Seahawks Addicts Defends Russell

by jacobstevens on Mar 9, 2009 10:01 AM PDT Comment 21 comments

I'm not nearly convinced. I did see a dramatic increase in snaps with post safety coverage in 2008, particularly as the season weathered on -- dramatic for the Seahawks; it went from negligible if ever to, I dunno, 5, 10% of the snaps at most. It was still a big difference. It might have always been in nickel, not sure, might have also been in base.

Problem with that supporting this argument is, from what I could see, Grant was always the deep safety, and Russell was in the box or underneath. Whaddaya think, Marshall's stoopid or somepin?

Anyway, Russell might be unfairly crucified, but only to the extent that, on a scale of 10, he's a 3, and sometimes we talk about him like he's a 1. Or zero. Still not acceptable, and still needs to be replaced. But enjoy the read.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree with most of what he says

Russell isn’t a zero, more like well below average. His poor play may well have been in part due to the defensive scheme. Still, nobody can argue that we are in need of an upgrade and WILL draft a DB on day 1. (please, please, please…)

by diehard82 on Mar 9, 2009 10:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that blog man...

seriously i read it and i think i’m getting stupider. seems like every one of their posts has completely illogical arguments based on bad data.

by cro-mag! on Mar 9, 2009 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That's only BillT

the rest of the guys just give it to you straight….but Bill kind of goes overboard

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 9, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The main flaw with his argument is that he associates 2007's secondary success with Russell.

Russell noticeably sucked then, too. It would be more accurate to say the rest of the secondary performed well in spite of Russell, he didn’t contribute.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 9, 2009 11:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Am I foolish for still believing

that his highly touted communication skills were integral in getting that secondary to perform closer to its potential than it had in 2006? He wasn’t good in 2007, either, but I believed that his vocalness is getting the other guys assignment correct was basically the reason they kept him around. Aside from the Gritty White hustle.

by jacobstevens on Mar 9, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'm sure he can do that while cheerleading from the bench too.

Patrick Chung.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 9, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One can only pray.

by jacobstevens on Mar 9, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Marshall somehow escaped much serious criticism that he was due for 2008.

But Brian Russell also sucks. The two are not mutually exclusive.

by sev79 on Mar 9, 2009 7:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Russell wasn't bad...

He just wasn’t really good either. I think all of the d.b.‘s dropped last year. I don’t know if it was that they were playing hurt or what…

by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2009 12:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Trufant was excellent

Wilson was awesome in spurts, Grant again played against his strengths but was okay, Jennings was terrible and Russell was worst in the league terrible. People want to give Russell credit except when pressed to do so they can’t think of a single, tangible thing he did. It’s easy to lump the secondary together because they played poorly, but it’s erroneous. Trufant had nothing to do with the secondary collapse.

by John Morgan on Mar 10, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tru played well

but I wouldn’t say excellent…he had some major major plays where he broke completely down, took himself out of the play, missed the deflection…whatever the case may be.

Yeah majority of the time he was great, but I won’t put the “excellent” stamp on a player unless they are truely excellent….sadly Tru whiffed on a few key plays that a true excellent player should have and would have stopped and/or capitalized on. He was still pretty damn solid though I must say

Wilson is a play maker…hopefully he builds off of last season and becomes an even bigger threat

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 10, 2009 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From what I saw, Trufant's 'bad-plays' mostly came from the play-call.

As in, playing 10 yards off on a 3rd and medium and having to dive to keep with the play.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or from Brian Russel

coming in to break up Tru’s coverage and take him out of the play.

Man my jaw literally dropped when I saw that play…

by Fear on Mar 10, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree

and I don’t really hold those to much value since Marshall is a dumbass and plays that soft cushion

however he did whiff on some horrible catches where he should have easily played the ball, deflected it, blocked the WR….intercepted it…etc. He wasn’t playing the ball at all, he just watched the WR run, catch the ball then had a delayed reaction.

I can’t stand that

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 10, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He did have problems for a while jamming the receiver off of the line because of that busted hand.

I imagine that also caused some difficulty trying to play the ball.

by BrianL on Mar 10, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ehhh I don't think...

a hand has anything to do with looking at a ball in the air. All he has to do is turn his head rather than watch the WR. If you watch the WR, then any half-decent WR will capitalize on that and fake you out making you react late and miss breaking up the pass….which is what happened

CB’s need to learn to play the ball once it’s in the air…otherwise they’ll end up watching other people make the plays

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 11, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless...

you mean he had trouble jamming which put him out of position…then he was trying to work back up to the WR and was unable to get to the point where he could track the ball…

then I’d say you have an argument :)

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 11, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Russell was terrible.

So that’s where the loonies on the Seahawks ESPN draft board come from….Seahawks Addicts.

It's great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Mar 10, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow.

This article is moronic. He argues that Russell is a good safety and then proceeds to provide zero evidence for this assertion. Lets look at his points:

1. The secondary as a whole was good in 2007. The fact someone could think that this means Russell is currently a good player is astonishing. Does this guy realize there are 4+ players in the secondary on any given play, and that we had a great pass rush that year?

2. Playing more cover-1 was responsible for our secondary decline in 2008. This may be somewhat true, just like 1, but again doesn’t really support the argument.

by michaelfox99 on Mar 11, 2009 6:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Apples and Oranges

Arguing for Russell as a coverage guy is idiotic. He’s a lousy tackler and takes WTF angles to the ball. THAT’s why he’s a liabiltiy. If your SS can’t tackle, his coverage skills are irrelevant.

by MoonHawk on Mar 13, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs