Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: The Record of Wrongs: Vanderbilt Commodores

The Julian Peterson Chain Reaction: How Seattle Traded Away Talent to Improve Its Team

I was sitting way back in a darkened theater thinking about it. Chewing on it. Seattle had just traded one of my most beloved players, but, almost defiant of explanation, the gut-wrench had not found me. I wasn't outraged and I didn't know why. Sometime before Stephen Soderbergh's color imagery moved from poignant to cloying, it dawned on me:

I like this deal. A lot. And here's why.

Seattle can't fully replace Julian Peterson, no team short of Dallas can, but Seattle is better equipped than most to try.

Leroy Hill broke into the league a strongside linebacker. His rookie season is likely still his best. Hill recorded 7.5 sacks and 22 total defeats*. Seattle signed Julian Peterson in the 2006 offseason, and that moved Hill to the weakside. It made sense at the time to accommodate such a talent, and in most ways Peterson outperformed Hill enough for the move to be justified, but the formerly blitzing and attacking linebacker was damned to covering running backs and playing the short zone. Hill wasn't really lost. He could still fly down and explode the screen pass. He could control the periphery and stack the left guard. But he was limited. After a rookie season sack total to rival DeMarcus Ware, Hill was shelved as a primary blitzer and put into a support role.

I didn't want Seattle to re-sign Hill. If the Seahawks were intent on playing Hill against his strengths, I thought a better mix of coverage and run stopping could be achieved by employing a linebacker platoon. Instead Seattle franchised Hill. I was a bit vexed, but I never forgot Hill's potential.

I think Hill is a talented young player, but I also think Seattle could have satisfactorily replaced him with the talent they have. If Seattle uses Hill more as a pass rusher, like they did in 2005, his value skyrockets. He's not DeMarcus Ware, but he's not as far off as people think. The greatest thing that separates the two is opportunity. Hill has exceptional ability to move through traffic, is a fierce tackler and has the kind of closing burst that turns pressure into sacks and sacks into forced fumbles. As a Tampa 2 style linebacker, Hill is sub par, a good run defender, but bad enough in coverage to offset it, but as a zone blitz style linebacker, one who defends the run, plays some zone, but is regularly sent on blitzes, Hill could be a beast.

Ultimately, Seattle retained the younger of the two linebackers. Maybe when projecting a phenomenal talent like Peterson, that doesn't matter so much. If the question was just "Peterson or Hill?" I'd answer "Peterson." But Peterson was approaching the most expensive seasons of his contract. He would average $8 million over his age 32, 33, and 34 seasons. Over those same seasons, Hill is likely to average $5 million. That's just doing some quick mental math and assuming Hill's deal is back loaded. With each passing year, that discrepancy falls more and more in Hill's favor. Until "Peterson or Hill?" is clearly "Hill." Maybe Seattle could have kept both, but it shouldn't have. When Hill was cheap, it was justifiable to play him against his strengths to allow for a marquee talent. Hill is clearly a strongside linebacker. Once Seattle committed to him long term, it created a log jam that ensured someone was going to be overpaid to play out of position.

Instead of letting Hill walk or overpaying Hill to toil on the weakside, Tim Ruskell has freed the logjam, returned Hill to his rightful place, freed cap space and actually added talent. Hill replaces Peterson. The platoon I favored to replace Hill can still replace Hill. To some extent, the overall value of this trade depends a bit on just how good defensive tackle Cory Redding is, but before we even factor that, consider the above. If the team has taken a hit at strongside linebacker, it likely has improved weakside enough to offset it - and without expending resources. It has also added the first overall pick in the fifth round, and, this is huge for me, moved Colin Cole out of the starting lineup.

Every dirty thing I said about that signing seems immaterial now. Seattle suddenly has an excellent looking defensive tackle rotation. It's sort of Marcus Tubbs by committee, with no individual being as good as Tubbs, but the unrelenting lineup of Mebane/Redding spelled by Cole/Red Bryant collectively being as good or better. Mebane stays at one, Redding is added as a legitimate three, Cole subs at one and Bryant at the three is stout and scrappy enough to keep the double teams off. At no point does the Craig Terrill/Howard Green cavalcade of wackiness cause ruination and failure.

Muscly Arm was the man. He rates with Chad Brown for all-time great Seahawks strongside linebacker. Seattle didn't add talent by trading Peterson, but it is better able to maximize the talent it has and a better team because it did.**

*Defeat defined by Football Outsiders as the "the total number of plays that stop an offense from gaining first down yardage on third or fourth down, stop the offense behind the line of scrimmage, or result in a fumble or interception." 22 is the second most of Hill's career, behind only the 25 he recorded in a full season in 2007.

**Assuming Cory Redding doesn't completely suck. To be continued.

3 recs  |  Comment 93 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I honestly think Redding can put up 6 or 7 sacks this year

And Leroy can put up around 8. Kerney being back and L-Jax being healthy and experience will also help us get more pressure, thus making our DBs better. This deal improved our team.

by SPENCEMAN on Mar 16, 2009 12:45 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And how.

I hadn’t realized that Hill had moved from strongside to weakside when JP arrived. Of course, I didn’t read this site then or I would have know. Silly me. Regardless, Hill’s pass-rushing revival was a key reason why initially I embraced this deal. I didn’t know that his impact would be in the form of moving from weak to strong and that is way cool to learn.

Question: the coverage abilities of Peterson must be replaced, no? How will this happen? Hill is not known as a great cover linebacker and I don’t know who will take the TEs and RBs running patterns when a Safety is not doing it. I’m very curious how we’ll replace Peterson’s coverage ability.

That 5th may as well be a 4th and is ammo to maneuver in the draft. The draft begs another question: if Curry is not in our plans, at which point does Seattle draft a LB if it has to? What do we need in a rookie that our existing unit and bench cannot provide that a rookie can? Also, are we set, or is a FA signing on the horizon in whatever capacity?

by Misfit74 on Mar 16, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps it's simply going to be assigned to the safeties more

Had you noticed the influx of safety blitzing Marshall called in 2008? For us, anyway, it was quite an increase. Anyway, as I understand it, assuming we yet remain somewhat faithful to standard Cover 2 coverage on the middle tier, despite moving to strongside over the TE my underdstanding is the coverage demands become less crucial for Hill.

by jacobstevens on Mar 16, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think DD Lewis/Will Herring/David Hawthorne is more than adequate.

If not, Zach Follett with the 4th.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

4th rounder, not 4th overall obviously.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I concur

I have been preaching Zach Follett forever but people (aka Michael Steffes) seem to be down on his coverage skills but we will see. Maybe he can back up Hill and Herring back up DD Lewis with Hawthorne backing up Tatupu.

by Built2Spill on Mar 16, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Strongside/weakside

I was under the impression that Leroy broke in as a weakside linebacker, blitzing on the side without the TE. Then JP came and took the weak/blindside so Leroy had to either run into the TE or cover him on the strongside.

by bosfan on Mar 16, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

JP's been strongside since the team signed him.

Hill’s switched around.

Back in ’05, IIRC, the team had signed Jamie Sharper to replace Chad Brown as the Sam (Wow, that seems like forever ago) Tatupu beat out Koots for the Mike, and D.D. Lewis started off as the Will.

LB was actually a big concern and looked razor thin heading into the season. Sharper only lasted until the midpoint of the season, when he had to be IR’d. Lewis also had some injuries and missed time later in the season. Hill was the first off the bench and played both positions – strongside when Sharper went down, and weakside when Lewis was out. But most of his damage was done from the strongside. And that’s another thing that made his 7.5 sacks so impressive that year – they mainly came in a half-season’s worth of starts.

But IIRC, Hill & Lewis both did a lot of swapping around when they were on the field, and each of them saw plenty of time at both the Sam and Will.

by jteckmann on Mar 16, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

strongside/weakside

I’m a little confused here. yahoo sports, espn, and nfl.com all list Leroy on the strong side and JP on the weakside. the weakside would be the kill the QB pass-rush side that Ware, LT, and the other great pass rushers occupy. weakside will normally be the best place to pass rush because the left tackle doesn’t have a TE to help him. is my strongside/weakside terminology different from John’s? I agree that Leroy will benefit in 2009 by switching to the other side, but I think he’s switching to the weak side without the TE.

by bosfan on Mar 16, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

They both played strongside and both played weakside

they both played on the left and both played on the right. Seattle didn’t run a super-strict strongside/weakside system. I think that’s pretty rare; a bit of a relic from the days rushing ruled football. But in a broader sense, what Hill did in 2005, Peterson took over. And that was mostly about pass rushing.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

The FO...

has been saying it wants to move Mebane to 3 tech, though, hasn’t it? Or was that before it thought it could get Redding? Personally, I’d like to see what Mebane could do at the 3, especially if we could pair him with a 1 tech that needed double teams….

by Hawkish on Mar 16, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Has the front office actually said this?

I thought this speculation after the Cole signing.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now that you mention it...

I didn’t see a direct quote from Ruskell or Mora, but I could have sworn I saw something somewhere from a writer who intimated that he had been told this was the plan. Anyway, I kind of liked the plan, at least at the time…

by Hawkish on Mar 16, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait, didn't Colin Cole say this himself in that TNT interview?

I could have sworn it’s been confirmed Mebane’s moving to the three-tech.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's weird

Cole was also told he would start.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

For the money Cole's getting

he can’t complain. He should’ve been more realistic and asked “Wait a sec, I’m a fringe NFL player, you’re guaranteeing me a starting gig AND $20 million dollars? What’s wrong with this picture?”

by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remember Ruskell saying it in an interview after the Cole signing

Don’t think there was ever a transcript of it. But that was before Redding, obviously, so things can change.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 16, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Craig Terrill/Howard Green cavalcade of wackiness cause ruination and failure

I don’t understand this part. Howard Green signed with another team

by BUSTINHEADS on Mar 16, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

For the last two seasons, Seattle has had a weak second string set of tackles.

At times, like the Division round against the Packers, it’s cost them dearly. I’m simply contrasting that with Seattle’s new set of second string tackles.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's exactly the point I understood when you said that.

And I’m pumped that Bryant/Cole would be backups. That implies a starting unit that is quite good, and only helped by the DEs we have. This could be a dominant line.

by Misfit74 on Mar 16, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you JM for explaining why I wasn't concerned with this signing.

I knew for some odd reason losing JP didn’t worry me, even though I absolutely loved the guy. Normally this move would set off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. But somehow, they didn’t. I knew I liked the trade, but not why. I was slowly working it out that I liked the improvements to DL, the salary cap savings, and the possibility of a bright future for Hill. But you just summarized it all quite nicely. And I didn’t even realize Hill’s best season was playing strong side (wow that feels forever ago). That just further confirms for me that this could, potentially, be a brilliant move on Ruskell’s part.

by Fear on Mar 16, 2009 2:26 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Insider...

has a summary of Redding’s meeting with the press today. Says he’s been told he’ll be at DE on first and second downs, and move to a 3 tech on passing downs.

So Mebane may yet see 3 tech in his future…

Does make you wonder about Jackson/Tapp a bit, though. Unless Redding is strictly Kearney insurance…

by Hawkish on Mar 16, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Yep.

This, along with the comments about him dropping to 285, scared me in a whole, Colin Cole still starting DT, type way until I read the quote from Redding:

“There has been some talk about flirting around with me at end on first and second down, then to tackle on passing downs.”

Flirting. As long as it’s only flirting. No heavy petting…

by JamesMurphy on Mar 16, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Indeed.

O_o;

I’d be a lot more comfortable with Redding as an every down DT, and that’s exactly why I dislike DE/DT tweeners, though reports indicate that Redding is stout at DT.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

While I'm not wildly enthusiastic about losing Peterson, I can see the logic behind it and the smart roster-construction.

But I can’t believe that all we got for him is a questionable DT and a only a 5th.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:20 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Age is the reason

If we were Lions fans and a LB over 30 years old with multiple pro-bowls became available, most of us would still not want to give up too much for him due to age. You can not give up a ton for a guy who is on the decline of his career. If he was 26, then we would have gotten much more for him. There is talk that we would have cut him for salary cap reasons, so it seems that we got a very good deal. We got slightly younger, became more balanced, and saved a bit in cap space.

by germpod on Mar 16, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I haven't seen...

…any report (excluding the comments section on blogs, which, myself included, are mostly people talking out of their ass) that characterizes Redding as a “questionable” DT. All accounts seem to say he’s above average but not star material.

by sev79 on Mar 16, 2009 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

If it were someone like, say, a 30 year old Leroy Hill I definitely wouldn't want to give up a lot.

But it’s Julian Peterson. One of those rare physical freak of nature athletes who tend to age gracefully, and are still extremely versatile and dangerous at everything.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:36 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I agree.

A 30 year old Peterson is in such great shape right now, if he were to take part in an NFL combine, his numbers would still be astounding.

by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also, according

to this, Redding is going to play DE on first and second down?

If that’s the case, I do not like this move. Why push back Tapp and Jackson, younger and with more upside, back in the depth chart? Also, this would mean Colin Cole really is going to start, and that would be awful.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:38 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

And sorry for my posting consecutively so much because my thoughts are so disorganized, but

if he’s playing DT on pass-rushing downs, does that move Mebane back to the one-tech on third downs or something? I’m really confused now.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

WEST COAST DEFENSE

So confusing that nobody knows what is going to happen.

by Built2Spill on Mar 16, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would guess it's something like

We just signed Cole and said he would start. Now we’ve traded for Redding. We can’t say we’ve traded Julian Peterson for a second string defensive tackle and we can’t say we’ve already demoted Cole, so here’s an explanation that doesn’t step on toes and will look irrelevant in August.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Okay, that makes sense.

Here’s to Red Bryant making a name for himself in training camp…

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see

How replacing Hill with DD Lewis improves the weakside enough to offset the dropoff on the strongside.

by Groundhog on Mar 16, 2009 5:27 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't think Seattle replaces Hill with Lewis

Though, I admit, I don’t yet know exactly how Seattle will replace Hill.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you're saying

That Hill is so abysmal at weakside that just about anyone else would be an upgrade?

by Groundhog on Mar 16, 2009 5:49 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

In pass-coverage, mostly.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think Seattle could upgrade Hill by using a platoon

I think Herring/Hawthorne could give better production if used right. Of course, that assumes Seattle recognizes Hill’s weakness in coverage.

by John Morgan on Mar 16, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was thinking Herring/Lewis

But I don’t know the characteristics of this coaching staff the way I did the old one. Prior to this year, I’d be certain it was Lewis’ to lose.

by jacobstevens on Mar 16, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I always thought Hawthorne was more a SSLB...

I would think it was DD’s job on paper with Hill going back to SSLB

by iverson2169 on Mar 16, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I dunno how well or if he sheds blocks

but he tackles like a WLB. Hawthorne. I’ll be watching him kinda closely this preseason.

by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Holy Lord in Heaven

Is it snowing down there? We’ve got flakes the size of Austin Mini’s up here in Victoria.

by djafrot on Mar 16, 2009 5:52 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It snowed yesterday

but it didn’t stick.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

GOD I'M PUMPED

I LOVE THIS DEAL MORE AND MORE EVERYDAY

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 16, 2009 7:35 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Which reminds me, Scruffy

— how does one brine pain, anyway?

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 16, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

?

brine |brīn|
noun
water saturated or strongly impregnated with salt.
• seawater : dolphins and whales can’t help taking in the odd gulp of brine as they swallow a fish.
• technical a strong solution of a salt or salts : these brines percolated downward.

ummmmm. Not sure?

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 16, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Does it strike anyone else as a bit odd....

…that Bradley and Co. have repeatedly stated we are a 4-3 gap control defense, and yet all the additions so far have been in the 3-4 mold?

- Beefy run support DE’s (Redding) and…
- Stout Nose Tackles (Cole)

I love the moves, just curious what everyone else is seeing here.

by iverson2169 on Mar 16, 2009 9:31 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I doubt we're moving to a 3-4

If you see it. It would be of a hybrid mold.

NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!

by Scruffy Lefty on Mar 16, 2009 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Come again...

Cole most certainly IS a stout NT. Simply Google “Colin Cole NT” and you’ll see a plethora of editorial on Cole’s role as a BIG nose tackle.

by iverson2169 on Mar 17, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fat =/= stout.

He’s certainly large, but we have little indication that he’s an elite run-stuffer or even an above average one.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 18, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let's see . . .

He’s big like a nose tackle, he’s played nose tackle, but on balance, no, he isn’t a stout nose tackle.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 18, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

whoa, piling on!

welcome to the community iverson! we’re usually a little nicer up front.

by cro-mag! on Mar 18, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

My god... what's the deal with this board?

Guys, my comment was that the moves have been a departure from the old smallish penetrating type… and more in the 3-4 mold.

NEVER said Cole was going to be an accomplished, immovable force of universal destruction at nose tackle.

I said the moves are more congruent with the personnel of a 3-4 system.
My point was that he is NOT Chuck Darby.

By the way, if we want to argue symantics: I think Cole fits a good portion of this description below

stout (stout)
adj. stout·er, stout·est
1. Having or marked by boldness, bravery, or determination; firm and resolute.
2. Strong in body; sturdy.
3. Strong in structure or substance; solid or substantial.
4. Bulky in figure; thickset or corpulent. See Synonyms at fat.
5. Powerful; forceful.
6. Stubborn or uncompromising

by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2009 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Definition 1 seems to hit the mark.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, #4 does . . .

. . . for the rest, I’m not so certain.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 19, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Getting pushed off the line on a regular basis

and being unable to deal with double teams doesn’t just mean “not an accomplished, immovable force of universal destruction” — it means “not a stout nose tackle.”

And what’s the deal with this board? Simple: if there’s an argument to be had with your comment, somebody’s going to have it. I don’t think that’s anything to complain about.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 19, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm shocked that were debating such semantics...

Again, my whole point I was trying to make was that the moves are less the smallish penetrating types and MORE in the 3-4 mold.

bulky in figure
powerful
thick

are all words that describe to the term stout. Cole certainly is far bulkier, thicker and stronger than the “Chuck Darby’s” of the past. That’s the only point I have been trying to make. The move is a departure from personnel moves of the past at DT.

by iverson2169 on Mar 19, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Geesh I thought I was posting on a message board.

I apologize for calling this (forum?) a board.

…so far in my first week here, I have been dog-piled on for my use of the term “stout” (which CAN mean thick and bulky) and calling this forum a message board.

I have no issues defending my perspectives on sports, but it seems like ganging up on the new guy with english-lit trivialities. I have referenced the online dictionary more than stat databases so far.

I recently came over from another forum/blog/board…. geeez I dont even know what to call it now without getting hammered. I posted 8000+ times over the last couple years, and was excited to see this site and it’s SUPERIOR architecture. I will wait before I invite my friends over there to join this site until I see a bit more friendliness.

by iverson2169 on Mar 19, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

You think this is bad? Don't comment at Lookout Landing. Heh.

 It’s not you or Colin Cole or anything, it’s just that you and some of the people here had different ideas when the word ‘stout’ came to mind. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I get that...

I think that most of the commentary excluded the fact that the context in which I chose to use the word stout was fair. Stout can mean thick and bulky every bit as much as it it can immovable. This aside, I was more disappointed to see people focusing on the ways a word can be defined, and not respond to my actual point (that Cole is a departure from the typical TR DT).

Believe me, I have had wars with people in my other (insert the correct word for a forum here) and realize it comes with the territory. I guess I am saying at least over there we greet people with a “welcome aboard” before chewing on them.

by iverson2169 on Mar 19, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And we would have used

Peterson as an OLB and LoJack as a 3-4 end before using Redding as an end and having a hole at one of the OLB positions.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 17, 2009 4:58 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wasn't Kerney a Pro-Bowl 3-4 end with ATL?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

he was okay, but not a Pro-Bowler

I was living in Atlanta at the time and semi-followed the Falcons. Kerney was a guy without a position – they never figured out how to use him right, and people always griped about him being a bust. He switched around between DE & LOLB and had a disappointing first 2 years. He did get double-digit sacks once, IIRC. So he was decent, but not a star.

But when ATL switched to a 4-3 and he was allowed to settle in as a 4-3, that’s when he relly seemed to put it together, and made his first Pro-Bowl.

I think he can play in a 3-4, but he’s much better suited to a 4-3 (and I think he, like Peterson, is on record saying he prefers being in a 4-3)

by jteckmann on Mar 17, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't at all see a transition to a 3-4...

Just an observation that the acquisitions are classic 3-4 type players (Stout DE’s and nose tackles being a dramatic departure from our historically undersized, one gap, penetrating DT’s)

by iverson2169 on Mar 16, 2009 9:41 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Did anyone hear Millen

on KJR talk recently about Julian’s grades on defense last year? I listen when that dude talks, especially given his relationship with Mora. His comments, which contained strong implications he wasn’t just talking about his own grades, but those of the Hawks, included that Julian often graded out as THE worst assignment-correct player on D last year, and said that his play against runs to his side was poor and getting worse. He praised his athleticism, but said that his performance against “offensive tackles” was also quite poor. This is the link, I believe:

http://www.kjram.com/cc-common/mediaplayer/playerccas.html?mps=softyplayer.php&mid=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/SEATTLE-WA/KJR-AM/softy_hugh20millen20031609.mp3?CPROG=PCAST%3FCCOMRRMID&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=SEATTLE-WA&NG_FORMAT=sports&NG_ID=KJR950AM&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=&SERVER_NAME=www.950kjr.com&SITE_ID=645&STATION_ID=KJR-AM&TRACK=

by Hawkdawg on Mar 16, 2009 9:46 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

A thing of beauty

That link. I thought he was the worst of the LBs, but that’s a high bar to pass under, somewhat. And honestly Tatupu gave him a run for the money, there, they both were somewhat disappointing. But to hear that, even I am surprised. I thought it was worse in 2007, than 2008, but offset by the big plays. The mistakes tended to come after big plays. I think I said this before, but off the top of my head, I always remember the Bengals game. Big sack, setting up 3rd & forever against the goal line, and then gave up a 33 yard screen to Rudi Johnson (back from the dead). both on JP. That was the nature of 2007.

by jacobstevens on Mar 16, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A 5 on the wonderlic test?

That’s the lowest I’ve ever heard I think.

by LantermanC on Mar 17, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vince Young.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In my opinion

Tatupu was by far the worst linebacker. He was rarely on assignment, reacting late, and more or less getting swept out of plays even if he did read them correctly.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Mar 17, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Difference between

worst performing player and worst assignment-correct player. Lofa’s disappointment was more acute, but probably even still JP was worse, I thought. His mistakes were quiet and quite unknown, yet he still offset it with some big plays. Lofa’s rep was on consistency, leadership, anticipation, and occasional big plays. And subsequently more talked about.

Splitting hairs, though, to a degree. I honestly feel they’ll both bounce back, on their respective teams.

by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In Peterson's defense

Take into account that Marshall was using him as a DE quite often. That’s like pinning a butterfly down in a box and then blaming it for not flying.

I thought that in 2007 Peterson was running himself upfield out of plays, which led to a lot of successful screens, backfield passes, and draws – TE’s had a field day against the Seahawks that year if I recall correctly.

If Hill’s strengths were misplaced on the weakside, Peterson was equally misused on the strongside. That he was still successful is a testament to his ability. Consequently, placing Hill on the strongside should result in almost no dropoff from what we’ve seen of Peterson.

by Groundhog on Mar 17, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think he was that misused

But yes, on 2007. That’s what I saw, too. I partly gave him the benefit of the doubt, that he was just doing his assignment, though. This makes me question that.

by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

OK, I just listened to the Millen audio

And the Clayton audio. It confirms for me that Peterson was mismatched as a DE against OTs. Clayton’s commentary made me think that perhaps the outside run containment wasn’t so much a DE problem (Tapp, Jackson) as a LB problem.

That Millen’s critical examples of Peterson’s breakdowns were pass plays for TDs doesn’t bode well for a weak-in-coverage Hill.

by Groundhog on Mar 17, 2009 10:52 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Hail to the greatest Seahawk to ever live: Walter Junior Jones.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

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

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

Music City Miracles
Tennessee Titans Red Zone Report
Bleeding Green Nation
Comcast NFL Red Zone stat of the week - Something doesn't have to give
Niners Nation
49ers Red Zone numbers: How effective are they?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Defensive End
Jack22_small
Super Bowl XLIV Open Thread
Olympiabeer_small
My problem with the Colts winning-- the absence of immortality.
Small
Random Super Bowl Thoughts
Profilepic_small
Diamonds in the Rough
Jack22_small
"Pro Bowl" "Open Thread"
Seattle_seahawks_small
Pro Bowl Folly
Small
Kerney Retires?
Nielson_small
Replacing Matt Hasselbeck
Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Offensive Line

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Mocking The Draft
Morgan Burnett NFL Draft scouting report
The Phinsider
A quick look at free agent tight ends
Mocking The Draft
A case for Sam Bradford going first overall

Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Whiteken_small Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)