Seattle Seahawks 2009 Draft Recap
by John Morgan on Apr 26, 2009 7:52 PM PDT
360 comments
Draft coverage continues on Monday. We'll do full tape analysis of every Seahawks pick. Tomorrow we start with Max Unger and discuss his potential and his potential at guard.
Field Gulls Draft Day Coverage:
Courtney Greene, Nick Reed and Cameron Morrah
Gut Reaction: Seattle adds some talent to put itself back into contention, if outside contention, but Tim Ruskell mostly defers to the future. Aaron Curry is the near-consensus best player in this entire draft, with some calling him a once in a decade linebacker talent. In the short term, with the loss of Julian Peterson and the free agency possible loss of Leroy Hill, this is a lateral move. Curry will be a pro and in his prime when Peterson retires. I love Leroy Hill. I love his ability to explode the screen, blow up the lead blocker and explode into rushers before they achieve positive yards. Curry may never be as good as Hill, but he probably. He'll probably be amazingly better.
Max Unger is another nod to the future. Unger is a center by designation, but an offensive lineman by trade. His slightness might force him to stick at center, but I prefer him at guard. If he's a guard he can be an improvement right away and really solidify Seattle's move to a zone blocking scheme. If he sticks at center, that means the end of the Chris Spencer era, and I know many are saying "not soon enough".
Seattle added some talent at wide receiver and quarterback. Wide receiver Deon Butler is a burner with good route running skills. People are comparing him to Deion Branch and fellow Penn State alumni Bobby Engram, but his skill-set and talent is more like Lee Evans. Butler is a tenacious blocker who added almost 20 pounds before going pro. Mike Teel is a legend at Rutgers. He looks like a David Greene pick.
The big move of the draft, bigger even maybe that selecting Aaron Curry, is Seattle trading their second round pick for Denver's first round pick in 2010. Before losing Jay Cutler, the Broncos were likely to decline. Given that loss and their coaching instability, Seattle's pick could be in the top ten.
Finally, Seattle wrapped it up with three project picks. Nick Reed is a pass rush specialist that needs to get up to NFL speed and NFL size. Courtney Greene is a big upside strong safety that will need time on the practice squad to learn how not be made foolish my NFL offensive coordinators and NFL quarterbacks. Cameron Morrah is an athletic tight end that might play something closer to a wide receiver role in Seattle.
All in all, like it or not, Tim Ruskell is looking towards the future. To better tomorrows.
1 recs |
360 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Who thinks
Seattle will add a CB RB and FB in free agency ? Lucas, McAllister, and Neal maybe ? I keep hearing we might get Brooks if Hill leaves too.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 4:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
but if Hill leaves, and the cap space opens up, I wouldn’t be surprised to see us go after an RB either. I’m not sure who is available right now though, if anyone worth the price tag.
Let's go.
by J Hens on Apr 26, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm very happy with this year's draft
Slowly but surely, I’m warming to Ruskell.
by Nick Andron on Apr 26, 2009 4:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Me too Nick
I think we just need depth now and maybe Lucas could start over Wilson at CB if we are going to run more I think it’s good to have an extra set or two of legs on the team.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 4:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Morrah Highlight
3:16 looks like Carlson
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am definitely happy with the draft too
I mean overall:
1. The arguable top prospect in the draft
1 A. A 2010 1st round pick
2. A linemen we apparently were targeting
3. Still being able to draft a player in the first 3 rounds, by trading up to get Butler, addressing that position/need
that plus some good later round talent like Greene and Morrah, who Kiper said could have been a 3-4th rounder.
Let's go.
by J Hens on Apr 26, 2009 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent, excellent draft all the way
This is franchise changing stuff and could potentially move us to Superbowl contention in the near future.
Go Seahawks!
by aerozeppelin on Apr 26, 2009 5:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LB is not a problem
In my opinion even if Lewis, Hawthorne or Herring starts with Curry and Lofa it’s still probably the best crew in the NFL.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 5:14 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Like Adams to but...
I hope those 1st Round picks are used to move up to grab Taylor Mays next year.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 5:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Please god no.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's baffling why people think Taylor Mays is good
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can run a fast 40 time don'cha know!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because they can't get over the fact that Willingham lost him to the Trojans.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JACK LOCKER OMG!
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
I fucked that up.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You were probably thinking Jack Bauer . . . :)
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YES YES YES
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phildopip on Apr 27, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting thoughts by John Clayton
5. The Seattle Seahawks’ trade with the Eagles to acquire Penn State wide receiver Deon Butler might reveal how the Seahawks will handle their business during the next year. Earlier in the day, the Seahawks dropped the franchise tag from linebacker Leroy Hill, making him a free agent. Hill is the best player on the market and should command a big contract. He’ll also become the eighth free agent to leave this offseason and should command a third-round compensatory choice next year. Once Hill signs, the Seahawks will have a net loss of five free agents, so they could get four compensatory picks next year. That’s why they had the luxury to trade for a fast receiver.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 5:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, interesting.
I love that along with stealing the 1st rounder and getting the best LB Seahawks fans may have ever seen, we were willing to trade up for guys we thought were quality, relying on the three 7ths and one 6th round pick to fill out the “maybe’s”. We have enough young players on the team to evaluate already, and no real gaping holes, depending on what you think about safety. We will be cutting young players going into week 1 next season that we have drafted in the past 1-3 years I think.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tats is worth something still though!
But I think Curry will outproduce him, but Tats has value in the intangibles. I think Curry will owe alot to him in the end.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I love love LOVE the idea of watching these two the next 5-10 years together. I think their talents mesh together so well that the two of them will be better together than Tats, Hill, and Peterson as a trio.
Curry has the sideline to sideline speed, will probably have the man coverage ability, and probably have the pass rushing ability that Tats can struggle with, if there is a weakness in his game it is that. Also, he has the size.
I think it is going to be so much fun to watch, I have had butterflies in my stomach all day. Supposed to be writing a paper right now…
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4-12
I think we had a few holes to fill.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't say we dont have holes, its just that we dont have gaping holes
by xSAMx on Apr 26, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding no actual information, it should be noted
so it’s rather a pointless repetition.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did our Defense Rank last year and a
where did our Offense rank last year?
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Note we suffered a tremendous amount of injuries last year
Well above the league average.
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So don't act like our depth was that great!
yes we suffered injuries and we proved that we couldn’t replace the players we lost. So those practice squad players you talk about weren’t ready. The Patriots lose people every year along with every NFL team but depth gets you through it. We were 4-12 and that makes us a 4-12 team. You are what you are. Let’s not treat ourselves like were something else here…and I’m trying to remove the blinders off of this site. We loss to people in 2007 and have never replaced them. Hutch and Jurevicious. Those losses took us from 14-2 to 10-6…and we haven’t replaced them and now were 4-12. The replacements we signed didn’t work. We have paper depth and not “proven” depth!
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How often do you lose all your WRs, your starting QB, your starting O-Line, and worry about depth?
No one has 7 backup WRs, a QB, and 5 O-Linemen good enough to keep them in contention
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What a seriously skewed observation
You should be a pundit on Fox. Just wow.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
I am compelled to reccomend this comment.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Hutch & JJ were the difference between 14-2 and 4-12?
I see
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, CLEARLY
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually we were 9-7 in 2006.
Hasselbeck was injured and ineffective, Alexander sucked, and Michael Boulware was being counted on to be the deep safety. Hutch and Jurevicious were key losses, but they didn’t make us that much worse.
Also, we were 13-3.
“We loss to people in 2007” English is not your first language, is it?
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not as if they lost just a few players.
They had 47 different starters last year. 47. That easily led the league.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be blinded by your love for the Hawks
Don’t act like the Hawks shit golden eggs to. We have to acknowledge when issues with positions and pick apart things with our team. We can’t just amen everything they do. So I bring issues and may nit pick a bit on the details.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't pretend to nit pick
When you haven’t picked any nits
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So lay it out
Where are the weaknesses and what should we do to fix them?
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
4-12 last year.
Players that missed time with/were ineffective because of injuries:
QB Matt Hasselbeck
QB Seneca Wallace
RB Maurice Morris
FB Leonard Weaver
WR Nate Burleson
WR Deion Branch
WR Bobby Engram
WR Ben Obomanu
WR Logan Payne
WR Koren Robinson
WR Billy McMullen
LT Walter Jones
LG Mike Wahle
C Chris Spencer
RG Rob Sims
RT Ray Willis
RT Sean Locklear
G/T Floyd Womack
CB Kelly Jennings (didn’t miss games, obviously affected his play)
MLB Lofa Tatupu
OLB LeRoy Hill
DE Patrick Kerney
DT Rocky Bernard
DT Red Bryant
DB Jordan Babineaux (missed one, right?)
That’s astronomically bad luck.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You actually mentioned Robinson and McMullen
that’s what I’m talking about….not depth
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because players wear a Seahawk uniform..
doesn’t make them good…Last year it was obvious that WR was thin for us with Branch coming off of a ACL surgery and Engram aging….yet we let Hackett go (wasn’t upset by that). But we expected “unproven” practice squad “gems” to step in and step up. Ruskell did nothing to insure against injuries at WR and we were exposed for it all season. We were left with Burleson (who’s never been a #1) and Engram (35yrs old) healthy and starting for us. Courtney Taylor looked like a deer in headlights and Obamanu is a 4th option at best. It forced us to use Seneca at WR where strained his calf muscle and forced us to use a 3rd STring QB in Charlie Frye to play because Wallace was hurt. Do understand where I’m getting at with depth.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
Players on the Seahawk Roster that suck, or almost suck:
QB Charlie Frye
LG Mike Wahle (A PROVEN VETERAN)
C Chris Spencer
WR Nate Burleson
TE Will Heller (still a good blocker)
DT Colin Cole
DB Jordan Babineaux
“FS” Brian Russell
The rest of the people on the active roster fit somewhere between “Below average” and “Star”
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you forgot
Jennings
Wilson (he’s okay at times)
Lawrence Jackson
Courtney Taylor
Deion Branch (always injured)
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dumb people are fucking hilarious
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Between the both of us
that’s 10 starters we named…oh I forgot
J. Jones.
make it 11….that’s half of our starters…now you see why we were 4-12.
“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining”.
We are what we were last year.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're a god damn riot man.
I didn’t know they put computers in the special ed classrooms.
You’re so cute! :)
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's where I planned on ending it.
I get frustrated too easily. Had to walk away from the computer.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burly only sucks compared to what we are paying him
He’s a capable return man one year removed from catching ten touchdowns and a solid YAC. I’d really not put him into the sucking category.
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We really aren't paying him that much.
Jackson gets a pass cause he is a rookie. And Wilson made great strides last year.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could have sworn I read somewhere that Jackson was playing with an injury most of the season.
I think it’s way too soon to be discarding Jackson, I imagine there’s something there that can be worked with.
As for Wilson, I’m not sure if he can ever be more than a good nickel defender.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure this is unquantifiable
But I’m going to ask it anyway: How valuable is a good nickel defender? Are there teams that suffer mightily without a good one, or are DC’s able to adjust and compensate without someone like Wilson?
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its probably scheme based.
You can avoid having a good one. But its a nice luxury.
Especially one that can blitz.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly can't say, but if I had to guess I'd say it's a pretty fungible position.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, it seems like it, but usually guys like Engram and Welker are in te slot.
It doesn’t seem super important, but I wouldn’t say it’s totally fungible.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true also.
When you play teams with a good slot guy. Its hard to cover without a Nickel DB.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, Wilson was probably my favorite defender last year.
He’s not a shutdown corner or anything, but I can see him being a GREAT nickel defender, or at the very worst a good #2 corner.
I’m no analyst, but Wilson just seems special. If there was a high quality (not painted on) Wilson #26 jersey for sale, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility Wilson can be a good #2 corner
I just don’t know how likely that is.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His size will make it tough.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, no one really does for sure.
But I just really like the guy, so I’m a bit biased.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was also one of the best kick returners in the League
He had a great average even with so many KR which is statistically important.
by Built2Spill on Apr 27, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nate Burleson does not suck.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burleson does suck..
good punt returner though…he’s the highest paid punt returner int he NFL!
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His DVOA and DYAR are pretty bad IIRC. I remember John saying his tradtional stats masked his true ability
He’s a GREAT return man though.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a 1 and a 2 WR - Ya defiantly below average.
I still thinks he will rape in the slot :)
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can get behind this, but only if his route running, as Brian said, gets better.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much of Holmgrens uber complicated WR patterns and routes hindered him?
Bobby required a few years to understand it. So did DJack, Koren never did.
by Built2Spill on Apr 27, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who has more than 7 WRs worth of depth?
No one plans to have that many people get injured at one position, not even the smartest organizations. The plan was that Burleson, Carlson, and the kids would carry the load for 3-4 games until Branch and Engram came back. And then, EVERYONE got injured. NO ONE has that much depth. NO ONE. What would Indy have done if Addai, Manning, Sorgi, Harrison, Wayne, Gonzalez, Freeney, and Sanders had all missed significant time?
The ‘Hawks were probably an 8-10 win team when healthy last year. But they weren’t a 4-12 team.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
7 WR's ?
We had to use 7 because 1 of the 4 starters was coming of knee surgery…I wouldn’t never even count him in that 7. That really left us with 2 legit starters and a prayer. Nate/Engram/ and the prayer Ben Obamanu. Yes we lost Engram but Engram was getting old and we could not expect him to do what he did the year before. The injuries at WR were numerous but the players that got hurt I don’t think were NFL ready anyway. Payne and Courtney Taylor are not Rice and Taylor. Our #1 and #2 Receivers are Branch and Burleson…how does that stack up against #1’s Fitzgerald and #2 Boldin? Seriously?
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And just like that... "wouldn't never even" is coined.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone read that 4chan meme
with the sentence that looks okay till you read it?
I think Blanch wrote it.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone know how to do more what look like?
Or whatever the hell that was?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The plan was that Burleson, Carlson, and the kids would carry the load for 3-4"
If that was the plan then that was a bad plan. We were suppose to depend on Burleson who is really a #3 deep threat and a rookie learning the West Coast Offense to get us through 3-4 games. That’s why were 4-12. You have to upgrade at positions to add depth. For instance Housz is our #1 now. He was a longtime #2 in Cincy…If we would’ve added Crabtree then everyone moves down a slot. Branch would be a perfect #3 and Burleson a very good #4 while Housz could resume his role as a top flight #2. So if any one of those guys go down were not in dire straights. But when were asking players to do something they are not qualified to do then it lessens our depth. Now without Crabs, if Housz goes down we are in the same boat were practically in last year because now Burelson is coming of ACL surgery…you have understand where I’m coming from on this one.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*Quickly checks games played and games started by Hackett with the Panthers*
9 games played with 2 starts.
13 catches for 181 yards and zero touchdowns. Cut on February 25th.
Why did he miss so many games?
Oh that’s right. He was carrying an injury. So even if he was re-signed we’d just have another injured player on the roster.
Fun Fact: If Patrick Chung and Marcus Trufant were to have a helmet-to-helmet collision, the world would explode.
by SSreporters on Apr 26, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because our original depth, Obo and Payne were also injured, so we had to sign MORE depth.
Branch-Burleson-Engram with Taylor, Obo, and Payne was a decent set of starters with adequate backups. When all of those people except for Taylor, who played ineffectively, got hurt, we had to call up Bumpus from the practice squad and sign retreads. You know why? Because no one has 7 back up wide receivers, not even the Patriots.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think the #1 and 2 WR we have were studs?
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think WR is an extremely fungible position, and while great receivers are nice to have, they are a luxury.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WR is important
I think it’s okay to not to have a #1 WR when you have an elite running game. We got away with that crap before because we had Shaun Alexander and a dominating run blocking line. Once we lost that our WR’s became exposed. So if were not going to have a legit feature back then we need to have at least a #1 WR that strikes fear in Defenses so they don’t crowd the line to blitz. You can’t not have both and survive in this league. Mo Morris, Deion Branch, and Burelson don’t strike fear in anyone. Your thoughts?
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For one, Morris is no longer a Seahawk.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morris
I know that..I was discussing last years roster.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The season before
Hasselbeck had his best season with the same WRs and no running game. The FO believed that fixing the running game and relying on the QB and 3 decent to good WRs(with potential filling out 4-7) would work on offense.
We lost all of our starting OL at different points, and all of our starting three WRs, and our QB.
Your thoughts?
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buffalo
Game one of the season and you saw how we looked. We started 0-2. Hasslebeck had a great season that year but that formula fell short because we lost in Green Bay in the playoffs. Losing Hackett really thinned us out. When we lost WR’s before like Jackson from time to time or Engram Hackett would step up but when we lost him we really lost a lot, and never effectively replaced him. Granted I wouldn’t have signed him to the money the Panthers did but I would’ve added a Free Agent to start camp for added depth.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ya cause Hackett was so effective last year.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In Buffalo we were certainly outplayed
We also had Rob Sims with a torn Pec playing against a monster of a DT in Stroud…and didn’t have good “in-game” adjustments to a trick play FG, good punt returning, and A-gap blitzes. Holmgren looked outmatched on gamedays too often the past year or two, and that game went from a battle to out of control very quickly.
Hackett was an unknown before the past two years, a late pick we had before. We had four WRs with similar stories, believed ONE of them could step up. But two of them got hurt, and the remaining two were the rawest of the four, you can’t predict that.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't predict that....
Then what is the GM’s job then?
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can predict injuries?
Jesus?
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To put players on the field
the coach believes in. I think Logan Payne or Obomanu would have been the more likely players ready on week one. Losing both of them, and Engram in the preseason, was not something that a GM is going to predict.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weird argument, since you say we can't rely on Engram because he's old
and yet we can rely on Hackett, even though he’s never been able to stay healthy?
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Brian
I didn’t realize it until you said it, and I’m not sure where, but at some point he changed from an idiot to a troll.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I'm done too.
Too much energy being spent
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I like Ruskell.
He takes advantage of unplanned situations
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So at this point
from a net perspective, the ‘Hawks got players they’d targeted in the first, second, and third rounds, which means that what we essentially gave up were fourth-, fifth-, and seventh-round picks this year plus a third next year for a first-rounder next year. If you’d offered Denver that deal, they’d have laughed in your face — but that’s what Ruskell’s maneuvering boiled down to.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Teel
Mike Teel is a legend at Rutgers. He looks like a David Greene pick./blockquote>
Of course, what’s different here is that Teel was picked about where Greene should have been. Look like perhaps T.R. learned something from that little unpleasantness. Now let us never speak of David Greene again.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Apr 26, 2009 5:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I still don't like the pick
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who would you have taken there?
Just out of curiosity… We’re pretty much talking about camp fodder here.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Apr 26, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At the time, I was hoping for Peerman
Southerland would also have made sense, though obviously he’s still available; Doug Farrar’s pieces on Follett got me interested in him as well, and he would have been a useful pick for depth, esp. if Hill does in fact leave. (FWIW, I don’t think Hill’s going to; I really do think that after drafting Curry, the ‘Hawks shopped Leroy, found a pretty soft market, and concluded that they’d be safe in pulling the tag. I’m guessing that instead of 6/$36, he signs for closer to 3/$15 or 4/$18.)
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised if Southerland is picked up as an undrafted FA by the 'Hawks.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
and I’m hoping so. I believe in Schmitt, but given that he’s something of an all-or-nothing player, we need another guy back there.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We need some depth at the position regardless
Southerland just seems to be an intriguing possibility.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, agreed
and I’m crossing my fingers.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
San Francisco kicked our asses up and down the draft.
And that’s even excluding Crabtree.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
they had the best draft
but I argue that in spite of that they are such a worse team (i can say this because our season was a fluke) that they are not even in talent yet by a longshit
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They made some good picks
I actually liked the Rams and the 49ers 1st day a lot, and was quite unhappy about that. But what about our first day(the real value of our draft) would you take back?
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing.
Well besides Curry of course but I’ve beaten that to death. I’m just saying that the 49ers had an exceptionally good draft, a stark contrast from the crap the fielded last year.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In hindsight,
they reached a bit on Coffee, but yes they had a pretty good draft.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You haven't cooled off since we took Curry.
Forgive me if I don’t put much stock into your analysis.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see how anyone can justify Curry.
Cool, we gained a decent OLB, now we’re in the process of losing our second great one.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather you not agree with me, but eh.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John and Doug have writeups that go into depth on why the Curry selection is not only justifiable but smart.
If you can’t see how anyone can justify taking Curry, you’re not being rational.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, sure I am.
- We’ve already invested tons of resources and picks into our defense, especially the linebackers.
- We shipped off an elite OLB, the reason given to us being along the lines of how they don’t want to invest that much capital into one position while the rest of the defense suffers and balance out the defense some. Another reason is that we can still field an excellent LB corps with just Hill and Tatupu.
- With Curry, we just replace two OLBs who didn’t need replacing.
At worst, we didn’t lose anything, but we didn’t address any weakness or gain from this besides a large contract for a player who is likely not the next DeMarcus Ware.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the next DeMarcus Ware the only way a top LB can be the best
defensive player on the team? Also, have you looked at a highlight video for Curry to try and see what we are getting?
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but since when do non-rush LBs ever become worthy of a top 10 pick,
let alone top 5?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about him tells you he is a non-rush LB?
You seem to be choosing what you had over what is unknown, and that is understandable. But what if Curry has all of the strengths of both players, plus more?
Do us a favor and watch this, and tell me a 255 lb, 4.55ish LB(about the dimensions of Ware when he came out by the way) can’t be a rush LB. That he won’t blow up screens like Hill, who is smaller and slower than him.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we already HAD Hill who could do all that.
We didn’t need to spend the highest pick in over a decade on someone who is better than someone already very good.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's say Hill walks and all we're left with is Curry.
Right now, the move is a completely lateral in terms of talent. In a season or two, it’s advantage Curry.
You can’t just look at the immediate season coming up when you analyze draft picks.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or, let's say we didn't draft Curry and eventually resigned Hill.
We still have a #4 pick to address something else like OT/WR/QB/trade down.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a huge if.
It’s a very real possibility that Hill only agrees to a one-year tender and walks after the season. Curry is guaranteed to be with the team for a long while.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
K, but at OLB
is an elite one so much better than an above-average starter for a fraction of the cost?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The price Hill was commanding before the draft was hardly a fraction of the cost.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, but Hill didn't cost a first round pick.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't even tell what you're arguing about anymore.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They will both be expensive, but Hill didn't come with the expense of a top 5 pick too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True but...
… if he does walk he takes +8 mil. of the books and leaves a third round compensation behind.
Now to get the best player in the draft with a long term deal with his best football ahead of him, I’d say that’s better then a lateral move.
If Hill said no to 6 years for $36 mil. after the team traded Peterson and gave a show of faith in him. After he fell asleep at the wheel(at the beginning of the free agency period before they tagged him, mind you) .
What inclines you to think he would sign long term or that he hadn’t burned the bridge that everyone thought he might have before the team responded after the incedent.
Agree to disagree I guess but if a player is going to make high demands they better at least have some leverage.
by hawkfanjp on Apr 27, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Economically speaking Hill leaving is a win...
We drafted him with a fourth, and would net a 3rd if he walked (comp pick). Thats buying low and selling high
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but
Hill’s value is much greater now than it was when we drafted him – especially to us. He wasn’t an virtual all-pro LB at the NFL level when drafted.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We drafted him with a 3rd rounder (comp)
Exactly what we’d get back
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't getting a third rounder for Hill.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we lose him the compensation pick will likely be a third rounder.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know?
If I am correct, the Seahawks got a 6th round compensatory pick for losing Hutchinson. They have this complex formula, and I’ve given up trying to figure it out.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could be mistaken.
I think John Clayton mentioned that a third-round compensation pick was likely if we lost Hill.
by BrianL on Apr 27, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your not mistaken
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 27, 2009 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's because we also signed Julian Peterson
so the difference between them was judged to be worth a 6th-rounder.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 27, 2009 7:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but isn't the difference also determined by how their replacement did?
Not by just the net loss of talent via free agency?
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 27, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We actually haven't lost Hill yet.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless he signs for a pittance, we will.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is going to sign him now?
Hill missed his FA boat.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indeed.
Which is why he might not be motivated to sign with us for screwing him out of cash, and sign somewhere else with the guarantee he won’t be under Curry’s shadow.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we offer him a big deal, he almost has to take it now though.
Unless he really wants to take a one year deal somewhere else, which is pretty much all he would get.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We didn't screw him out of anything
he did.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will be the team to offer him the biggest contract.
Wether or not he wants to get paid is up to him.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
If his best offer is 4M a year, you BET he comes crawling back asking if 6/36 is still on the table…allowing us a chance to beat whatever his market value is. And if he makes 7M+ he wanted per year, I don’t think he’s worth that to us.
We might disagree on that.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with you
Like I said, I’m betting we get him for 3/$15 or 4/$18, maybe with one of those never-gonna-happen balloon years tacked on the end so he can save a little face.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also in play is Washington's State Income Tax...
Which is null. If we match a contract offer, he makes more money! The genius of accountants come to play. He decided to miss minicamp and that resulted in him dealing with his “business decision.”
by Built2Spill on Apr 27, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the rational concensus nail hit with the wordplay punditry hammer
Rec’d
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont burn bridges I always say
I doubt Hill will either
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear the Chiefs have enough cap space...
I have to confirm that…
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just watch it for me please,
I hate arguing with you without being on the same level.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Response in bullets!
*The defense was bad last year. Very, very bad. Beyond you can blame the struggles on injury and playcalling alone bad. The defense needs work and new talent brought in, so new talent was brought in. It’s that simple.
*Peterson is getting older and at the same time about to get much more expensive. Banking on him to buck the age curve and maintain his productivity as he gets older and significantly more expensive isn’t smart. The team was also in a cap mess. That alone was reason to either restructure him or let him go. The fact that he was dealt and we managed to get a decent DE/DT in return is a nice bonus.
*Hill’s contract demands are enormous. The money likely required to give Curry a 6-year deal or so will likely be enormous as well. Curry has much higher upside than Hill. Advantage, Curry. In a season or two, I doubt there will be any question who we’d rather be paying that money to.
Hill isn’t even gone yet. By pulling the franchise tag, Seattle’s in a better position to leverage a deal with him. A lot of other teams have just allocated a ton of payroll to signing picks, so the demand for Hill’s services won’t be nearly as high as it was a few months ago. There’s a fair chance Seattle is still the team that can offer Hill the best deal.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And heck, at the very least if Hill walks there's some extra payroll to go grab some help in the secondary or at tailback.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For all we know, the front office doesn't even recognize Brian Russell is a worthless sack of shit.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
.
That “new talent” would be better served off in the secondary or even defensive line. The linebackers certainly weren’t the problem.
Hill is far more proven than Curry and still has excellent upside. I’d rather pay him and not use a #4 draft pick.
He isn’t gone, but he has virtually no incentive to stay. He might take a comparable offer somewhere else just because he could be the featured OLB (like he could have here)
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those look more like ninja stars than bullets...
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hill isn’t even gone yet. By pulling the franchise tag, Seattle’s in a better position to leverage a deal with him. A lot of other teams have just allocated a ton of payroll to signing picks, so the demand for Hill’s services won’t be nearly as high as it was a few months ago. There’s a fair chance Seattle is still the team that can offer Hill the best deal.
I agree and understand what you’re saying, but still, it doesn’t make me any less concerned about losing him. He might hedge his bets by signing Rod Tidwell’ing himself for a shitty contract with someone else only to have them SHOW HIM THE MONEyyyyyyyyyyyyy after he turns in a particularly kick ass season. There are other things that has me concerned about what Seattle cannot offer to Hill that maybe another team could: Super Bowl contention and possibly certain utilization of his talents that he was denied during the past few seasons.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then he should have taken the 8.3M
AND turned in a particularly kick ass season.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We didn't get nothing for Peterson; Curry will be better than Peterson was in 2008 by 2010 at the latest.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm certainly hoping we didn't
It rather sounds like the coaching staff has already half-written-off Cory Redding; here’s hoping he comes into camp and convinces them he can still be a productive player in the middle.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well he's coming off of knee surgery, so there's a chance the staff just doesn't want to get too optimistic yet.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true
which makes me feel better about their rather dismissive comments. If he’s healthy, though, I really like the thought of him playing 3-tech alongside Bane.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously I believe it is time to create a penalty box on Field Gulls.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trust me I'm watching it.
Let me get through all these comments.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad for flipping out on the troll.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No worries.
He caught my eye yesterday.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This reminded me of our troll
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:58 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You seem to believe that Curry, the 4th overall pick
is less of a talent than Hill or Peterson, who was picked in the 16th pick in the 1st round of the year 2000. I disagree with you, believing that he is MORE of a player than either of them.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As of now, yes.
Even if he is eventually a better player, both Peterson and Hill were elite/borderline elite talents at their position. We didn’t need someone who could be the no-shit best at the position (which I’m hedging my best Curry won’t be).
Curry can be an excellent player; we still didn’t need a linebacker.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are completely ignoring Curry's projected upside
which is greater than that of Hill and on par with that of Peterson in his prime.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"greater than that of Hill"
Hill still has excellent upside; was a #4 overall pick with better upside than someone with great upside, was that worth #4 to you?
Peterson was drafted late in the first and was a fine talent, and linebackers who become excellent starters can be found far later in the draft.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We didn't need Curry's projected upside
We were set at LB anyway. Why create a whole to fix when we had other wholes that needed fixing.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you mean "hole" . . .
. . . though given your demonstrated capacity for thought, I’ll admit I can’t be sure.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simple
Best player available.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he's ignoring Hill/Peterson downside
We talk like Hill and Peterson are still (if ever were) amongst the best OLB in the league. They were an integral part of the defense which was awful last year. I agree that maybe LB isn’t the linchpin position that deserves a high draft pick but our LB crew last year was below average, along with the rest of the defense.
by maimster on Apr 26, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our entire defense was shit.
And if we’re prioritizing correctly, our secondary or even defensive line needed to be replaced, not any of our linebackers.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so..... if a "lateral move" in Curry frees up 8 mill...
that allows us to address several other areas.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of think FF should let it go.
But I wholeheartedly agree, that I’m not happy with Curry. I’m not mad either though.
- Curry’s upside is about the same as Peterson. It’s hard to have an upside more than a fistful of pro bowls. Maybe slightly higher I guess, but it’s not like a 10 time pro bowler is that much better than a 5 time pro bowler since fan’s are stupid.
- The Peterson trade is looking weirder and weirder. If Redding is just a one year deal, and his knee in fact does suck this year, we essentially just salary dumped Peterson because we believed he was overpaid. Fine by me, as long as we put the money to good use in 2010.
- Curry will be the highest paid linebacker in the league. This doesn’t make any sense. This means that if linebackers are priced right, anything short of the best linebacker in the league, and Curry is an overpaid player.
- If Hill is worth around 6 years 36, and Curry is going to be paid 6 years 60 million, I’d rather just get Hill. I’ve never been the biggest Hill fan, but I have a hard time believing that Curry will be 1.5 times as good as Hill.
- I personally don’t believe LBs are that important. Even if Curry was the greatest linebacker ever, that would be in my mind, equivalent to a top 20 LT or a league average QB (just ballparking it). This may or not be true, but as it has been pointed out, a great cover LB has never seemed to ‘make a defense’. Usually it’s a corner like Deion Sanders, a Safety like Troy Polamalu, a DT like Haynesworth, etc. If it is a LB, it’s a MLB like Ray Lewis or a blitzing OLB like Merriman or Ware, but both those play in a 3-4 so it’s hard to call them true LBs.
Even so, what were our options?
Crabtree? He had attitude concerns, injury concerns, system concerns, etc. At pick no. 10, he’s worth it, because the guaranteed dollars are less and this offsets the risk adequately.
Sanchez? Sanchez is risky, and I’ll trust Ruskell’s scouting opinion over mine.
Monroe? A big injury risk and perhaps not a great fit for our zone blocking scheme.
I think drafting Sanchez and trading him to the Jets would have been BY FAR our best move, but as far as second moves go, I am satisfied. You can’t blame a guy for wanting to get a guaranteed B+ A- guy at the 4 spot (not A+ because I’m assuming even if Curry reaches his 100% potential, his position caps his contribution at a grade of 90). However, if Curry can get 7 or so sacks a season, then I’d rate this an A.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and I might add
that maybe the Jets didn’t offer us a trade… and the Browns had an advantage with Mangini knowing which players he wanted from the Jets. They were after all ‘his guys’ so they perhaps had more value to him than to another coach.
Also, advocating drafting Sanchez and forcing the Jets to trade with us sounds nice, but, I obviously realize that it puts Ruskell in a bad position if he doesn’t really want Sanchez.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you give Tatupu a grade of then?
75? 85? He can never have a great of above 90 either?
I believe calling Curry a “cover LB” is a misnomer. Herring, the S/LB tweener could be considered a “cover LB” if he lives up to what people think he is. Curry looks like, in comparison to LBs across the league, he’ll grade out at a minimum of a B at: coverage, pure tackling ability, range, pass rushing, fighting through traffic to get to the ball carrier, and play diagnosing.
Some of those it seems he’ll be at an A, or the best in the league at. Which of those it will be I’m thinking depends on coaching and how he is used. But I do believe that he’ll be the best LB in the league at one or more of those skills, while being top 10-20 at all of them. I don’t think there is a LB in the league that you can say that about, and although I await true tape breakdowns of him in college over highlight videos, right now I honestly believe this is the player we just drafted, and by sheer circumstances and luck he fell to the 4th overall position.
When AJ Hawk was taken 5th overall, it could have been considered a reach by some, but it was near the top of where he was supposed to be taken. That’s with him being a big, physical LB with top LB speed and good hands for a LB.
When we took Curry at 4, he “fell” to us at 4. Legitimately. I think there is a clear distinction between the level of player we took and your average “top 4-3 LB” in your average draft. Hawk was the highest OLB taken in a recent draft for a 4-3, and Curry is regarded as better.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The grading system was for LBs or for every player.
It’s like if a player was the best at his position, how does he compare to others. The best fullback in the world would not be better than an above average halfback. The best defensive first baseman doesn’t really compare to an average defensive short stop. That’s what I meant. Even if Curry is a grade of 100 and does everything correct, he still can’t really compare to a no.1 corner or a no.1 DE.
As for Hawk, I agree, Curry is definitely better. Hawk is the guy who does nothing wrong. But he doesn’t make the ‘wow’! play that Curry will. Curry will probably get a few forced fumbles, INTs, TFLs, or whatever, because he is more athletic than Hawk.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree again
Today’s FB is a run blocker, a pass blocker, and an occasional pass catcher and runner. But once upon a time a FB was the primary ball-carrier, and the Half-Back was what we call a scat-back. If a team went without a lead blocker and employed a similar system, then a FB would be as valuable as any HB.
That might feel like I am reaching, but it makes my point as basic as I can. You are assigning positions when you mean to assign “roles.” You are believing that a “pass-rusher” is worth being drafted that high, while a player who is a run stopper and occasional HB/FB/TE coverage man is not a premium player. We both agree on that.
However, linebackers, as we’ve seen in Seattle the past few years, can have MANY roles. Julian Peterson, in a role somewhat unlike his 49ers days, became a situational DE a good portion of the time. So in addition to his normal run stuffing/coverage role, a typical 4-3 LB role in an uninteresting Marshall defense, he also had the Mark Anderson, Darryl Tapp situational pass rusher role. So on top of his 70+ tackles than any healthy linebacker is given in a basic 4-3, he has the opportunity to have (and was very good in) the 4-3 spot that is an important pass rushing role. That he was able to fill both roles showed versatility that LBs often do not have, and with his freakish strength for a 240 lb linebacker and great quickness and speed he was showcased in our defense well.
Hill actually is a better guy in the traditional 4-3 run stopping/occasional coverage role. He was on pace for over 90 tackles, and looked stronger than Peterson at times. His rookie year he played the role we gave Peterson and looked good doing it. He is not quite the speed rusher that Peterson is, but in Peterson’s role should have done a great job this year, and if we re-sign him may get a chance to do that.
Despite the extra versatility we were paying for from Peterson, his coverage ability was no longer great, and his run stopping ability was fine, but not outstanding. So we were paying him as a pass rusher and a “wow” player. Hill would be less expensive and fit the role better, but he is no where near as versatile.
A pure pass rusher will earn 10M a year, and you say can earn your above 90 grade because of the importance of the value. I agree. However, I believe that a LB that can do enough things can also be worth that above 90 grade. We were giving Peterson great money(for a guy coming off a very serious injury and a so-so recovery year) to be that guy that could cover, run stop, and pass rush with equal ability. He didn’t turn out to be that player even though he was worth the money, but it looks like Curry IS that player. He is bigger, as fast or faster, and looks to be better in run stopping and possibly better in coverage, while having the same potential Peterson had at pass rushing. Before we got him, Peterson’s best pass rushing year was 03 when he had 7 sacks, besides that he had 3 and 4 sacks a couple times. His ability to do anything, along with his pure athleticism made him possibly the best LB in the league, and similar to what Doug said, I think Curry can be the player we thought we were getting with Peterson.
With so many abilities, Curry will never have to be taken off the field. He’ll excel at almost anything we could ask him to do, and if he doesn’t, it’s because we are asking him to be a CB. I think he looks like he could play SS adequately in a pinch, interesting considering he has the same 40 time quite a few starting safeties have and he looks like a DB running forward. Kinda reminds me of the scouting report on Peterson actually.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. What's up with the freakin' TOME?
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha, oops
My wife kept coming in to talk to me. I kept thinking I didn’t say everything and I guess I overdid it
Cliff Notes: Curry can fill enough roles that just considering him a basic 4-3 LB(non-premium player) is putting him in a box that is too small. Peterson was signed by us to be the ultimate versatile player in a 4-3, for a lot of money, and that is what Curry brings, the ability to do anything. Making him a premium player.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry is faster than Malcom Jenkins.
That makes me smile. He’s also about as fast as most of the RBs in this year’s class.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was watching a few YouTube videos of Curry
and holy crap does he cover ground in no-time flat.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love what Doug said about him....
What was it?…. on the podcast…
“within 5 yards in any direction he is a destructive force”
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give it four regular season games before I start referring to him as "The A-Bomb"
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NICE!!!!
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to go with Wonderboy.
It doesn’t really have anything to do with him, but it seems like a neat nickname.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But A-bomb can be emphasized with volume so well.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Nastyman?
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I kind of agree and disagree.
True, Peterson was brought in to a mix of things. A cover LB, a blitzing LB, a run stuffing tackling machine LB. But he can only be one thing at a time. I’m saying the LB position in general is not as important. So if he does take some snaps at RE, that would be like Chase Utley playing a game or two at SS, great, in increases his overall value (Assuming he plays league average SS), but 95% of his games are still clumped into the 2b role.
And yeah I’m clumping him in a ‘role’. But I’m still taking 50 years of history into account. I just don’t see a non-blitzing non-MLB to be as important. Granted it’s not like his role is so diminished that he’s a FB or a relief pitcher, but it’s enough so, that I personally am especially leery of taking a LB or a RB with a top 5 pick. And I think that shows in the draft with the lack of top 5 RB and LB picks.
Sorry my response wasn’t as long, I got lazy.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Touche, although I would not want to read my own post
I doubt Curry is a “non-blitzing” LB, considering both on his highlight video he looks like an extremely effective blitzer, and Ruskell believes he is.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You only mentioned the fielding.
Curry would be the baseball equivalent of a 5-tool player. Not just field and sub at an alternate position. Include the plate in the equation and Curry is the home run hitter, average hitter, and can steal bases like the wind. Your average or even good player can’t do all those things. They lack something. Curry may lack pass-rush ability but we don’t know that, yet. He has the physical makeup to make that happen.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes good point by both you and cashless.
IF he can blitz, then he might as well be Pujols. A non sexy position, but good at everything. I kind of thought that he would be a Berkman/Helton, a good guy to have, but not so ungodly for that position that I’m super psyched.
We’ll just have to see how he does. Can’t wait for week 1.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm just trying to be optimistic about it.
He’s not really who I favored, but I’m not going to go all FF about it. ;)
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jesus, I reread this response
and was thinking, what the hell is ‘Hawk’, some random SeaHawk? Which Seahawk? What a stupid response. Good sign to go to bed I guess.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say Curry should be offered the same contract as Tats
But add incentives for excellence. I don’t know why contracts like that aren’t wholesale.
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Once in a decade talent at LB"... is decent?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What exactly about him is so 'once in a decade'?
He was a two-star prospect out of high school and was barely a third rounder had he come out last year. Unless he made a deal with the devil or his genetics just shot through the roof, he’s just someone who improved to a very good player.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because Fearless Frog is crying about Curry...
… doesn’t mean I’m going to discount the plethora of scouting (by professionals) that say this guy was the best player in the entire draft and has instincts and physicals tools that come around once a decade.
PLUS
…are you now backpedaling? In your previous posts above you called him a “decent OLB”. Now he’s “very good”? Keep arguing and he’ll be an All-pro soon enough.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When he entered college
he was 200 lbs. 255 is his current weight at a top 40 time for a LB, and that’s not just him bulking up for the combine as he played between 250-255 and looked like a lightning bolt doing it. Sounds like a weight room lover who is also a great player.
Also, did you watch that video yet?
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of weight room lover...
Try this video… I would say that’s pretty explosive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsvP0FEeTo
Curry powercleans 374. Jesus.
Alas, it is always darkest before the dawn, and there is now a new dawning for Washington sports. Believe it!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Apr 27, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
374? What are they using, Euro weights?
Actually I can’t poke too much fun, since I have weighted plates in KG at my house instead of pounds. 25% cheaper.
by LantermanC on Apr 27, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what, I've given you two days to cool off.
You’re constantly changing your positions and arguments just for the sake of bitching about this pick. Spend some time in the box and we’ll try this again tomorrow after you’ve settled down.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did Blanche get boxed as well?
I rather liked him. And VBJ actually. Trolls amuse me more than anything else. Plus I like seeing POV that most people take, even if they’re wrong and poorly argued.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
POV that mopst people DON'T take.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll formed POV's are fine...
It’s the flip flopping on positions with a general bitchiness that gets old.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both of them are in the box.
Fearless Frog will get another chance tomorrow, I’ll leave Blanche in John’s hands.
I’m all for dissenting viewpoints, but you’ve got to be rational and civil. As soon as you start changing your positions/rhetoric to continue an argument and hijack threads to repeatedly voice your displeasure the line has been crossed.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah... also Brain Being a Mod keeps an overview of the site in composite...
when multiple threads (and unrelated threads) become sounding boards for the same complaint he has a responsibility as a mod to reel it back in.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point, but at least it's not like VBJ
where he made his own post about it. The threads to pertain to the same topic. I mean draft recap is going to head back to the discussion about Curry.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely....
It’s more when threads about Max Unger, and round 3, and supplemental picks……etc., digress into how we screwed the Curry pick up….
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well to be fair, they didn't do any name calling... or not that I saw...
But in FF’s defense, he views Curry like drafting Fields. If the blog views it as bad, it’s ok to complain, but if it doesn’t, it’s not ok, though I do agree, it gets tiresome after a while. Being a mod must be tough.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was warned yesterday to reign it in and has been a problem throughout today in several threads.
He needs to take some time away from the keyboard to gather his thoughts and cool off.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And again, it's perfectly fine to disagree so long as you're civil and rational.
There are several people here who don’t really like the pick and have voiced that opinion. That’s fine because those people have contained their arguments to appropriate threads and haven’t shifted their positions for the sake of continued arguing.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When VBJohnson started arguing in favor of Brian Russell
it kind of became apparent that he was just here to pick fights.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahahaha
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well maybe VBJ was Brian Russell,
can’t blame a guy for wanting fans to like him.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyways, some undrafted free agents I hope we take a look at:
Derek Pegues FS
Brannan Southerland FB
Mike Reilly QB
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah and
Kory Sheets
Ian Johnson
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love Ian Johnson
Not sure if the Hawks are even interested though
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you guys realize we essentially drafted Taylor Mays without the 40 time
With our 7th round pick?
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 6:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
2009 Undrafted Free Agent Signings List
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2009/04/2009-undrafted-free-agent-signings-list.html
Interesting we have not signed anyone yet.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 6:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Alas, the Steelers got Mike Reilly
I still had hopes of him for the practice squad
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good for Reilly.
I’ve always liked him, hope things work out well.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna be rooting for him regardless of the team he's on
I’d love to see him succeed
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
They drafted a QB I thought.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry i missed Draft weekend completely
Real life had me by the balls. I read everyone’s thoughts….and arguements about the draft. I assume this is a wait and see before grading the overall draft this year. the Hill move is interesting. wonder what the front office has up their sleeve on this move.
by Funballad on Apr 26, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm tired and want to watch the Blazers and drink some Duvel to finish up by birthday.
Can the mods please take out the trash and clean up this thread. It’s a train wreck.
by John Morgan on Apr 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"by birthday" or "my birthday"?
Happy birthday, if that is the case
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Apr 26, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian pop on facebook chat real quick.
I got a question for you.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Happy Birthday.
Get some well deserved rest.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And yes, Happy Birthday John.
Enjoy the game and relax for a bit, you’ve earned it.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not sure i understand scruffy
taylor mays and 40 times?
by Funballad on Apr 26, 2009 7:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His point is
that aside from Mays’ stopwatch speed, he has basically the same scouting report as Courtney Greene.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahhh
i see…sorry i missed so much this year …my life has been a train wreak . i havent had time to watch as much as i would like this year.
by Funballad on Apr 26, 2009 7:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No worries.
Train wrecks aren’t fun. Also don’t forget to use the reply button. Just makes it easier to follow the discussion.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know I'm thinking that it would be a good idea to write up some sort of SBN2.0 usability guide.
Covering how the interface works and whatnot.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes i have no idea what some of the stuff is for
the up and actions arent self explanitory
by Funballad on Apr 26, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when the comments are coming thick and fast.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is overwhelming.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most up to date list I can find from
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2009/04/2009-undrafted-free-agent-signings-list.html
Last Updated: Sunday 8:45pm Central
AFC EAST
Patriots
S Marcus McClinton (Kentucky)
CB Jamar LOve (Arkansas)
QB Brian Hoyer (Michigan St.
Dolphins
TE Jared Bronson (Central Washington)
OG Mark Lewis (Oregon)
Jets
TE Andrew Davie (Arkansas)
DL Matt Kroul (Jets)
P T.J. Conley (Idaho)
TE Robert Myers (Utah State).
Bills
DL David Lindquist (Illinois)
AFC West
Chiefs
DE Pierre Walters (Eastern Illinois)
WR Taurus Johnson (South Florida)
Chargers
LB Darry Beckwith (LSU)
OL Ryan McDonald (Illinois)
WR Charly Martin (West Texas A&M)
OT Sam Allen (Grand Valley St.)
OT Dan Guy IV (Baylor)
LB James Holt (Kansas)
Raiders
LB Frantz Joseph (Florida Atlantic)
Broncos
DL Everette Pedescleaux (Northern Iowa)
CB Dominique Johnson (Jackson St)
WR Lucas Taylor (Tennessee)
AFC North
Steelers
LS Mark Estermyer (Pittsburgh)
OT Ramon Foster (Tennessee)
S Derrick Richardson (New Mexico St.)
QB Mike Reilly (Central Washington)
Ravens
QB Drew Willy (Buffalo)
Browns
WR Jordan Norwood (Penn St.)
Bengals
DL Dan Skuta (Grand Valley St.)
FB Chris Pressley (Wisconsin)
AFC South
Colts
DT Pat Kuntz (Notre Dame)
OT Cornelius Lewis (Tenn St.)
Jaguars
WR Jason English (Tuskegee)
CB Peter Ittersagen (Wheaton)
DE Jeremy Navarre (Maryland)
QB Tyler Lorenzen (Uconn)
DE Julius Williams (UConn)
QB Michael Desormeaux (UL)
RB Kyle Bell (Colorado St.)
Texans
OT Jason Watkins (Florida)
Titans
WR Dudley Guice (NW State)
NFC East
Giants
DE Maurice Evans (Penn State)
Eagles
RB Marcus Thigpen (Indiana)
Redskins
QB Chase Daniel (Missouri)
OT Scott Burley (Maryland)
DE Derek Walker (Illinois)
WR Josh Briscoe (Tennessee)
C Edwin Wiliams (Maryland)
Cowboys
WR Kevin Ogletree (Virginia)
NFC West
Seahawks
49ers
DE Pannel Egboh (Stanford)
CB Jahi Word-Daniels (Georgia Tech)
RB Kory Sheets (Purdue)
Cardinals
WR Justin Brown (Hampton)
DB Michael Ray Garvin (FSU)
WR Shane Morales (Oregon St.)
Rams
OG Roger Allen (Missouri Western)
OT Phil Trautwein (Florida)
SS Mark Rubin (Penn State)
NFC North
Bears
WR Eric Peterman (Northwestern)
S Dahana Deletson (UConn)
Packers
WR Andy Brodell (Iowa)
RB Tyrell Sutton (Northwestern)
WR Kole Heckendorf (North Dakota State)
TE Carson Butler (Michigan)
Vikings
S DeVon Hall (Utah State)
LB Andy Schantz (Portland State)
Lions
DT John Gill (Northwestern)
NFC South
Bucs
OL Rob Bruggeman (Iowa)
Falcons
LB Brock Christopher (Missouri)
WR Aaron Kelly (Clemson)
OL Ryan Stanchek (West Virginia)
Panthers
LB Anthony Heygood (Purdue)
QB Graham Harrell (Texas Tech)
OL Keith Grey (UConn)
OT Gerald Cadogan (Penn St.)
LB Brit Miller (Illinois)
OL CJ Davis (Pitt)
Saints
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 7:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
UDFA's for us
Seahawks have signed 6 undrafted free agents.
Michael Bennett, DE, Texas A&M
Tony Fein, LB, Mississippi
Dave Philistin, OLB, Maryland
Devin Moore, RB, Wyoming
Andre Ramsey, OT, Ball State
Tyler Roehl, RB, North Dakota State
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hoping Southerland pops up next
to give us a bit more depth and versatility at FB.
by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 26, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've heard good things about Fein and Bennett
The other 4 I know nothing about. Love to see a couple of em stick around
by Ezzra on Apr 26, 2009 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
YES! Yes Yes Yes Yes!
Devin Moore! ………….. whooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooo
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love Devin Moore..
5’9" 192… with a 4.35 40
…also out benched Aaron Curry!!!! Great ST impact immediately and developmental change-up back.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Devin More and Tyler Roehl
Were both pretty good as far as stats in college I honestly never heard of them before though.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 7:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Moore has speed to burn.
He could be a third down specialist rb as well as help in the return game.
According to Draft Daddy:
Here are some Pro Day times for Wyoming star Devin Moore, that we got from a source close to tailback: 40 yard dash: 4.33 & 4.35; Vertical Leap: 38.5"; 20 yard shuttle: 4.06; Bench Press 28.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa! we just posted the exact same thought at the same time...
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was my last remaining interest at RB, for the most part.
He should unseat Forsett no problem.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and I like JF just fine. Moore would run circles around him doing certain things.
But I don’t know if he’s a tough as Young Nastyman.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moore's strength is ridiculous for his size....
I think it allows him to play bigger than he is.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not a bad vert, either is it?
I’m stoked. Forsett w/ twice the speed. (ok, I may be getting carried away)
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
carried away? maybe... maybe not...
I love these later picks and the “gambling” type rush you get from finding that diamond that slipped thru the cracks.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just as tough as Young Nastyman?
The only person with powers comparable is Wonderboy…
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would think he has a great shot because of his return value...
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Devin Moore is a UFA steal
I was watching a Mountain West Conference draft special looking for sleeper picks. The analysts were really talking up Devin Moore for his toughness on the field telling stories of him coming out of the game, chucking his lungs all over the sidelines and then going back in for more pain. Normally I stay away from too much “tough guy” hype because everyone has to be tough to play football, but Devin seems to have a grit factor a little higher then most running backs. The announcers thought he was the best candidate from the conference to stick on an NFL roster because of his combination of talent and character.
His speed and workout numbers have already been posted, but here is a video of the actual workout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptpytMIytis&feature=related
Here is a video analysis of his tools and talents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_9iM7c-RYo
I don’t want to hyperventilate over Moore, but this is a solid UFA signing. He passes the eyeball test to me, and I keep hearing that he passes the character and heart test as well. Devin has a decent chance of unseating Forsett as the third RB and KR.
by scratchandsniff on Apr 26, 2009 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I am excited.
Rashad who?
Thanks for posting this.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I especially love the 'one step cut' comment.
If our offensive line operates anything like the Broncos line… watch out!
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should addend
What I meant was that the announcers said he was the best “sleeper” type of pick or UFA to stick. Obviously Sean Smith, Kruger, and other more front line names from the MWC have solid possibilities. Their point was that Moore was a player that was too far under the radar despite being a very good running back for Wyoming.
by scratchandsniff on Apr 26, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tyler Roehl interview link
http://www.nfldraftblitz.com/tylerroehlinterview.htm
Interesting player might push Schmitt for playing time.
by A'Seahawks_Warriors on Apr 26, 2009 7:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
well i am off to watch the blazers
had to check in today and will try to get in more often as time allows.
by Funballad on Apr 26, 2009 7:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Deon Butler a split end, not slot, per knapp.
Anyone else see that note? Is it wrong to feel bettter about reaching, if they did, for splitend?
by Steen on Apr 26, 2009 7:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Burleson might be getting the short end of the stick this season.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way, Burleson was going to be awesome last season.
Rookie WR never do well, well, almost never, this is just injury and next year when we cut Branch insurance.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That and the fact that Deon Butler wasn't projected to be a third rounder.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 26, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't get me wrong, I like the Butler pick (not gaga over it though)
but I don’t think he makes much of an impact this year, simply because we have too many options before him. And yes, I do have a soft spot for Burleson so I am a bit irrational when arguing for him.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its hard to say if he is a stretch.
Cause our slots receivers have been very productive over the years.
NEEDS MORE FREEDOM!
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 26, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think its more of true talent indicator
The X receiver is almost universally the best WR on the roster. Its been a nice perk that the slot in our offense can be productive, but I doubt its the preference of the coaches.
by Steen on Apr 26, 2009 7:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hawks sign a few undrafted FAs
Read about it here
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
From O'Neil at the Times
Re: Hill’s contract negotiations
I’ll have to be brief right now so I can finish up my writing for Monday’s print edition of the newspaper, but wanted to stop by and say president Tim Ruskell said the team intends to continue negotiating with linebacker Hill on Sunday night and Monday morning.
Todd France — Leroy Hill’s agent — told the Associated Press that negotiations are ongoing.
Ruskell said the franchise tag was withdrawn because it had become an impediment to reaching a long-term deal. He was asked if Hill was upset at the team’s decision to withdraw the franchise tag. Ruskell referred the question to coach Jim Mora, who said he spoke with Hill on Sunday morning. He said that Hill might have been a little shaken up, but still expressed a desire to get a deal done with Seattle.
That’s going to have to happen sooner rather than later since he is now an unrestricted free agent.
Nothing really new yet, but apparently talks are still ongoing.
by BrianL on Apr 26, 2009 7:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
Of course, these paraphrased statements are almost entirely from the team’s perspective, however it seems to fall in line with the entirely kick-ass job Ruskell has done during the draft. He seemed to be completely prepared, played his cards right, got a ton of value out of the draft, and was still on top of the Hill situation.
Or he’s an AJ Smith and just takes a hard line in any contract dispute.
You have to believe one or the other. I believe the first, those who bring up Hutchinson seem to be repping the second. It should be very revealing to see what comes of this move, considering none of us are at the negotiation table hearing what is really going on.
by cashless on Apr 26, 2009 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wish Seahawks fans would rally at HQ with 'Sign Leroy' signs or something.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So do it.
I would, except I can’t swim 3,000 miles to get there.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm in Hawaii.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Best state to live. By far.
by LantermanC on Apr 26, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not when you want to watch Seahawks games.
90% of the time you have to either order it on TV or go to the bar.
I miss Seattle. Favorite place in the world.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 27, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey! You wanna try it in London?!?
Have to pay $250 a season to get the games streamed in slight delay.
To be fair, it’s much better than it used to be. 3 live games a week (hugely weighted in Cowgirls / Giants / Pats / Colts / Redskins favour), and now a game at Wembley. Been to both of these, and they’ve been amazing – everyone wearing their own team’s jersey, fantastic atmosphere and playing ‘snap’ with Seahawks fans as you walk around. Last year a bloke in a Lofa jesery was so happy to see me also wearing 51 he bought me a beer.
by JamesMurphy on Apr 27, 2009 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Odd.
I was in London for last year’s Wembley game too, also wearing a Lofa jersey and also getting a free beer from somebody for it.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 27, 2009 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sympathize with your situation.
But I still would rather be able to watch Seahawks games without the alternatives. Last year was the first time in 6 years that I missed a Seahawks game. I don’t wanna do that again this year.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 27, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vancouver?
I still have my home out in Hockinson… I haven’t got the nerve to sell it (been here in thailand for 4 years now).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Vancouver as well
I’ve noticed there are a lot of Hawks bloggers from the Portland area.
by kearly on Apr 27, 2009 1:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have as well...
Which part of the Couve?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 27, 2009 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Near the Glen Jackson bridge
I can leave my house and be in Oregon in about 4 minutes. Its pretty cool.
by kearly on Apr 27, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Brian.
Resigning Hill would really make me feel better about the team, and the draft (Curry). I’ll be glued to news like this.
by Misfit74 on Apr 26, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
We don’t have a great DL or a great secondary, and neither of those will be fixed by the start of the season.
Let’s at least have a kick ass LB core to try and make up for the DL deficiencies.
by Nick Andron on Apr 27, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take it.
I’m dying for every bit of news I can get on the whole Leroy Hill thing.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually ok either way on this one Carl...
Wouldn’t mind having Leroy OR the cap space come June 1st when the first round of cap casualties hit the market.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 26, 2009 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I do like the idea of getting the extra cap space...
It has been pointed out that Hill is not likely going to get the same deal that he was initially offered, so the Seahawks will save a little more if they sign him to a long-term deal now than they would have before they removed the tag had Hill been signed such a deal then .
However, I find the idea of Hill being on the team for the long term quite a bit more appealing than saving some salary cap space. I can’t really fully explain it, but I strongly feel that the Seahawks’ best chances of winning are with him on the team, rather than without him.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 26, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
After going through that trainwreck of comments involving Mr. Blache III
I’d just like to say kudos to Tim Ruskell for a successful draft as well as setting us up in the 2010 draft by trading for Denver’s natural 1st round pick. We’re rebuilding from a disastrous season and Ruskell found some top talent.
A year after Seattle embarrassed themselves with ineptitude from their sports teams, the Sounders, Mariners, Huskies basketball. and Huskies women’s softball have pulled a 180 on us. The pattern indicates that the Seahawks will follow through.
Did Ruskell address all of our issues? Probably not. I would’ve liked to see a safety of higher quality drafted earlier instead of in the 7th round so we wouldn’t have to endure another awful season with Brian Russell providing more GIFs than Raul Ibanez. I would’ve liked a RB like Peerman in Seahawk jerseys. But the fact of the matter is that all of our biggest issues were recognized and it was reflected in the draft.
Chris Spencer’s future is unknown and frankly I don’t think he’ll be with the team come September 2010. Unger is versatile and perfect for the zone blocking system and I eagerly await how he performs in preseason.
With all of the talk about needing another wide receiver we didn’t necessarily need Crabtree, but I like Deon Butler a lot. His stats aren’t mindblowing but I first saw him in the Orange Bowl against Florida State and he and Michael Robinson made a great QB-WR duo. It’s not his fault he had Anthony Morelli at QB making some stupefying decisions under center. He’s quick and is an impressive route runner. I am hoping that he becomes our next Bobby Engram (who also was a Penn State alumnus). Engram was Hasselbeck’s safety net during out 2005-2007 run and I would love to see Butler be his replacement.
From first impressions I believe Ruskell did an exceptional job handling his first year with a lousy team and high draft picks. In return even if we do well next season we’re still possibly getting a high draft pick thanks to Denver’s ineptitude. This has got me super pumped for football season.
Let’s watch this all unravel over the coming months. I am very optimistic about our chances next season.
Fun Fact: If Patrick Chung and Marcus Trufant were to have a helmet-to-helmet collision, the world would explode.
by SSreporters on Apr 26, 2009 7:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
UM WOW at the Jags
UDFA LIST
Jaguars
WR Jason English (Tuskegee)
CB Peter Ittersagen (Wheaton)
DE Jeremy Navarre (Maryland)
QB Tyler Lorenzen (Uconn)
DE Julius Williams (UConn)
QB Michael Desormeaux (UL)
RB Kyle Bell (Colorado St.)
QB Nathan Brown (Central Arkansas)
DT George Hypolite (Colorado)
WR Todd Peterson (Nebraska)
S Kevin Patterson (Wake Forest)
LB Russel Allen (SDSU)
FB Brock Bolen (Louisville)
CB Weldon Brown (La Tech)
WR Maurice Dupree (Jacksonville St.)
RB Mike McClendon (North Alabama)
C Cecil Newton (Tenn St.)
LB Johnny Williams (Kentucky)
2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.
by Chickadee on Apr 26, 2009 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For those freaking out about the possiblility of losing Hill
1) Please, please, please calm down.
2) I’m not happy about the prospect of losing him either, or wondering if we improved by trading Peterson and letting Hill go and adding Curry. But, here’s the thing that keeps me from gettting too worried about it:
Kick-ass linebackers do not make a defense great. But they do suck up vast sums of money.
We’ve HAD a kick-ass trio of linebackers for several years now. Our defense has never been better than decent — even when playing well, it depends on the offense keeping it off the field to keep it fresh. It has never dominated or carried the team against good competition for any length of time.
Look around the league at the great 4-3 defenses — they aren’t built on a stud group of linebackers. Maybe ONE stud linebacker as the defensive leader (see Ray Lewis). But in today’s NFL, it’s elite defensive linemen who anchor great 4-3 defenses, and maybe the rare shutdown corner / run-stuffing safety / ball-hawking secondary that elevates a defense above the fray.
Multiple stud linebackers are a luxury, but at the end of the day, the linebacker position is dependent on the rest of the defense being good to really set it loose. The long-term cost of keeping Tatupu, Hill and Curry (or Tatupu, Hill, and Peterson) would consolidate a huge portion of our budget at the least impactful, easiest position to fill on the defensive side of the ball. I’d rather have a balance of talent on defense then a surplus of talent at LB.
by sev79 on Apr 27, 2009 12:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm simply so happy...
to have gotten to the end of this thread… I wish I was smart enough to have never started reading it…
Alas, it is always darkest before the dawn, and there is now a new dawning for Washington sports. Believe it!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Apr 27, 2009 12:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If Seattle signs Hill, where do they use him?
He’s not ideal as a weak sider (especially on a big contract), but I don’t think he’d have a prayer of keeping Curry away from the strong side spot. Or does Seattle see Curry as more of a Derrick Brooks elite weak side guy?
Everything I’ve been hearing suggests that Curry will play strong side in Seattle. If that’s the case, I DON’T want to retain Hill on a big contract. But if they like Curry better on the weak side for some reason, then keeping Hill makes sense.
by kearly on Apr 27, 2009 1:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
excellent point...
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 27, 2009 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On another thread...
I also brought up the fact that it seems many are forgetting a huge area of upgrade that Curry brings to the table. He goes 6’3 250+. Thats 10 pounds on either JP or Hill on a defense that got bullied at times last year.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 27, 2009 2:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they'd run Hill on the strong side
Hill put up monster numbers as a rookie during his rookie year, and in theory, he’s better and more seasoned.
That’d be my inclination
by Nick Andron on Apr 27, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was a good argument for running Hill on the strong side last year.
Peterson was a better passrusher than Hill, but the dropoff from Peterson to Hill in coverage was a lot greater. Still, we ran Hill in coverage a lot. They think Hill can cover, so I wouldn’t be so suprised if they kept Hill on the weakside. We all think that Hill makes sense on the strong side, but have zero evidence to suggest that is what the coaching staff really has in mind.
by michaelfox99 on Apr 27, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seattle hasn't been so fixed about weakside/strongside
and not re-signing good talent because you can’t make him fit is tantamount to setting yourself on fire to save money on your heating bill.
by John Morgan on Apr 27, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm no expert on SS/WS linebacking play...
…but wouldn’t the strongside guy have to be better in coverage? After all, he’s got the tight end to deal with, especially in zone.
Although I really do like the idea of playing the linebackers interchangeably, just like the safeties will be. Keeps them offenses guessing where Hill’s blitzing will come from and which half of the field Curry will be covering.
by djafrot on Apr 27, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you assigned a strongside linebacker and assigned that strongside linebacker to play man cover
then yes, but a defensive coordinator doesn’t have to do that, or at least doesn’t have to do that often.
by John Morgan on Apr 27, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well,
If Hill is the same 85ish tackle, 2 sack LB he’s been the last 3 years playing in JP’s shadow, do we really want to give a player like that a huge contract now that he’ll be playing in Curry’s shadow?
Or do you think Curry will take a backseat for Hill. Or do you see the new scheme as freeing up Hill more than it has in the past?
by kearly on Apr 27, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based on his strengths, and with what Curry can do, I would think that Hill would be used as a strongside.
But in reading the West Coast Defense article, John Morgan suggests in the comments section that with a higher use of the 4-3 over formation, that Hill might be used on the weakside and still be utilized as a blitzer.
That has my curiosity piqued. I think we’re not going to see the same defensive schemes and formations that we’ve been accustomed to. I think we’re going to see a lot of situational mixing and matching this season.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 27, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
