John Lynch coming to Seattle?

by jimmimoose on Jul 30, 2008 7:45 PM PDT Comment 22 comments

Footballoutsiders is reporting that the Broncos and John Lynch have agreed to part ways, and goes on to speculate that Ruskell might want to grab up Lynch. Apparently Ruskell originally scouted Lynch back in TB, and wouldn't be adverse to switching him out for Russell.

Thoughts? Considering Russell seems like nothing but useless, if he comes for cheap, I'd have no objection to this. It's a stopgap, but every little piece could make this a superbowl team, in my opinion. We're near good enough, but every addition can only help.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Too Old, Too Injured

I’ll pass.

I asked someone to identify which was a pile of garbage and which was the shooting of the Seattle Sonics....he failed.

by SSreporters on Jul 30, 2008 8:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm usually not into the whole pick-up-old-vets thing

But this actually sounds a little interesting to me. I’m curious as to what John’s take is (Morgan, that is, not Lynch).

If it would mean less Russell and less Babs…

by Strang on Jul 30, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Cant be worse than Babs anyway.

against Vegas reliever Casey Hoorelbeke, whose ancestors clearly couldn't spell Hurlbeck properly.

by Christian on Jul 30, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking forward to John's opinion

But as bad as Russell is, I can’t see Lynch being much of an upgrade. I compared their 2007 stats in PFP, and Lynch was better vs the run and Russell was (slightly) better vs the pass. But because of age, Lynch is the one most likely to regress. Do we really want to take a roster spot from a promising youngster and give it to a guy who contributes barely for one year?

by UW Alex on Jul 30, 2008 9:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to sound rude

but what promising youngster? If it was say Courtney Taylor or John Lynch, I say Lynch. I feel Lynch should take the spot vacated by Mike Green.

against Vegas reliever Casey Hoorelbeke, whose ancestors clearly couldn't spell Hurlbeck properly.

by Christian on Jul 31, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I would rather have Courtney Taylor, Justin Forsett, Marcus Tubbs, or an o-line prospect on the roster than Lynch.

Thinking about it, the reason Lynch was decent against the run in Denver was that the Denver run defense SUCKED, so somebody had to make all the tackles. Usually Russell is only called upon to make a run tackle if the runner as gotten past the front 7, which rarely happens.

by UW Alex on Jul 31, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am retarded.

I meant to say Taylor. There are few guys on the squad whom I would get rid of in favor of Lynch.

against Vegas reliever Casey Hoorelbeke, whose ancestors clearly couldn't spell Hurlbeck properly.

by Christian on Jul 31, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We don't exactly have a wealth of promising youngsters at safety though.

I know it’s a stop-gap, but despite the age factor I still think it’s an immediate upgrade over Russell. Lynch, despite the ravages of age, is a leader with a hell of a lot of experience, that’s far preferable to a safety that is largely anonymous on gameday

by ciarannh on Jul 31, 2008 6:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed.

I am usually against this type of deal. There is a ton of luck in football and a team should never look at a year as ‘their year’. You need to just put your best team out there year after year and hope everything goes your way. Bringing in a player who is going to be effective for 1-2 seasons maximum and has injury question marks is a big no-no. However, there are some interesting elements here:

1. Russell is the weakest link in the defense and is himself now 30 and declining further.
2. Lynch is a free agent so we won’t have to commit any picks or prospects for him and he’ll likely play for little money to join a contender like Seattle.
3. There aren’t any young Safeties that would be losing PT here. Russell was the starter so you give Lynch most of his snaps. Babs is a career backup so his PT doesn’t matter much. Russell and Babs would have to fight for the backup safety role.
4. C.J. Wallace will probably never be more than a backup/special teamer. Kelin Johnson and Jamar Adams are both nice players and have been talked about on this blog but they are both a year or more away anyways.

So… I think this actually makes sense at this point (ie training camp). I would not have liked this deal before the draft, when we could have drafted a safety and let him win the job away from Russell as the year went on. At this point this deal makes a lot of sense IF Lynch has still got it. If Ruskell and Mora sit and watch the last 7 Broncos game from last year after Lynch returned from injury and he looks good AND he can pass a physical then I don’t see why not. A few pretty big ifs though.

by michaelfox99 on Jul 31, 2008 7:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Key point here

is that Lynch would unequivocally play strong safety; Grant would thus move to free safety. The question therefore is, would the dropoff from Grant to Lynch at SS be less than the gain from Russell to Grant at FS? I haven’t watched Lynch recently enough to know, but I want Grant back where he belongs, so if Lynch came cheaply enough, I’d probably give it a shot (and hope that Adams beat him out over the course of the season).

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 31, 2008 8:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's how I see it...

First, I haven’t seen enough of Lynch last season to make a accurate judgment about his skills. That’s because it takes a lot of study to know a free safety and because when a player is 36 their skills can deteriorate rapidly. I wouldn’t trust my opinion of Lynch from 2005, 2004, 2003, etc. That player doesn’t exist anymore.

Consider, though, that with the 19th ranked pass rush, Dre Bly and Champ Bailey, the Broncos had the 19th ranked pass defense and were weak against #1 receivers (17) other wide receivers (26) and tight ends (32). They allowed 25 passing touchdowns, 22nd in the NFL. Just by process of elimination, some of the blame for that falls on Lynch.

On September 25, Lynch turns 37. Lynch is 6 1/2 years older than Brian Russell. Once upon a time, Lynch was a much better strong safety than Russell could ever be, but Lynch plays free safety now. It’s hard for me to believe he still has the range to be effective at free safety. If Seattle signs Lynch, he’ll want to start and short of injury they won’t be able to replace him. That could entail some awful, crippling suck. If Lynch is injured, then the team would sub with Russell. Right now, I think Babineaux could probably be better than either. He’s younger, quicker has better range and has shown some ability working in zone coverage. Even if we think of Lynch as a HOFer, a merely average player in his prime (Babs will turn 26 before the season starts) can often outperform a HOFer well past his. Especially in positions where quickness is so emphasized.

I’d prefer not. Seems like a cumbersome addition that won’t likely improve the team much or at all, but does push younger, potential future contributors down the depth chart.

by John Morgan on Jul 31, 2008 10:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The same as the Peter Boulware situation from a few years ago?

against Vegas reliever Casey Hoorelbeke, whose ancestors clearly couldn't spell Hurlbeck properly.

by Christian on Jul 31, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the team has the same kind of talent at safety as they had at LB then, but...

similar in the sense that they’d be blocking a younger player with a chance to develop with an older player who is only going to decline. I don’t think anyone knew then what the team had in Leroy Hill. No one in this bunch probably has that potential, but if Babineaux could even become a league average starter it would free Seattle to make other needed improvements.

by John Morgan on Jul 31, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

I forgot how young Babs was—it feels like he’s been around forever. It probably isn’t out of the question that he could improve a bit either.

by Strang on Jul 31, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You've pretty much nailed it John

I wrote a four part article on John Lynch last January, and in preparing for it I watched every defensive snap from 2007 for the Broncos, focusing on the safety position (when I could, it is a tough position to scope on a TV broadcast). The result: John Lynch is effective as a fourth LB type SS, with an excellent first step when dropping into the midzone. He has average range, even with decreased speed, but that is because he reads defenses better than some coaches. He started 07 as a FS, was replaced when he injured his groin, saw his SS counterpart get replaced while he was out (due to being ineffective) and the SS backup ended up getting cut after the GB game, opening a spot back up for Lynch as the SS.

That being said, he is in AWESOME shape, having returned to his old training routine with an ex-navy seal, and he couldn’t be healthier right now. The reason he is leaving Denver is the same dynamic you cite above, in that Denver is desperate to develop the young defensive players, and we they want to get some speed and agility plugged in the defensive backfield. When Lynch learned that he was first team defense, but out on nickel and dime packages, he asked to be allowed to explore his options and the rest is history.

He would be a good pickup for a team that needs some veteran leadership as a “rounding out” piece to their defense, but from what you say above, he is no better fit for you than he was for Denver.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 31, 2008 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Russell not incredibly commited do.

Most of us assume since Russell was praised so heavily when he came over and became a starter immediately that the management has a very irrational perspective of his worth.

Lets not forget that we really only committed 13.5M over 5 years to Russell. That is less than half of what Grant is getting. Babnieaux is getting 17M over 5 years on his new contract…

by michaelfox99 on Jul 31, 2008 11:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Although....

Babineaux keeps coming up in the nickelback discussion… They really see him as more of a versatility guy, too slow to be a full-time corner and too small to be a full-time safety.

Wilson probably gets the nickel role.

That leaves Babineaux as the first guy on the depth chart at backup safety and corner. But then again Wilson as the nickelback would conceivably also be the backup corner for our 4-3 Defense. Hobbs name keeps coming up as another backup corner / nickelback.

It still looks like SS is a hole. (or FS with Grant at SS).

by michaelfox99 on Jul 31, 2008 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nickelback sucks.

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Also, I'm always down for some online Grand Theft Auto IV or Rock Band. Gamertag: Phildopip

by Phildopip on Jul 31, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hush you.

You know you like the sandy blonde curls with the brown facial hair. You know that dude is raking in the 45 year old women every night.

against Vegas reliever Casey Hoorelbeke, whose ancestors clearly couldn't spell Hurlbeck properly.

by Christian on Jul 31, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nickelback functions under the same principal as Big Mouth Billy Bass

No one wants one, but they rake in sales as gifts. They’re mild, ubiquitous and maintain a positive public personae. They’re music is almost incidental. Ergo, parents buy them for their kids and Atlantic doesn’t give a damn if the kids then use it as a coaster.

by John Morgan on Jul 31, 2008 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs