Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Two Years of Brian Russell, Pt. 1

It was shortly after I had proposed to Alanya that I first crusaded against Brian Russell. Then he was mid-tier free-agent media-darling that contributed more with his mouth than his play. He was a leader. Seattle still employed Michael Boulware and there was a superficial position battle ongoing, or so I perceived. In retrospect, the day Deon Grant was told he would play strong safety is the day Michael Boulware joined the to-cut list.

I didn't know Russell then, but as a cynical sports fan with a semi-antagonistic relationship with the local media, Russell excited fear neurons in my amygdalae.

A week into training camp, Brian Russell certainly seems like the toast of local journalists. Now, by all means, I want Russell to be good, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little suspicious of a 29 y/o, coach's son, journeyman DB who gives good quote receiving a lot of attention from the local media--especially when the trait most commonly lauded in Russell is his leadership.

Seattle started the season poorly. After a crushing overtime loss in Cleveland, Seattle was 4-4 and looked only as good as Matt Hasselbeck could make them. 2007 is now seen as a defensive renaissance, one in which the secondary finally stepped up and stopped the deep ball, but that wasn't how it seemed on November 6. Seattle had allowed 428 yards including 364 through the air to Cleveland. It had allowed 431 and 412 to Arizona and Cincinnati, including 299 and 328 through the air. Except, even then, Seattle was bending, but the breaks were breaking for Seattle. It had nine interceptions and allowed only five touchdown passes. It might be that when I wrote this...

Brian Russell:

Target: 9.6% (estimated)

Pass Stop: 18%

Pass Yards: 13.4

Run Stop: 29%

Run Yards: 11.7

That's staggering. Russell must be one of, if not the worst safety in football in all four ratings. When we gripe about opponents converting long third downs, the poor use of zones, and uninspired blitz packages, we might be missing the forest for the tree. A full 21% of Russell's tackles are 20+ yards downfield. Russell is consistently playing so soft, so conservatively, that he's accomplishing little more than preventing the homerun. None of this should be terribly surprising. Russell is a journeyman FS who's been let go by some iffy pass defenses. With two other viable free safeties on roster, it's time Russell's job security is a least questioned.

that I was missing the point. Or maybe I knew the risk a team takes when it counts on turnovers and red zone stands to save itself from a soft secondary and an inability to stop third and long.

Seattle's defense didn't break again until the Division round against Green Bay. It rode career years from Patrick Kerney, Marcus Trufant, Julian Peterson, Darryl Tapp, Lofa Tatupu and solid seasons from Leroy Hill, Rocky Bernard, Brandon Mebane, Deon Grant, Kelly Jennings and Ellis Wyms to an 11th ranked total defense and a 14th ranked pass defense1. That's right, in the season Seattle had 24 sacks from just two players, four interceptions by its middle linebacker, seven interceptions and 150 return yards from its Pro Bowl cornerback, and career years from three players that have combined for ten Pro Bowls, its pass defense was just mediocre. The logical reaction would be to wonder what was wrong, to see how clueless Jordan Babineaux was in coverage, or how Kelly Jennings looked almost panicky when quarterbacks targeted his receiver, or that Brian Russell was a ghost appearing only to frighten and confound Seahawks fans, but instead the best-in-league touchdowns allowed was heralded and every Seahawks defender part of the team that made it happen. Success can create a kind of sated ignorance, and I ignored how fine a line separated Jennings from failure. Russell was beyond ignoring.

November 25

Trufant is well behind Bruce and desperately in need of deep help. That's where Russell, who is working in a middle zone in the endzone, should run over to cover Bruce. Instead, Russell stays in the center though Grant has his man covered, and then doesn't break towards Bruce until it's entirely too late.

Here's Brian Russell's charted stats for the half: Blown Tackle, Blown Assignment, Blown Tackle, Blown Assignment, Blown Tackle.

December 2

Curtis enters Russell's zone and is double covered, briefly. Curtis runs a double move, false step in, slant out, slant in. On the second move, the slant in, he completely sheds Russell. It's now one on one deep.

January 5

Finally, further proof that Brian Russell rots. It's 4th and 1, the Skins are on the Hawks 27, a stop for Seattle gives them the ball and a 13 point lead with about 16:00 minutes left in regulation. Important, yousay? The Hawks D is in a base formation, the Skins run a play action out of a heavy package. Russell reads the play action, assumes man coverage on Sellers, and then is Cajun cooked by Washington's 32 y/o, 284 pound fullback.

There was this feeling that if you saw Russell bad stuff was about to happen. He was an abysmal run stopper: A rickety tackler with a Frank Gehry eye for angles. His coverage ability disappeared if looked at, inspiring supporters to argue his lack of statistics or witnessed contributions were because teams were throwing away from him -- that Russell was the Nnamdi Asomugha of safeties. The leadership argument again surfaced and Russell, CEO of the secondary, received dividends on others' hard-earned plays. When the defense had its darkest hour, mugged and left for dead at Lambeau Field, it was the rush defense that collapsed. Russell couldn't do everything.

Star-divide

1 Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Comment 21 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

"A rickety tackler with a Frank Gehry eye for angles"

Wonderful

The one good thing Brian Russell’s continued presence brings is the chance for more animated gifs of our favorite no-talent hack. What absolutely kills me is how much better the production from safety could be if we had just an AVERAGE player at FS.

by BrianL on May 26, 2009 2:50 PM PDT reply actions  

Adams or Greene for starting safety (etiher FS or SS)

it doesn’t really matter.

Brian Russell is to the Seahawks 2009 offseason as Yuniesky Betancourt was to the Mariners 2009 offseason for me. I found it hard to get excited in the offseason when such a glaring flaw and source of my frustration was not only on my roster, but given very little reason to fear for their job security. Simply put, it’s bad defensive skills mistaken as good defense. I hate when after a sufficiently large enough of a sample size is presented, the people in charge continue to continue along as if nothing wrong was going on.

2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.

by LantermanC on May 26, 2009 2:54 PM PDT reply actions  

Just just don't get it.

Either John and co. are completely, utterly wrong in their (and ours too) disdain for Russell… or the Seahawks’ FO is absolutely fucking retarded.

What the hell is going on? I can understand him staying if he was such a great source of leadership, but I don’t see any evidence of that on the field.

by djafrot on May 26, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

Which brings up the point . .

what does the FO know that we don’t?

This isn’t to say mistakes aren’t or haven’t been made by the Seahawks FO, but they certainly have more information about a) his value as a player and b) his value as a teammate/leader than anybody here has.

by DoubleB on May 26, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

It may not be so much that they know something we don't know

but rather they place a higher value on something like Russell’s intangibles than we do.

by BrianL on May 26, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Or just that their evaluation is wrong

Case in point, Jason David with the Saints. Of course the Saints responded and now have Malcolm Jenkins, and we’re still riding with Rooster Cogburn

by jacobstevens on May 26, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

But woudn't those "intangibles" have to show something?

I can see us valuing his intangibles if the secondary actually played well as a unit, but they quite obviously don’t. He doesn’t make his peers’ jobs easier, he makes them harder. Jennings isn’t great as it is, but when he’s left on an island because Russell is too slow to trundle over to the side, he’s screwed.

Someone please make the argument that if Russell wasn’t there the Seahawks secondary would actually be worse than it is.

by djafrot on May 26, 2009 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

To be honest

that’s pretty much what I had thought. In 2007. Crumbled in 2008. Maybe I was late to the party. The argument’s been soundly defeated, I think, it’s just painfully obvious. I still see the logic, but the comparison of not having Russell needs to be against a replacement player, and not against having only 10 men on the field. (Deliberate setup for speculation about whether we would actually be better with 10 men on the field).

I know you’re not arguing for the other side, but just saying.

by jacobstevens on May 27, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

They must be really set on playing a Tampa 2

Otherwise I really see no reason why Deon Grant should be playing out of position and Russell should be on the field. It makes no sense.

That Frank Gehry line was hilarious.

by PattyB on May 26, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but I think that either Jamar or Courtney could probably

play the cloud safety position just as well as Russell. It’s one thing if he’s a cerebral player and he’s in the right position and see plays before they start, yet lacks the athletic talent to make a play 100% of the time, but he’s not only whiffing on tackles and sacks, but playing out of position, reacting late, providing a false sense of deep security for the corner backs, and getting in the way of his own teammates on some deep balls as well.

2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.

by LantermanC on May 26, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not to mention picking off numerous players from doing their jobs (Julian Peterson vs. Philly, Marcus Trufant @ Miami)

And letting fossils like Edgerrin James reach the sideline and cut upfield while he attempts a tackle at where the back was a few seconds ago.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 26, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

If Wallace, Adams, or C.G. are good enough

then one of them will supplant Russell. It is as simple as that. The coaches at the very least have already questioned Russell’s job security by bringing in Jermaine Phillips for a visit. So they’ve got an eye on the situation. Between Mora, Lewis and Bradley, there should be enough objectivity to evaluate and put the right guy out there. Mora said certain positions will be open for competition, so let’s open it up and see what Adams, C.J., and Greene are capable of. If they’re as good or at least as capable as we all seem to think then one of them stands a better than average chance of beating Russell out of his safety spot.

by Catoblepas on May 26, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

I feel you but...

this is deeper than whether someone currently on the roster can beat him out. It’s a sense of complete bewilderment at how Russell is being evaluated. They did look at Phillips, but as I understand it they weren’t necessarily talking about starting him. It was to potentially compete, which is a very different kind of contract, and why I think he went somewhere else.

Tim Ruskell has been able to look dispassionately at other performances (or expected performance) and act accordingly. For instance, he let Bobby Engram walk despite his continued productivity.

When it comes to Brian Russell though, nobody can make heads or tails of what Tim Ruskell is seeing that the rest of us are missing. Brian Russell may be forced to compete for his job under Mora, but Tim Ruskell is stacking the competition in Brian Russell’s favor. Two undrafted FAs and a 7th round pick is a qualitatively lower level of competition than the kind that Deon Butler represents to Obo, Taylor, and Kent. Russell has a pretty low hurdle to clear — which certainly isn’t out of the question.

We’ve seen Ruskell move with decisiveness and aplomb to fix perceived holes — except in the case of Brian Russell.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on May 27, 2009 7:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

I hope Russell gets beat out

We need someone more athletic and intimidating to play with Grant if we want a top flight secondary. Russell is little more than an adequate backup at this point.

by ASeahawkfan on May 26, 2009 7:56 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't think the answer is athleticism and/or intimidation.

I think the answer is capability. Ken Hamlin and Michael Boulware were athletic enough, but both lacked the Deon Grant-like knowledge of playing the field. I’d rather have a guy who is capable of doing everything well both physically and mentally, rather than someone who is a athletic freak who will be prone mental mistakes.

Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.

by Carl Shinyama on May 26, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good Points

But presumably we don’t have a guy with both physical and mental capabilities with our undrafted and 7th round choices providing the talent pool for FS.

Since not too many safeties get drafted on the first day, those 7th round picks and undrafted FAs represent pretty good value. I guess Adams and Greene could potentially have both the athleticism and intelligence to warrant consideration.

My fear is that, with their extra first round pick (and the crop of safeties coming out next year) lead TR to try to encourage the coaching staff to stretch another year out of BRuss. I like the guy, but he truly does more to elicit my game day f-bombs than any other Seahawk – well, since Rick Mirer, anyways.

by PerryCollective on May 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't know about pretty good value...

A 7th round pick is still almost freely available talent. It would be like a 5th round LB or OL at best. And while those guys do pan out, a serviceable backup is usually considered a success.

2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.

by LantermanC on May 27, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think we're saying the same thing...

Seems like safety is one of those positions where lot of starters around the league were either undrafted or (very) late round picks. I don’t know if it’s because the position is valued low, or because it’s risky to take one higher.

Maybe when I get home I’ll check to see how many starting safeties around the league were 7th round or UDFAs.

I guess it doesn’t matter – but if you hold either viewpoint, unless you have a targeted guy available (and who knows, maybe the Hawks pick Delmas or Chung if they don’t go off the board before they pick in the 2nd), teams probably feel like they can take one late or sign an undrafted FA and get someone to compete for a starting job.

We know they felt good about Adams after last year, so it’s possible that they were confident they’d be able to get another guy with that talent level with that low investment. If they only turn out to be serviceable backups, well, there’s always free agency or a draft class like 2010 where picking a safety in the first or 2nd gets you a game-changer.

by PerryCollective on May 27, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

For some reason Brian Russel reminds me of a DB version of Chris Wienke

Maybe is because its because their both slow white guys without much talent. But mainly just because they both can remain on a team for at least 2 years despite doing nothing good and holding possibly better/younger players back.

by blueverinefan on May 27, 2009 4:43 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies