Brian Russell gone?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 9:43 AM PST
81 comments
My argument about Russell is: If he is one of the worst safeties in the league, why don't the Seahawks even try to replace him in the offseason with one of the numerous available inexpensive, mediocre safeties?
Word is Michael Huff, the former 7th pick of the 06 draft will soon be available. Apparently, though not great, he's solid, and if Russell is so bad Huff would be a big upgrade, wouldn't he?
With an entirely new, "attacking" defensive coaching staff who are desperately trying to upgrade the defense and "the worst safety in the NFL" at a prime attack position, surely we should expect to see Huff or someone else of his caliber (or better!) replace Russell, shouldn't we?
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
81 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yes.
Yes, we should. Is this news to you? I’d be ecstatic if we could get Huff, or even announce that Jamar Adams and/or CJ Wallace would be able to compete for the job because I’m virtually certain they’d win over Russell.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 8, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think?
they haven’t already competed for the job? With the Seahawks defense doing so badly how realistic is it that they would sit in the film room week after week with the players and everyone seeing the supposed awful play of Russell in play after play, costing them game after game, meanwhile having two guys that everybody in the room suspects might do better and yet nothing happens?? Wouldn’t the entire coaching staff lose all credibility at that point?
It is an entirely unbelievable scenario. It would be obvious to everyone that the coaches don’t really care about winning.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or, if we don't grab someone in FA...
I’m virtually certain we’re drafting a replacement. Sort of like last season when Crumpler got cut and some people were clamoring to sign him, but we didn’t get anyone besides Jeb Putzier. Come draft day, we traded up and got Carlson. And since it’s unlikely there are any great safeties in FA, we’re probably going to draft someone like Chung or Pegues,
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 8, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But if Russell is so bad
even a mediocre safety would be a big upgrade, wouldn’t they? Why would the Seahawks wait for a great safety before making a move if they care about winning?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe.
Maybe they are all sitting there in the film room, watching the plays over and over with no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel every noticing how bad Russell is playing.
It’s possible, I suppose, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This
Maybe they are all sitting there in the film room, watching the plays over and over with no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel every noticing how bad Russell is playing.
is speculation on something you know nothing about.
It’s not extraordinarily unlikely for a team to make personnel mistakes. It happens to every team, in every sport, every year.
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think I don't know? I don't get it.
You think they don’t all carefully watch all the film of their play? Of course they do. They even watch film of some of the practice.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What evidence do you have of this?
no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel every noticing how bad Russell is playing
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My circumstantial evidence for them being able to see his bad play if it was there is this:
1) There are about ten or fifteen people, some of whom are highly educated and experienced in defensive football and carefully watching the film who badly want to win
2)In order to win they are all looking for exactly the sorts of mistakes Russell is supposedly making and have the tape of every movement he makes in every game he has played
3)Most of them know exactly what he is supposed to be doing on every play
4)There is nothing subtle or difficult to discern about safety play when you have all the above information
Therefore they have a reasonable approximation of his actual level of play, beyond a reasonable doubt
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah? I tried. I guess I still don't understand what you were asking
Are you saying they all probably do know how bad he is but are still not replacing him, and what evidence do I have that this is not the case?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 11:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The question is simple
What evidence do you have to support this?
no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel every noticing how bad Russell is playing
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a facetious statement
that I used to make a point that they clearly would replace him if he was that bad and they clearly would know if he was as bad as you say. Why would I try to support a statement that I used facetiously to make a point about how false it must be?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was meant to prove my point
You said “maybe they are wrong”
I said, “Maybe they are all sitting there in the film room, watching the plays over and over with no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel ever noticing how bad Russell is playing” (i corrected the typo)
Then I said, “I suppose it’s possible, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely”
I truly apoligize but I really don’t get what you or I are missing here.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You have no evidence to support this
Maybe they are all sitting there in the film room, watching the plays over and over with no one, none of the players, coaches or front office personnel ever noticing how bad Russell is playing
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Literalism?
John,
VB’s point that you keep demanding evidence for was not a serious assertion.
Perhaps a clearer response would have been to ask you, “what do you mean when you say ‘maybe they’re wrong’?” Are YOU suggesting that the coaches and players watch the same film everyone else sees and somehow fail to notice that Russell sucks? Or are you suggesting something else?
But really, at the heart of it, what do you mean?
by Kumar on Feb 8, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If he's attempting to joke
what then is his argument?
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What he means
he’s already said:
It’s not extraordinarily unlikely for a team to make personnel mistakes. It happens to every team, in every sport, every year.
As such, it isn’t (as you and VBJ seem to think) some strange unlikelihood that needs some special explanation.
by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 8, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I was looking for more
The mountain of evidence that John has amassed documenting how poorly Russell plays is of Everesttian proportions. The amount of playing time that Russell has lost because of this poor play approaches zero.
That’s quite a disparity to blithely chalk up to, “I guess they missed it.” I could understand that as an explanation why he played so much for several games, but we’re talking a whole season here (actually a couple of seasons according to John).
At least with Alexander you had other tangible excuses that Mike could point to (injuries, change in o-line, change in offensive focus etc). Granted those were just excuses to avoid facing the reality that Sean was no longer a productive player, but they were at least excuses.
It makes no difference to me. The consensus is that Russell sucks, and I haven’t seen anything to contradict that. But that just begs the question of what are the coaches seeing (or not seeing) that everyone else isn’t (or is)?
by Kumar on Feb 9, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is the mistake I keep pointing out
But that just begs the question of what are the coaches seeing (or not seeing) that everyone else isn’t (or is)?
We don’t know this. VBJohnson is coming to the erroneous conclusion that because Russell wasn’t cut this last season, or during the 2008 offseason, the coaches must think he’s good. There’s just no evidence of that. And as I’ve said before, there could be dozens of explanations as to why the team hasn’t yet cut Russell. One easy one is that it doesn’t make cap sense. Another is that they value his leadership. And yet another is that when things when south for Seattle’s entire secondary, it’s possible the team simply didn’t see a safety that was ready to start in Russell’s place.
by John Morgan on Feb 10, 2009 3:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How hard could it be
to find someone better and cheaper than the worst safety in the NFL?
Of course they are keeping him due to some reason we can’t see, like leadership or something else. This is the point I have been trying to make all along.
Obviously they think he helps the team win, and since there is so much they can see that we can’t, chances are, they are right. Someone who grades all fifty questions of the test are going to come up with a much more accurate grade than someone who only grades five of the questions, aren’t they?
by VBJohnson on Feb 10, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that makes no sense
there has to be a worst safety in the NFL. Some team has to have him. Then you can go to that team and say ‘how hard could it be to improve the worst safety in the NFL??’ afterall, that team would have NFL coaches and NFL management.
You’re logic would mean that there shouldn’t be a ‘worst safety in the NFL’ when we know there must be one, and one that gets playing time.
by Snuffleupagus on Feb 10, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But won't the defensive minded,
“attack oriented,” GM and coaching staff even be trying to replace him? Shouldn’t we at least see some cheap half washed up vet (who of course played better than him) or some low risk, high upside draft pick acquired in the offseason? I mean, we should expect to see some kind of attempt to replace him after two offseasons with many available safeties, shouldn’t we?
by VBJohnson on Feb 10, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm putting $10 on the theory that VBJohnson,
ACassell, Right, Kumar, and a host of other screennames I am forgetting are actually the same person.
by redwolf75 on Feb 8, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't go that far.
I tend to agree somewhat with some things VBJohnson says. Though I usually disagree with his logic and reasons why.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 8, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll Take That Bet!
Now give me my $10!
Now I’ll put that $10 on the theory that redwolf75 is actually ACassell, Right, Kumar and VBJohnson.
I guess he (I) just like to argue different sides of the same issue.
by Kumar on Feb 9, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll bet somebody that I'm SeatownBlueDevil.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 10, 2009 4:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take that.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 10, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Would Ruskell even want Huff?
I’m sure what Huff needs is a change of scenery, though.
by redwolf75 on Feb 8, 2009 10:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, what I'm saying is
if Russell is so bad, acquiring a mediocre safety like Huff would be a big improvement over a supposed hack like Russell, wouldn’t it?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of production from a reputable school.
Seems to fit his type.
by LantermanC on Feb 8, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for the record
basically every new DC wants to bring in an “attacking” defense. it sounds exciting, but in context that word means basically nothing. it’s white noise.
i’m not sure what kind of scheme we’re going to end up running next year, but I do think it will be a little more creative than our 2008 playcalling. we’ve got some serious versatility in our roster (notably JP being a great rush end, the promise of LoJack moving inside on passing downs, and deon grant being able to play both FS and SS very well) and I expect that our new coaching staff will utilize all that better than we have in the past.
let’s just not get too stoked about our new “attacking” “aggressive” defense, that’s just coachspeak.
by cro-mag! on Feb 8, 2009 11:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Did you think that by simply giving this argument it's own thread, you'd get different responses?
Brian Russell is bad. The proof is on the tape, during games.
The fact that coaches continue to start him is not proof he’s good; neither is the fact Wallace and Adams did not beat him out. It’s just evidence they felt any potential in-season replacements were worse or not worth the cost of an upgrade or that they didn’t realize their mistake.
Coaches make personnel mistakes all the time. One reason is because they tend value hard to quantify things like “intangibles” and “leadership” Another reason is that many coaches tend to over value how a player performs in practice as opposed to in games. Practices run at a slower pace and have less contact. A player like Russell, who gets by on “intelligence”, is the type of player that looks good in those situations – he will be in the right spot, and he will impress in the film room and position meetings. But on Sunday, when the game is at full speed, his lack of athleticism will put make him sub-par.
Russell is not the only player we saw this trend with. Chuck Darby continued to start over Mebane until he was injured. Shaun Alexander sontinued to get the majority of carries despite having lost a step. DJ Hackett stayed burried on the depth chart. Willis & Wrotto remained burried on the bench when they probably could’ve played sooner.
Holmgren’s coaching staff showed a trend towards “veteran entitlement” at times. That’s understandable for a coach, because he’s naturally going to want to stick with the players he trusts. But it doesn’t always mean it’s the right decision.
by jteckmann on Feb 8, 2009 11:30 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Your argument would hold up
if Russell is a mediocre safety. But the contention around here is that he is horrible. This means that any mediocre safety would be a big improvement, right? The Seahawks will have had two offseasons now in which it would be pretty imperative and very easy to replace the worst player on the team, wouldn’t it? So why don’t they?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
*sigh*
No – my argument was that sometimes coaches are slow to realize when a once adequate player has lost a step and become sub-par. (not to mention the fact there’s only a finite # of resources & replacements available, cap consequences, and a 53 man roster to manage, so sometimes other positions will get priority)
Your argument, no matter how you try and re-phrase it, is simply “the team continues to start him, therefore he must be alright”. If you can’t look around the entire world of professional sports and see that many times coaches make bad decisions, then I really don’t know what else to say.
by jteckmann on Feb 8, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you've got my argument wrong
It is: the team not only continues to start him, but doesn’t even make any serious attempt at all to replace him in the offseason, so they must think he is a better option cap/vs production than all the mediocre, fairly inexpensive options that were available last offseason, and that will be available this season. Agree so far?
When you have all his assignments and all the film they have (which has all of his play not only a small part of it like what you all see), and you watch as much film as they do, it should be very easy for any and all of them to accurately evaluate his play. Meanwhile evaluating his play from the amount of film you all have is very difficult. Therefore the chances that you all are right and they are wrong is very very slim.
If you all were saying, “well Russell is a little worse than other alternatives they have and the coaches are all missing it” I might consider it, but when you say, “Russell is the worst safety in the league dragging down the whole defense, his position would be upgraded by just about any other safety in the league, and all the experts on the team can’t see it.” I say that is very unbelievable. Do you think his bad play is very hard for them to see for some reason? How could they all make such a dumb mistake?
Does that make any more sense? Sorry I can’t make myself understood.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So...
Why did Jamar Adams get invited to the training camp if Russell is good and we already had our ST guy in Wallace behind him…then make our practice squad?
He was a 3rd-5th rounder that dropped all the way out of the draft, and was invited to a LOT of camps. How did he get convinced to come to ours?
by cashless on Feb 8, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd.
Exactly what I believe. It is not only talent that speaks.
by redwolf75 on Feb 8, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also rec'd the comment
I can’t say it any better than jteckmann did.
by MFAN on Feb 8, 2009 10:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The title of this fanpost was misleading.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2009 11:45 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, sorry
about the bait and switch. I couldn’t resist.
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be cute
you’re not in good standing here.
by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because you touch yourself at ni-
is shot
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 8, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
New rule.
After writing up your comment, wait thirty seconds and read over your comment. If it doesn’t add to the discussion, is rude, or has little to no value, don’t post it.
by BrianL on Feb 8, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad.
But in all seriousness, Brian Russell is tremendously bringing down our defense. Case in point, him picking off Trufant on Pennington’s flea-flicker, picking off Peterson from making a play vs the Rams (or Eagles). Not only does he suck, he’s making others around him suck.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 8, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But anyway, sorry. I won't do it again
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are one of the reasons why I don't spend as much time here as I used too.
by Jo-Jo on Feb 8, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't you just ignore what I write?
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It became more diffucult when you started vomitting on every single conversation
by Jo-Jo on Feb 8, 2009 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Strange. None of that statement makes any sense
by VBJohnson on Feb 8, 2009 10:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments like that are exactly why I don't like you
I know we aren’t supposed to bash each other on this site, but I’m so done with you.
Even when you do have intelligent things to say, you deliver them with an arrogance that is tactless and condescending. And before you ask me to qualify those remarks, I’ll just tell you that it is simply my opinion; I think you’re an asshole. Your passive aggressive, smart-ass remarks to people who disagree with you have completely ruined (for me) what used to be a nice read, and the reason why I “don’t just ignore what you write” is that you feel the need to make your pithy comments everywhere I try to read on this site.
I’m sure that this rant will most likely get me kicked out of here, but I’m just fed up with it. This is one loyal reader, who has turned many people on to this community, saying that VSJohnson and his bullshit, and the way in which he delivers his bullshit, is lowering the quality of reading here.
Thank you, good night.
by Jo-Jo on Feb 8, 2009 11:12 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
For the record, I agree with what you are saying completely.
It seems that he’s made it his mission to disagree with almost every opinion on this site. But it’s not that that annoys me, but the arrogant and confrontational attitude that he goes about doing so.
And like I said above, it’s the same attitude we’ve seen in the past from “ACassel,” “Right,” and others. And when a screenname with 1 previous post magically jumps into the argument ("Kumar"), and has the exact same attitude…it makes one a little suspicious…I bet all are one and the same.
by redwolf75 on Feb 8, 2009 11:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For what its worth,
I’m ok with VBJ.
He brings up points that are oftentimes out of the box. I like people disagreeing with each other, it
s more productive than having a bunch of yesman high fiving each other.
That being said, VBJ does have a problem with arguing certain points and then continuing to argue with the points. Its kind of like a double edged sword.
by LantermanC on Feb 9, 2009 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
It’s perfectly fine that his disagrees, but in the manner which he does it seems to be the problem that irks many including me on this site.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 9, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For the record
My arguments are polite and I never instigate any personal insults like JoJo did in this thread, though I think I understand why he did.
Of course I could be wrong, but I think my contribution is very good for this site. What I do that is disliked is exactly this: I provide strong arguments against popular opinions. When it comes to fans of a team, this can be very irritating because people like to hold on to their opinions, even the false ones, and object to anyone trying to take them away. Problem is, the one and only point of good argument/discussion is the search for truth.
But my arguments, even when they are false, are provocative because they are strong (most of them). So people either get upset because I am compelling them to see a truth they don’t want to see, or because I am stupidly clinging to a false argument and this is frustrating for all.
Thing is, it’s all still stimulating the search for truth, either because I’m right or because the way I am wrong provides you with a better way to describe how you are right.
by VBJohnson on Feb 9, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you can't just say things
and have them be true.
If a vast majority of people here think you don’t add genuinely to the conversation then you think a comment where you just state the obvious is a valid point?
You just say ‘I add to the discussion’ in the face of many users saying that you don’t and expect that to make sense?
Threads started by you are painful. When individuals make good points you either ignore them or completely misunderstand them, to a degree that makes it seem willful.
The entire tone and demeanor of your commentary has a troll-like feel to it. You pretend that you are trying to contribute (because if you didn’t, everyone really would ignore you), but at the end you have done nothing more than upset people and the discussion is no better for your comments.
Now to make it even better you top the whole pile of crap with the bold bare statement that you are really essential and that people don’t like you because they can’t handle the truth (basically calling all other users idiots who are wrong because they can’t see your genius).
by Snuffleupagus on Feb 9, 2009 8:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think much of what you say is wrong
While I’m sure I do misunderstand people, I think I do so no more than anyone else. The post you are responding to explains how I am a positive impact even while being annoying. It may be wrong, but I think it makes a good case. Aren’t I often stimulating lots of on topic discussion?
Note that I didn’t say I was essential and I didn’t say that I always have the truth. I said I tend to make strong arguments against popular opinions. “Strong” isn’t always because it’s true. I also explained exactly why I would be disliked without anyone at all being an idiot, except maybe me.
by VBJohnson on Feb 9, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
You say your arguments are strong, and yet they don’t seem to convince anyone.
You say you contribute to the discussion, and yet most people who are discussing don’t like your contributions.
You say the reason people don’t like you is because they can’t handle the unpopular truth that you bring, and yet you don’t want us to think that you are somehow insulting these people.
but now I’m disappointed in myself for wading into this discussion, I have no idea what I’m trying to accomplish.
by Snuffleupagus on Feb 9, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That is because he is a spinster
he back tracks and talks circles around people for his own self esteem. Even his rebuttals since my outburst have nothing to do with what I said in my outburst.
You’ll notice that he continues to point back to his points of argument as the reason why people don’t like him, and that people don’t like being challenged in thought, when all I had to really say was that I think he’s an asshole. I’m sure that he is frustrated with that, because it has nothing to do with the contents of his arguments, and you can’t really defend what other people “think” of you.
I recognize the way he communicates because I used to treat people like that, too. But when I realized how it made other people feel, I was forced to make an adjustment.
I’ve had several people shoot me down on this site, I’ve been perfectly fine with it. I’ve had long streams of discussion that have changed my opinions as well, so I’m not against having my stance challenged. But when someone communicates the way he does, it is hard to even hear their point through tone in which they deliver it. And even though several people have said that in this thread, he refuses to recognize it.
by Jo-Jo on Feb 9, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Meanwhile, despite all the whining and flinging of insults
which btw is way more rude and impolite than anything I have done, you haven’t pointed to one specific thing I am doing that can reasonably considered wrong in a forum where good argument is desired, certainly nothing that would make anyone “an asshole.” It all just vaguely bothers you due to some unknown “tone” that apparently exists only in the mind of the recipient.
I think you can’t come up with anything at all that I am doing differently than anyone else except for what I have admitted above.
by VBJohnson on Feb 9, 2009 10:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"unknown 'tone' that apparently exists only in the mind of the recipient"
A tone that has been sited by several people in this line of conversation.
Apparently YOU are the only one who doesn’t get it. Even those who appreciate your input (which I’ve never challenged) have mentioned the lack of tact in your delivery. At least when I insult someone I’m straight about it. I don’t use passive aggressive word play that intends to agitate people.
by Jo-Jo on Feb 9, 2009 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Enough.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 10, 2009 9:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
VBJ is apparently now banned in any case, so
you’d just be talking to a stone wall.
by redwolf75 on Feb 10, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose you could make the case that you'd be talking to a stone wall even if he was still here.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Anytime you give JM false hopes of Russell getting cut...
yeah you know what happens
by aerozeppelin on Feb 8, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I've found evidence of a (starting) DB worse than Brian Russell:
This from FO regarding Jason David, though in fairness to NO, he did only start 6 of 14 games in 2008, after starting 12 of 13 played the year before.
“In his first year with the Saints, David’s numbers were astonishingly bad; he won the Football Outsiders Reverse Triple Crown by allowing the most total passing yards, yards after catch and passing touchdowns of any defender despite missing three games with a forearm injury. Our game charting metrics list "Hole in Zone” as the empty space in certain defensive schemes. In 2007, David allowed 12.1 yards per pass to the 11.6 allowed by “Hole in Zone” — as a defender, David was literally worse than a void." Wow.
Russell has graced our defensive backfield for 32 straight games. If only we’d gotten the 2003 version of Brian Russell (78 tackles, 9 ints).
Side note: any chance we consider bringing Ken Lucas back, if he’s cut by CAR, as expected ? Where would he fit in? I’m against Milloy’s return, though I loved him in his younger days.
by Misfit74 on Feb 13, 2009 9:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The thing about Jason David is that he belongs to a terrible defense too.
So he doesn’t get much help from pass-rush, or linebackers doing their job, etc. We were ballin’ in 2007 and Russell still visibly sucked.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 13, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Lucas seems to be always injured these days.
I’d say no.
by redwolf75 on Feb 13, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention sucks.
Don’t understand the recent love for signing him.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 13, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
