young Players with Great Potential:

John Carlson (24): Carlson slips to this list for two reasons: Poor hands in traffic and an unnerving injury history. It's not the severity of Carlson's injuries but the location: knee. Right now, he's played exceptionally for a first year tight end. Carlson could be a Pro Bowl player as soon as 2009. Peak Potential: Pro Bowl TE

Josh Wilson: I don't want to oversell one of my guys here, but Wilson is showing marvelous potential. Wilson has six career starts, but already has an excellent eye for jumping routes. Aggressiveness is not itself a weakness and until Wilson is actually beat guessing wrong, I'm not going to assume jumping routes makes him susceptible to being beat deep. Wilson does a great job of tracking the ball and still staying with his man, a combination Kelly Jennings has yet to master. Last week, his return yards exceeded Seattle's total offense (199 to 196). Wilson has had a hot run and is only 23 at a position notorious for a steep learning curve, but it's way too early to know he will be good. Corners who have much of their value tied to picks are often eventually exposed. Peak Potential: Top 10 CB

Chris Spencer (26): Ruskell's very first pick and very first project pick has the look of raw talent making good. Spencer's put together a nice string of games and without much stability or talent at guard. He's put some space between him and his last shoulder surgery and is finally looking like the athletic powerhouse Seattle drafted. Too few good games and too many bad makes Spencer's future still undecided, but it's nice to know that, finally, a reasonable return on 2005's first round pick is possible. Peak Value: Pro Bowl C

Talented Players that Currently Suck:

Kelly Jennings: Jennings is fresh off his best game of the season, but Trips will need more than three pass defenses to undue a season's worth of regression. Pure cover corner is a precarious career path. The second you cease to cover, you no longer have any value. Not as a tackler, not as an interception threat. Jennings is nearing 26 and if Ruskell expected him to fill out he might want to start sneaking weight gainer into his meals. That really good weight gainer with flax seed oil and stuff. I vigorously defended Jennings throughout 2007, and he's not to blame for Seattle's weakened pass rush and lack of safety help, but on his own merits, Jennings true potential is suddenly very uncertain. Peak Potential: Top 20 CB

Lawrence Jackson: The man with many nicknames, the man I'm tempted to refer to as Gomer Pyle until he stops sucking has been a huge part of Seattle's defensive decline. The team drafted Pyle expecting an able defensive end. It got a player yet to truly earn a single sack. I suspected Jackson might not be a pass rush terror to start, but my low end projection is already looking like a reach (4 sacks). He's played well enough against the run, but that's a fringe part of his game. A defensive tackle could hold the point. Jackson is getting off the snap pretty well, moving pretty well and tracking the ball carrier pretty well, but still has shown no ability to slip blockers. I've always said don't expect a player to develop new skills. Refinement, improvement, sure, but Jackson didn't just start playing football, pass rush tech should be old hat. It's not and I'm sincerely worried. Peak Potential: Unknowable.

Courtney Taylor: Depends a bit on his expected role, if we see the low end as Bobby Engram lite and top end as Darrell Jackson with RAC, then Engram lite is looking more attainable, but I still have faith in Taylor. The tools and skills are there, but Taylor has had trouble finding a role in this offense. The one great unknowable entering the season, Taylor's ability to get open, is not looking favorable right now. Way too early to tell. Peak Potential: Unknowable

Wild Cards:

Red Bryant: Bryant straddles a bunch of lists. He could be a current underachiever that soon makes an above average starter. He could max out as a great rotational defensive tackle. He could be eaten by injuries and never consistently contribute. Too little information to know. I'll say this, his talent is as good as anyone on this list. Peak Potential: Pro Bowl DT

Owen Schmitt: Beer Truck looks a little wide/pied eyed pass blocking. He's not quite in groove run blocking and I still don't love his athleticism, but you won't find a stronger kid so damned enamored busting heads. As a future lead blocker, Lorenzo Neal/Moran Norris is still a possibility and unlike those two, Schmitt's got a little quicks through the hole. Way too little information to know. Peak Potential: Pro Bowl FB (Presumably in 2020 - well after his best seasons)

Etc.

Rob Sims: I still think Sims makes a good right guard, but kid will miss this development time. Here's hoping the spot's still open when he's healthy enough to play.

Ray Willis: His value depends a bit on his expected role. As a better Porkchop, Willis is very nice offensive line depth. If Seattle expects to construct a line with Sean Locklear at left tackle and Willis at right, I'm a little more concerned.

Justin Forsett: Good punt returner. Needs a single regular season snap before I make any bold predictions about his ability as a rusher. Probably makes a good scat back compliment to a regular rusher.

Jordan Kent: I oversold myself on Kent. I broke one of my cardinal rules, don't expect a player to acquire a new skill. Unfortunately for Kent, that "new skill" is playing football. Not sure where Kent stands anymore, but I fear the talent will never translate. He had a lot of snaps to achieve even a target, if you saw once since week one you'll have to phone me when.*

Mansfield Wrotto: Possibly Seattle's left guard of the future. One of the few truly talented players that still is too green and too underexposed to know much about. Guy is an athletic mauler with excellent run blocking potential. Now, if he can only see the blitz.

Steve Vallos: I championed Vallos spring of 2007. I now think he's months from being released. I don't think Vallos has the talent to cut it.

Jamar Adams: Complete crapshoot. No realistic way of knowing.

Baraka Atkins: Sort of the Wrotto of the defense, both are a young 24, both have great size and athleticism and both are players that have shown enough in the way of skill to think one day their athleticism could cause them to truly break out.

And that's your core. Looking at it, player by player, I would hope fans understand Seattle isn't likely to contend again in 2009. The core is thin on offense and the core of yore, Mike Holmgren's core, is on its way out. Matt Hasselbeck has entered an age and has a recent injury history such that 2008 does not portend a "return to form". As I often say, injury is a form of decline. Branch will be 30 before next season. Walter Jones looks to be finishing out his contract. Julius Jones and TJ Duckett are good players, but essentially hired guns at a non-premium position. I don't think Mike Wahle has a future with Seattle. Sean Locklear is either an overpaid serviceable right tackle or a left tackle in waiting. It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't finish out his contract with Seattle.

But looking at it, I hope fans see roster construction with a purpose. I shun most sports clichés, but "window" is somewhat instructive here. Much of the talent that allowed Seattle to contend the past five seasons is gone or declining. That's Seattle's last window. The Seahawks have been at their best when Mike Holmgren's eye for offensive talent has overlapped with Tim Ruskell's smarts for roster building. Holmgren's talent is disappearing and Ruskell's talent is still developing. That's the transition phase that started this season and should continue at least through 2009. But unlike most teams whose window is rapidly closing, the Seattle Seahawks are already constructing the foundation for their next great team. With so many players entering or squarely within their prime as of 2010, the Seahawks have the core in place to compete and compete and contend for seasons to come.

*I'm aware he had two targets at San Francisco. This is hyperbole.

0 recs | Comment 82 comments | Share on Facebook Digg!

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from Field Gulls

Grading Deon Butler

Jul 2009 by John Morgan - 3 comments

Carlson on 2009

Jun 2009 by abender20 - 22 comments

Comments

Display:

"Talented Players that Currently Suck"

Courtney Taylor? Seriously?

I don’t understand your love affair with Taylor. This kid has proven absolutely nothing based on the countless opportunities given to him.

by aerozeppelin on Nov 18, 2008 6:10 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Countless opportunities?

You mean the 10 or 12 games he’s been active for in the NFL?

by MFAN on Nov 18, 2008 6:37 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Countless Opportunities?

Last year he was a 4th and 5th WR late in the year. This season he was given a few games, his first real opportunity. He completely bombed it, along with the rest of the team. He was demoted, then dropped to the practice squad, just recently coming back up and catching a pass or two in the limited time he’s been on the field.

I count one real opportunity. He shouldn’t get another?

by cashless on Nov 18, 2008 7:08 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The point I'm trying to make is how can you consider him 'talented' when he hasn't proven anything?

I think we already established with Jordan Kent that athleticism doesn’t mean jack without skill.

Based on how decimated the receiving corps have been this year, I’d say he has been given more than enough chances. He had chances in preseason, and in the regular season against the St. Louis Rams. Let’s not forget he had the entire 2007 season to learn the Seattle offense.

by aerozeppelin on Nov 18, 2008 7:45 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ugh

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Nov 19, 2008 12:38 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think you mean for Kent that

athleticism doesn’t mean jack without skill or experience. A lot of Kent’s problem is that he just doesn’t know what he’s doing or what he’s supposed to do. The talent is clearly there. He might actually have been a better track and basketball star in college, so I’m all for giving him a few years before making any sort of decisions on him.

by LantermanC on Nov 19, 2008 8:41 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's talented and currently sucks

I don’t see what’s at all ambiguous about that. That doesn’t imply he’s proven anything. He clearly hasn’t. It means he’s talented and has good potential, but may never fulfill it.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 9:43 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

A few of the Seattle players disappeared.

WR Nate Burleson, DE Patrick Kearney, DT Rocky Bernard(possible re-sign, depends), FS Deion Grant.

Even without Bernard that’s three starting spots that have average to borderline pro bowl ability. Burleson and Kearney got hurt this year, but Kearney was hurt before we signed him and he had a completely healthy year. It is possible he comes back and has at least a good portion of the season healthy next season, ditto Burleson who is still young enough.

WR Koren Robinson, do you not see him fitting in next season? I see at least him or Burleson sticking around.

MLB David Hawthorne, WR Logan Payne, and WR Ben Obomanu have no future place on this team?

My opinion is if we are going to tear the team apart, a guy like Hawthorne could at least deserve a mention.

I also think that with inexperience of Josh Wilson, we don’t know what his ceiling is. Pro Bowl, All-Pro, just a decent starter. You really think that his peak is top 10 CB and he absolutely couldn’t surpass it? Or did you not really mean peak, but best we should hope for? I don’t mean to reduce this to semantics, but my opinion is that with his athletic gifts there is no limit to what he could do, it all depends on him.

by cashless on Nov 18, 2008 7:06 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Vallos is bad and Taylor is good?

Why the dislike for Vallos? I thought he looked pretty darn good at Center in the pre-season, and quite a few people thought he should have started over Spencer and perhaps Spencer should be moved to left guard.

A lot of people don’t like Spencer at all. You like him, but you are way in the minority.

I don’t think you have any reason to think Taylor is good. I have plenty of reasons to believe that Taylor is bad, or at least not as good as say DJ Hackett, who played much better in his first years on the field.

Taylor has done nothing ever. Not in pre-season or regular season. Unless you are going to the practices, I can’t imagine what you see in him. Same with Obamanu. Neither of those guys ever have done anything on the field. I predict that neither of them make the team next year. Your only argument for Taylor is that he has lousy stats his first year like Jerry Rice. Big whoop. A whole lot of other players also had lousy stats in their first year and never played again. Way more of those then Jerry Rices. What “tools and skills” has anyone outside of practice ever seen in this guy? He has 11 catches for less than 100 yards in 2 years. No TDs, nothing. He’s never done squat.

Why no love for Vallos, who at least has played well in preseason games, while Taylor, who has never done anything at all visible to any fan, has potential?

I think you’ve got this backwards. Vallos makes the team and pushes for a starting job next year, Taylor is cut and never plays in the NFL again.

by lordtd on Nov 18, 2008 7:37 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wonder how much of this like for Vallos and dislike for Spencer is based on expectations.

Spencer is a first round pick, so we expect him to be pro-bowl calibur or near that, whereas we don’t really expect anything out of Vallos, so if he’s a serviceable starter, we’re fine with that. Also, a lot of Spencer’s mistakes seem to get magnified, like that botched snap a few weeks ago. If Spencer is making good blocks, I’ll take a crap snap once every half season.

by LantermanC on Nov 19, 2008 8:43 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When a "quite few people" means press like Frank Hughes who

know very little about football, that outlook doesn’t mean much.

by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2008 9:36 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You realize...

A statement like this sounds an awful lot like “people that disagree with you are stupid”.

Specifically speaking of Courtney Taylor: Whether or not, as a football player, he’s worth the hair in the crack of my ass is purely opinion. There is no evidence that he will ever be a quality professional WR, merely opinions based on whatever one wants to base their opinion on: gut, college stats, tarot cards, evaluation of small sample of playing time, etc. John believes in Taylor for his reasons, others do not for theirs. Both are merely opinion until he has a big year or is out of football.

by Azimeir on Nov 19, 2008 4:05 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Um...

No, I’m criticizing Seahawks beat reporter’s analysis, which is often faulty.

Vallos specifically was a player Hughes claimed was playing like a pro, while he often insinuates Spencer is a bust.

Anyway, calm down man. No need to be so confrontive.

by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2008 5:55 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Quite a few people

Actually didn’t mean Frank Hughes anyway. I rarely read that site since Sando left. There are other sites (addicts, sando’s etc) that don’t think Spencer is playing well. This is the only place I’ve seen him given kudos.

This is also the only place where I’ve seen someone defend Taylor.

Both positions could be right, but in my reading they are unusual.

And, as much as you may not like the beat writers, they do have access to practices.

by lordtd on Nov 21, 2008 2:15 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Preseason...

…does not mean nothing. It’s simply data that needs to be filtered for what it is. That’s not nothing.

by Azimeir on Nov 19, 2008 4:10 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Vallos looked awful in the preseason.

The only reason Vallos received praise is because so little was expected of him. He was slotted in at center because of Chris Gray’s and Chris Spencer’s injuries. The praise was relative to what could be expected a seventh round pick with virtually no center experience. His actual play was very poor.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 9:48 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Steve Vallos Hit List

Here’s a complete list of pertinent Vallos plays from the preseason:

@ Minnesota

Next play. Seattle breaks with a three WR, single TE, RB set. Minnesota is in a base 4-3. At the snap, Seattle initially creates [a] nice wedge. This is something Steve Vallos can do; he gets off the snap extremely well. Moments later, Vallos is reeling in his own backfield.

On the next play, Vallos exploded off the snap, stood his man up and held his block. On the next play, Vallos was tossed on his back by Fred Evans.

To keep this concise, I’ll simply say that Wrotto engages the Vikings left defensive tackle, chucks him offensive-left and then re-assumes his zone though he no longer has anyone to block. Meanwhile, the tackle is now the second player in Steve Vallos’ zone, and after regaining his balance, gets by Vallos and pressures Charlie Frye, forcing him out of the pocket.

Chicago

For those scoring at home, Steve Vallos blew the block that led to Charlie Frye’s first sack.

On Frye’s first interception, the ugly one into coverage that looked better targeted towards Charles Tillman than Jordan Kent, it was Vallos who was beat back and allowed an open lane for Adewale Ogunleye to stunt through. Frye does not keep his head under pressure.

In the scrum, Steve Vallos has lost his man, tackle Matt Toeaina. Kirtman puts a block on Toeaina, but rightly continues his route left. Right not because it positively affects the play, moving towards the left flat whilst Frye is rolling right renders Kirtman dead, but right because that was Kirtman’s assignment. Toeaina grabs Frye, Frye attempts to dish the ball to T.J. Duckett and you know the rest.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 10:11 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is why people should not trust the anlysis of beat

writers, such as those at the THT.

Their coverage includes a huge amount of unprofessional snark as well. They’ve made a bunch of rude comments about Courtney Taylor, which have probably given rise to the common notion among uneducated fans that Taylor “talked big” and “did nothing” with his chance to start.

by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2008 10:32 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wait...

I thought you said preseason doesn’t mean anything?

by Azimeir on Nov 19, 2008 4:13 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes, I didn't.

Please tell me how my statement can be interpreted that it does mean anything.

by redwolf75 on Nov 19, 2008 5:56 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

John's evidence is from the preseason.

Either the preseason means nothing or it means something. If John can draw opinions based on preseason performance for Vallos playing badly, than it means something.

by Azimeir on Nov 20, 2008 6:07 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ok, now what about Taylor?

I rarely read the TNT site. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone suggest Vallos is on the way out. Several of the other sites (and there are more than one) don’t think Spencer is having a good year, and thought Vallos did good enough in preseason to start.

In any event, given that we have nobody else to play center he’s likely to make the team anyway. If Vallos is “months” from being released, then the number of months is at least 9, since there’s no way they cut him before they have someone else to backup Spencer.

As for the other topic, on what basis can anyone claim that Taylor has talent or potential? We’ve seen nothing from him ever.

You want to say he’s talented and has good potential, fine. My question would simply be what do you base that on?

With Kent and Bumpus, at least we have seen them open in the endzone catching TDs. Maybe it was against inferior defenders, but Taylor couldn’t didn’t do anything against the same guys. He doesn’t even get open.

I can’t imagine why you’d say anything at all about Taylor, since unless you’re going to the practices you’ve seen exactly the same things the rest of us have.

You may not like Hughes, but Frank does go to the practices. So if he thinks Taylor is worthless, he’s not only seen the same games as us, but he’s seen the practices as well. If Taylor was lighting it up in practice, but only sucking on the field, you’d expect at least one of the beat writers to say that.

I challenge anyone to find any such thing. None of the beat writers at practice say anything at all about Taylor, and he’s shown nothing on the field. So if anyone has even the slightest belief that he might have talent, I’d be very curious to know what it is based on. Maybe you all hate the beat writers, but since they get to go to the practices and you don’t, for now I’ll have to side with them.

by lordtd on Nov 19, 2008 3:07 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6th Round Pick

Apparently a whole lot of other NFL teams weren’t impressed with his college credentials.

by lordtd on Nov 19, 2008 3:52 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It was a great WR draft. Some would say best in over a decade.

He was projected to go in the third round, but fell in large part because of his forty (4.50).

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 3:56 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Check out this list.

1 2 Calvin Johnson Georgia Tech Detroit Lions
1 9 Ted Ginn Jr. Ohio State Miami Dolphins
1 23 Dwayne Bowe Louisiana State Kansas City Chiefs
1 27 Robert Meachem Tennessee New Orleans Saints
1 30 Craig Davis Louisiana State San Diego Chargers
1 32 Anthony Gonzalez Ohio State Indianapolis Colts
2 44 Sidney Rice South Carolina Minnesota Vikings
2 45 Dwayne Jarrett USC Carolina Panthers
2 51 Steve Smith USC New York Giants
3 73 Jacoby Jones Lane Houston Texans
3 74 Yamon Figurs Kansas State Baltimore Ravens
3 75 Laurent Robinson Illinois State Atlanta Falcons
3 76 Jason Hill Washington State San Francisco 49ers
3 78 James Jones San Jose State Green Bay Packers
3 79 Mike Walker Central Florida Jacksonville Jaguars
3 80 Paul Williams Fresno State Tennessee Titans
3 99 Johnnie Lee Higgins Texas-El Paso Oakland Raiders
4 103 Isaiah Stanback Washington Dallas Cowboys
4 118 Ryne Robinson Miami (Ohio) Carolina Panthers
4 128 Chris Davis Florida State Tennessee Titans
5 142 Steve Breaston Michigan Arizona Cardinals
5 146 Aundrae Allison East Carolina Minnesota Vikings
5 157 David Clowney Virginia Tech Green Bay Packers
5 169 Roy Hall Ohio State Indianapolis Colts
5 172 Legedu Naanee Boise State San Diego Chargers
6 188 Joel Filani Texas Tech Tennessee Titans
6 197 Courtney Taylor Auburn Seattle Seahawks
6 210 Jordan Kent Oregon Seattle Seahawks
7 227 Dallas Baker Florida Pittsburgh Steelers
7 229 John Broussard San Jose State Jacksonville Jaguars
7 233 Chandler Williams Florida International Minnesota Vikings
7 234 Syndric Steptoe Arizona Cleveland Browns
7 235 Chansi Stuckey Clemson New York Jets
7 249 Derek Stanley Wis.-Whitewater St. Louis Rams
7 254 Johnathan Holland Louisiana Tech Oakland Raiders

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 4:21 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Interesting omits

Okay, I see your point about Hass and the “old core”, but I feel like you need to share your reasons for omittting others, such as Burleson, Grant, and of course, Pork Chop. Okay, I’m joking about PC, he is permanently a one-year contract. But while more advanced in their careers I see Burleson and Grant playing important roles for the next couple of years.

Grant has enough athleticism and smarts to be the QB of the secondary. If he had an athletic equal at the other safety position, he would be a great mentor to that player, a role that Deon obviously covets. Safeties can play a long time in this league (see John Lynch, Rodney Harrison, Eugene Robinson) as long as they keep their head and some speed. Grant has both- plus other players admire him.

Burleson brings an x-factor to the field. His return ability and desire to be a team player are worth something. Besides, I don’t see him commanding a big dollar contract from another team, which means he can re-sign here at a reasonable price. Also, he is still not an old player.

by JW Seahox on Nov 18, 2008 8:46 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

sounds like aging, expensive, role players

I love both grant and burleson, but there is no chance that they will play major roles in the future of the hawks. Even in your best case scenario for grant, he is basically a speedier brian russell.

by dlinsley on Nov 18, 2008 9:45 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Burleson has not contributed much beyond special teams.

Fans credit Burleson with touchdowns and for his raw yardage but miss his very high incompletion percentage. I think Burleson has moderate ability, but is hardly part of the core with which to build on. A player as good or better than Burleson can easily be attained through free agency.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 9:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It might be an irrelevant point, but

Burleson’s contract seemed to be set up to mirror that given by the Vikings to a player just before that. It is my understanding that Burleson’s contract is very heavily backloaded and unless he restructures at some point, it should be absolutely no surprise that he is cut.

by PascoJoe on Nov 19, 2008 11:01 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Burleson restructured a long time ago.

His “real” contract has always been in the 4 year/$14M range.

That’s still not cheap, and he’ll probably wind up resturcturing anyways – but the whole 7yr/$49M deal only existed on paper for just a few months … long enough to give the NFL the finger. Burleson never saw, and knew he’d never see a paycheck approaching that.

by jteckmann on Nov 19, 2008 11:11 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Burelson would be better in the slot

He’s got great moves in open space and is overall a good athlete. I’d rather have him there than Taylor.

by lordtd on Nov 21, 2008 2:25 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Writing off 2009 already?

If we were in the NFC East I would agree with you, JM, but we’re in the NFC West. Contending in a crappy division isn’t exactly dependent on refilling all the holes you mention. Look at the Vikings and Bears. Probably as many holes if not more than we do and they’re battling Green Bay out for the division title in the NFC North. As long as San Francisco and St Louis continue to “progress” and Arizona depends on an aging curve on Kurt Warner that rivals Superman, I think we have the ability to contend. Now if you are arguing that we shouldn’t expect a Super Bowl victory next year I can understand, but we should be able to contend.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 18, 2008 10:23 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

agreed

although a lot depends on the draft. Maybe he’s making a distinction between contend and compete though.

by Will Kier on Nov 18, 2008 10:56 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think anything depends on the draft....

We have never been a draft heavy team, we make a lot of off season moves and pick ups outside of the draft…..

Sure the draft may help, but its are completely unpredictable in the NFL theses days….can we please just get an average safety at the very least….Please?

by collyb on Nov 18, 2008 11:00 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I also think John is really underselling the potential for next year's team.

We can’t possibly have the number of injuries to key positions next year as we did this year.

A lot of the youngsters we have will have garnered another year of experience.

As for the old guys declining, most of them already have. Jones is pretty much at the spot an aging pro-bowl tackle gets, i.e. uncapable of holding up speed rushers but can do everything else. Engram is replaceable. And I don’t think Hass is in decline, and an improved line next year will do wonders for his health.

And a really big key here: a Ruskell draft where we draft EARLY… not just in the first but the second and third too.

This doesn’t even factor in Ruskell’s generally good free agency offseasons.

by djafrot on Nov 18, 2008 11:48 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think you might be underestimating just how bad this team is this year.

Unless you think Branch and Engram were what separated Seattle from contention, they were close to full strength through week five and 1-3, including two blowout losses.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 9:53 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Have to disagree

In week two we were playing Billy McMullen as one of our starters because our top four WRs were out, and our fifth (Logan Payne) went down for the season during the game. This in a West Coast offense always highly predicated on the precise passing attack. You think that’s underestimating how bad we were and close to full strength?
I suppose it also depends on what you think the potential is… I think they can make the playoffs, maybe as a WC, maybe winning the NFC West, but not moving forward in the playoffs. It seems like you think the potential is some slight improvement but still missing the playoffs. I would call that underselling the potential for next year’s team.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 10:47 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How about last week?

How would you explain Seattle’s awful offense against Arizona?

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 10:57 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not that I'm disagreeing with you John, but...

Back injuries like Hass’s don’t go away after five weeks, and players rarely return to full strength the year after they return from an ACL tear like Branch’s, and Engram…he’s just old. Though the run game was terrible in its own right.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 19, 2008 11:13 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because the West Coast Offense is not like flicking a switch

Take a quarterback who definitely isn’t healthy and who isn’t in rhythm with his WRs, one of whom is coming back from an injury that usually takes an additional full year to truly recover from and you’re not going to get an offense clicking on all cylinders. Unless you feel that 3 picks and throwing into coverage is what we can expect from Hasselbeck going forward.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 11:23 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is not an argument
Unless you feel that 3 picks and throwing into coverage is what we can expect from Hasselbeck going forward.

For so many reasons.

As if to say, Hasselbeck isn’t at full strength OR he will suck for the rest of his career. How about the simpler explanation: Seattle’s offense is no longer very talented or skilled. It’s best players are in decline. It has not replaced those player nor added much talent anywhere else.

Seattle isn’t at full strength. No team in the NFL is. We can’t expect a 34 year quarterback with a lengthy injury history to be consistently healthy. Seattle’s offense was awful against the Cardinals. They’ve played awful all season.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 11:47 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're right, it's hyperbole

Because I think it’s hyperbole to state at this point that we’re out of contention next year.

Is Hasselbeck going to be as good as last season? Perhaps not. Is he going to be as bad as this year? Probably not.

I’m not disagreeing with your overall thesis. This is an offense with holes. This is a team that Ruskell has been rebuilding since the moment he arrived. I think it is an invalid statement based on the evidence to state that we are out of contention next year.

This is all possibly due to my tagname. I can’t be a crushedoptimist without being an optimist first.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 12:11 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seattle is not definitely out of it

No team is. Well Oakland and Detroit are, but for the most part, most teams can do enough in the offseason to turn their team around. Again, see the 1999 Rams. But, realistically, fans shouldn’t expect Seattle to contend in 2009. New coach, rebuilding offense, keystone quarterback and LT in decline; it’s much, much more likely that Seattle is a good team with an outside shot at contention.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 12:16 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Has the offense practiced as a unit

for more than a week at a time? If it’s not a reciever (9) going down it’s a QB (2), or a guard (2), or a tackle (1), or a back (2)….. I know there was a lot of criticism for the train wreck comments earlier in the season, but I challenge anyone to better describe what the offense has gone through this year. The players are rusty coming off injuries and the scheme changes to fit the random personnel available each week.

Next years team can still be what this years team was supposed to be, a ball control offense with a cagey QB supporting an elite D. It could probably just as easily be a cluster like this year, but as far as I’m concerned this season is the outlier until more evidence comes in.

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2008 12:39 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

this is the key, thanks nate.

This offense is all timing. As nate points out, when was the last time Branch, Engram, Burly and Matt all practiced as one unit?

Seasons are largely predicated on some kind of momentum, and we went in with NONE because we had absolutely nothing at WR. Matt got beat down early, and by the time WR’s started coming back, he was injured. We were toast.

I mean, pretty much every piece of this team is improved over what it was at the beginning of the 07 season, when a lot of people were very optimistic. We won a playoff game last year. So… other than injury… HOW does a team suddenly stink so much? I don’t believe that the whole team suddenly regressed for some random reason.

by djafrot on Nov 19, 2008 1:07 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Grant.

Yeah I am somewhat high on Grant also. Russell is so bad that he brings down this whole secondary quite a bit. The fact that he is still out there every week, especially after Boldin tossed him aside like a ragdoll right in front of the cameras, really takes away my confidence in this organization. Grant has never missed an NFL game, thats 122 straight games. He is still only 29. He still looks like he is everywhere out there. I think he could be an effective starter for a few more seasons..

by michaelfox99 on Nov 19, 2008 5:56 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't like Russell either

But I don’t think we have anyone else to put out there. Of course at this point, I wouldn’t mind putting Adams out there and seeing how much he develops in the last part of the season. I don’t know why we were so optimistic about B Russ. The Browns didn’t want him.

Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter

by Wayward Llama on Nov 19, 2008 6:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I know why.

The coaches were literally GUSHING about how him and Grant…TALKED. Not played(should have been a red flag), but communicated. Looking back it’s stupid, but we all swallowed it, and last year it seemed to work, probably much better than it should have.

by cashless on Nov 19, 2008 8:28 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think he can be an effective starter for a few more seasons too

I don’t see him as part of Seattle’s core. His decline years coincide with an increased payroll and it wouldn’t be surprising to see him replaced before 2011.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 9:57 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm so pumped up for the draft, it's ridiculous.

Interested to see who we get in the first round. If we don’t trade down, I’m hoping (like everyone else) Crabtree, though an elite LT would be fine too. I’m also interested in seeing who we get as a safety and as a backup QB to learn behind Hass, since ours aren’t doing such a hot job. Anyone know what the learning curve for safety is? Would it be better just to sign one as a FA?

by LantermanC on Nov 19, 2008 8:47 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Here's the thing about Warner

He’s borderline historically unique. I can’t think of anyone with his career path. He’s playing exceptional this season in this system, the best indication of how he will play next season. And his injury history is pretty good. There’s more and better reasons to think Warner will be a good quarterback next season than there are that he will collapse. Furthermore, Warner is a piece in an incredibly talented system. Arizona’s offense is not entirely reliant on Warner to succeed. Not at all.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 10:20 AM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Every offense is reliant on good QB play

Dallas’ offense, with perhaps more talent overall than Arizona, looked like crap with a decrepit Brad Johnson. I do agree that Matt Leinart should be a far more serviceable backup, but being dependent on a 40+ QB means you are always playing with fire in terms of injury and falloff. We looked at Shaun Alexander in 2005/2006, saw someone with a good injury history, a lack of big hits, and consistency and thought he was a borderline historically unique guy who could beat the career path. Then he crumbled.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 10:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's only 37?

Man, I thought he’s been around forever. That’s what I get for not using the ol’ Google.

Also, I don’t see Warner as historically unique, unless you mean that players who are awesome than terrible are rarely awesome again. I think he’s playing great with two incredible weapons and a great offensive coordinator in Whisehunt. He’s also not signed for next season in AZ and Boldin is pissed. It’s not a sure thing that both return or are at the same level of play. I will be interested in your read in what I assume would be a later post.

Last year, in 11 starts, he throws 17 picks, this year in 10 starts he throws 7. and is completing 70% of his passes versus 63% a year ago. Basically, he’s on track to set career highs in just about every statistical category… at age 37… after 6-7 years of mediocrity. I guess your opinion of Warner and his future career path is dependent on your opinion of this year opposed to those other ones.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 11:40 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Seven years ago Warner was MVP

In 1999, Warner, 28, in his second season in the league and first season playing, won the MVP. That’s historically unique. In 1999, 2001 and now possibly 2008, Warner has had some of the best passing seasons in NFL history. There’s no precedent for what’s he’s doing or what’s he’s done.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 11:51 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because you can either cherry pick good seasons or bad ones

Is there precedent for a potential HOF QB (which based just on numbers Warner may be) having the type of up and down career he has had?

So I suppose I see your argument there. I’m just not convinced that he’s a near or long term solution at QB for Arizona after this season.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Nov 19, 2008 12:14 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Do you mean historically unique as in the timetable of his career?

Going from grocery-store clerk to 28-year old second-year player MVP to 37-year old MVP candidate – I would agree thats historically unique. But in terms of playing style as a quarterback, I don’t see anything unique about him.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 19, 2008 3:22 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nevermind,

I just saw that you answered my question already down below.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 19, 2008 3:23 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I compare

Warner to someone like Rex Grossman.

Good deep ball throwing gambler with balls to stand in the pocket with faith that in any one on one contest their guy will come down with it. When the receivers are great (or play great) they come down with more than they don’t and the passing stats are out of this world; when the receivers are mediocre (or play mediocre or against superior talent) and you get interceptions and incompletions and the passing stats are horrible to mediocre. Warner has his uses but his best seasons have coincided with having arguably some of the best receiving corps in NFL history.

by Azimeir on Nov 19, 2008 4:26 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Warner isn't anything like Grossman

At all. In any way.

If one stat can tell a story:

Career completion percentage

Grossman: 54.2%
Warner: 65.7%

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 5:14 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Warner's only 37

In sports, thats pretty far away from 40+.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 19, 2008 11:15 AM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think I agree with what you're saying

but not how you’re saying it. The only way to reconcile this comment with your previous comments about Hasselbeck is to take into consideration the supporting cast. Warner shouldn’t be expected to decline only because of guys like Fitzgerald and continuity in the coaching staff, and Hasselbeck should only be expected to decline because of the turnover in the offense and coaching staff. If these guys’ situations were reversed I would have to think your predictions would flip as well.

What is your basis for saying that Warner has a pretty good injury history? He’s been consistently nicked up since 2001with a variety of injuries and has been on the IR twice in his career. Is it recurring injuries that you see as problematic or something else?

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2008 1:02 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hasselbeck should be expected to decline

because he’s awful this season and has played poorly and been injured two of the last three seasons. Warner is playing great this season, and doesn’t have any chronic injuries. Hasselbeck himself says his back has been a problem for years.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 1:10 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But Warner was awful for 5 years

and had a chronic injury to his hand that led to a loss of accuracy and a slew of fumbles. I know back problems and hand problems are different things, but Warner’s career was all but over and he was able to come back. Should that just be considered a fluke?

by Nate Dogg on Nov 19, 2008 2:21 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wouldn't use anything Warner has done as model for what's to be expected

That’s what I was trying to imply with “historically unique”. Warner has done some very unlikely things in his career, assuming any other quarterback to do likewise isn’t realistic.

by John Morgan on Nov 19, 2008 2:33 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think Warner's career going downhill

with St. Louis or NYGiants might have been more a product of terrible offensive lines that got him concussed every couple games. I’m sure the man didn’t just lose all of his talent. However, I also think that has career “comeback” has been dramatically helped by a great offensive line (only 16 sacks if I’m not mistaken) and two of the top three receivers in the game (with the other being Andre Johnson). So basically, when his career went south, he wasn’t nearly as bad as it looked. And now, he’s not nearly as good as he looks.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 19, 2008 3:29 PM PST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

2009 has a chance for the Hawks to get strong

instead of making patchwork moves to hope for a homerun season. Replacing all the holes on the team with young players will definitely require some time to learn and grow. Hasselbeck’s non-existent replacement won’t be Matt Ryan, and Ruskell wont be able to draft Crabtree, Oher, Stafford or some other QB, Moreno / Wells, William Moore, and a handful of guards and D ends. Until Warner falls off the face of the earth, this is the Cardinals division.

I will accept any draft combination of Crabtree, Andre Smith, Stafford, and Mays. Hear that Ruskell? Time to start spreading vicious rumors about all 4 so they fall.

by abender20 on Nov 19, 2008 2:37 PM PST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Where the writing's bad and the discussion banal.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Lolcat_small
FG - Training Camp Meet up/Awesome dudes excited to meet other dudes with same interests.
Nielson_small
The Turnaround Season: A Fictional Look Into the 2009 Seattle Seahawks
Steve2006_small
THE WAY WE WERE: Comparing the 2009 Seahawks to the 2005 NFC Champions

Recent FanPosts

Small
Trade for Thigpen
Xhand_small
Housh: A Psychic or Loudmouth?
Michaelscott_small
Impact of Coverage LBs On A Defense?
Small
TE Cameron Morrah signed, 4 years, $1.79 Million
Small
Burleson to train at Athletes' Performance in Arizona
Small
FB Owen Schmitt enters camp as the starter
Small
Branch says he may never fully recover

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Editors

Lolcat_small Scruffy Lefty

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Small Doug Farrar

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports