NFC West Roundtable: Offense
Today a look at each teams offense in toto. This isn't quite complete yet, but will be updated as soon as possible.
Arizona Cardinals
Blogger: cgolden
The Arizona Cardinals offense could simply be described as night and day. In the dark is the league's worst rushing attack from one year ago but standing right next to the 'ugly sister' is the second best passing attack. The two units combine to form an offense that ranked fourth in yards per game and third in points per game. The Cardinals also have the advantage of nine returning starters on the offensive side of the ball, with the only exceptions coming at running back and fullback, and the average age of starters is under 28 years old.
Running Game: When you look at the group as a whole, the only significant change is a running back where they basically traded a highly accomplished running on the downside of his career (if not completely washed up) for a highly unproven back with loads of potential. Whether or not that ends up being an upgrade is almost irrelevant in my mind because the league's worst rushing attack can't get worse, at least by definition. There is a glimmer of hope that the running game will improve based on the fact that the same offensive line is returning with another year of experience. With slightly better blocking from the line, a bigger potential to break off longer runs and play calling that leans closer to 'balanced' there's a greater than zero chance that the running game could crawl out of the cellar and approach respectability, but make no mistake about the fact that the offense will go through the right arm of Kurt Warner as long as he's under center.
Passing Game: Ah the bread of butter of the Redbirds offense. If the Cardinals are successful in 2009, it'll be because Kurt Warner and his host of standout receivers had another great year. Warner's age and complete lack of mobility will always be a concern but when he's able to stand upright in a well formed pocket and sling it down the field, there are few better. The talent at receiver (Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Steve Breaston, Jerheme Urban and Early Doucet) is the best in the NFL and the group can excel in every aspect of the passing game. They've got the guys who can move the chains (Boldin), stretch the field (Breaston) and guys who are capable of both (Fitzgerald). If the Cardinals can get any production out of the tight end position, there's no reason to think this passing game couldn't be top five, if not much better, again this season.
Play Calling: I include this aspect of the offense because many Cardinals fans will point to the play calling as a big reason why the running game was so ineffective last season. The Cardinals too often ran in predictable situations and formations that were tailored to the passing game instead of success on the ground. By season's end most of us were completely fed up with draw plays out of the shotgun formation, but it's a fine line between what's good for the ground game versus what's good for the passing game. One thing that we'll all have to accept is that any offense led by Kurt Warner will be pass first pass second, regardless of how often head coach Ken Whisenhunt talks about a balance offense, but there are some ways that the play calling can help put the running game in better situations.
Overall I think this offense will do more than it's fair share to put the Arizona Cardinals in a position to win most of the games that they play. Regardless of whatever balance they end up with at season's end, this group is going to put up it's fair share of points and the short passing game does a decent job of bleeding the clock most of the time. In an ideal situation, I'd like to think that the running game could creap up to around 20th in the league (an increase of about 34 yards per game) and the passing game would still stay in the top five. The net effect would be an offense that is downright deadly, but only time will tell. As for a grade, I'd like to think that a unit that is top five in yards per game and points per game would be considered an A, but the league's worst rushing attack has to be factored in so I'll stick with a B.
Seattle Seahawks
Blogger: John Morgan
Mike Holmgren is one of the great all-time evaluators of offensive talent. Nevertheless, many believe his departure will be good for Seattle’s offense. As general manager Tim Ruskell began to remake the Seahawks roster in his image, the discord between Ruskell’s talent and Holmgren’s scheme became increasingly pronounced. Last season, Holmgren’s team was losing with Ruskell’s roster. Ruskell signed Greg Knapp and for the first time in his administration, there is harmony between the offensive coaching staff and the front office. That works if anyone knows what they’re doing.
Running Game: Seattle is installing a zone blocking system. Players have gushed over how it fits their skills and will take them to the next level, and maybe it does. I don’t expect a professional athlete to say otherwise. The key to any system working is fit and talent. A zone blocking system can take many shapes, and until we see how Seattle executes it, much less who executes it, it’s hard to say how well it will fit the team’s personnel. If Seattle sticks with Mike Wahle at left guard and Chris Spencer at center, it has a core of athletic blockers that are good in space. If Unger wins out at left all the better, especially for the pass offense.
I thought Julius Jones was a better fit for Holmgren’s man-blocking, cutback heavy style. Both systems emphasize vision. Jones should do well finding holes and picking his way to positive yards in a zone blocking scheme, but I do not expect a breakout or mid-career renaissance. T.J. Duckett has good vision for a power back, almost looking picky at times, and should more than adjust in Knapp’s system. He should flourish.
Passing Game: It all comes down to Matt Hasselbeck, doesn’t it? Passing offense correlates better with wins than any other single component of football. Seneca Wallace, a Charlie Frye sighting and a broken Hasselbeck doomed Seattle to its worst season since 1992. If Hasselbeck is healthy, stays healthy, and hasn’t grown old overnight, Seattle has a worthy shot of fielding a top ten passing offense. It did as recently as 2007. This season, its skill position players are much improved. In fact, every position except fullback has a better receiving option than Seattle had in 2007.
Play Calling: Play calling is pretty hard to qualify with any confidence. There was a sense that in some way the NFL had passed Holmgren by, but it’s possible he just couldn’t work with the players he was given. It’s possible the players he was given just sucked.
The Seahawks are lousy with accomplished players, and should it collapse it will be because accomplishment requires age and Seattle's offense is old. But it takes some kind of pessimist to ignore the great potential. Hasselbeck can still be a very good quarterback. T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Deion Branch form a very good starting wide receiver duo. There’s talent at slot. John Carlson is one of the best young tight ends in football. Jones and Duckett are both young and healthy. The risk is enough to force me to call Seattle only an average offense, but the potential is enough to make this "C" look very foolish come January.
San Francisco 49ers
Blogger: Fooch
The San Francisco 49ers offense is viewed by most as anemic at best. They're on their seventh offensive coordinator in an as many seasons and still trying to figure out which quarterback is the answer. Or at least which is the answer for 2009. The lone bright spot on this offense has been Frank Gore, who has seen his rushing totals decrease the last two seasons after setting the franchise record in 2006. Shaun Hill and Alex Smith continue to leave fans either frustrated or defensive about the QB situation, and the offensive line went from stellar in 2006, to sort of blah more recently.
Running Game: The rushing game has been the highlight for the 49ers since drafting Frank Gore. This will play an even bigger role in the offense of new offensive coordinator Jimmy Raye. Coach Singletary has stated that he wants a bruising running game, as opposed to a light 'em up passing attack. Most fans are hoping the offensive line has been solidified with recent additions because Frank the tank most definitely cannot make it happen all by himself. One quiet offseason move that has made Gore quite happy is the return of fullback Moran Norris. Norris was exiled with the entrance of Mike Martz, but a return to a strong rushing attack requires the fullback skills Norris brings to the table. Aside from the offensive line, the big question is whether Glen Coffee will provide a sufficient alternative to keep Gore fresh and keep defenses off balance. Nobody can say for sure so we'll just have to wait for the season to get going.
Passing Game: I really don't think I need to say much about the 49ers QBs. Non-49ers fans (and even a group of 49ers fans) think the Hill/Smith combo is a joke. However, again, if the offensive line can keep up its end of the bargain, the passing attack only needs to complement the rushing attack. The 49ers do not need to have Shaun Hill throw for 4,000+ yards to make the playoffs. As long as Hill can avoid stupid the mind-numbing mistakes of J.T. O'Mulligan, this offense should be in "good enough" shape. The receiving corps is extremely young, aside from Isaac Bruce, but improvement will be seen. I realize I'm basing this more on potential than production, but guys like Morgan, Hill and Davis bring serious talent to the table. I think the odds are higher that they improve rather than stagnate or regress. I know my fans at Field Gulls will disagree, but that's the glory of debate.
Play Calling: This is an issue for the 49ers simply because of the new offensive coordinator....again. Under Jimmy Raye, what kind of play-calling will we see? Coach Singletary wants a smash mouth running game, but will he and Raye force that kind of game even if it's clearly not working? Will Jimmy Raye truly use Vernon Davis as a more traditional receiving tight end, rather than a receiver? Every offensive coordinator speaks of the talent of Davis, but then proceeds to under-utilize him. Jimmy Raye and the play-calling becoming the ultimate question mark for this offense in 2009. The right play-calling will put Hill/Smith in a position to be successful. Maybe not Pro Bowl successful, but again, this team does not need that from their quarterback.
Although there are a lot of question marks, suggesting the performance in 2009 requires making guesses on the answers to those questions. I won't suggest that this offense is going to explode like nobody would believe and leave the 49ers ranked at the top of the league. It is simply not built to be that kind of offense and I am fine with that. I think there's a good chance we'll see a good to very good rushing attack and a middle of the road passing attack. If that comes to fruition, the 49ers will be in good shape. Accordingly, I'll give them a grade of C. It might not quite jive with my individual grades, but that's life.
Turf Show Times
Blogger: VanRam
0 recs |
71 comments
|
Comments
There's no point in harping on the SF Grade,
but pretty fair grades and good analysis by all three bloggers so far.
by LantermanC on Jul 3, 2009 3:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping for an "A+A+" for the Niners.
One for Gore, the other for Crabtree.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jul 5, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 49ers offense has had all of the explosiveness of a noble-gas mixture.
How embarrassing is it to have the same grade as them…
Anyway, I can’t wait till the defense roundtable begins.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 3, 2009 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not so different from last year
Football Outsiders Offensive Efficiency 2008:
25. KC
26. SEA
27. SF
28. DET
Unless you were just pointing out that both offenses were equally bad, in which case I understand what you mean.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 5, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soooo
with pretty much all of the Hawks’ starting WRs injured and a QB merry-go-round, the Hawks finished ahead of the Niners and Shaun “7-3 Jesus” Hill? Basically, SF < SEA – passing.
And here’s that link you forgot:
by ninjasocks on Jul 5, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot all 5 O-lineman going on missing time.
by LantermanC on Jul 5, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But our Fullback played all 16 games!
by Built2Spill on Jul 5, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...No, I'm pretty sure Weaver missed at least a game.
Or my sarcasm detector is broken, which is very possible.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 6, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The latter ;)
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jul 6, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You did have a lot of injuries
But you weren’t the only team. Your WR’s minus Housh are garbage anyways so losing them doesn’t really effect much. And guess what, you have an old QB with back problems, so that QB merry-go-round isn’t about to go away.
Who is the young developing talent on the Seahawks offense? Max Unger and…. um…. nobody. So maybe we can stop drinking the Seahawks kool-aid and realize the offense isn’t going to be very good for the next few years.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our starters on offense may not be "elite"
but our second-stringers beat your starters. Must make you proud to be a Niners fan, huh?
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll take that statement as a joke
The Seahawks were ranked one spot above the Niners last year!! You have no room to brag. Which second stringers exactly are better than the Niners starters?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Due to a rash of freak injuries, almost every position on offense lost its starters for significant periods
As a unit, our patchwork offense (filled with backups, cast-offs and guys we picked off the street) outperformed your squad, which saw much less attrition.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So to get to the point
Which second stringers exactly are better than the Niners starters?
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our squad (of mostly second-stringers) outperformed your squad (of mostly starters)
I think that’s a pretty clear using the statistics you provided.
If you want to argue that individual players on your team are better, fine. Great players often play on mediocre or worse teams. As a (patchwork) unit, our guys did better than yours did.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
That’s some faulty logic there. The Seahawks weren’t the only team to have injuries. And this roundtable is about next year.
For next year you have a slight advantage at QB (although he is a huge question mark and has limited upside too), are much worse at RB, have a better #1 WR but much less potential, and both teams have meh lines.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's certainly nothing to brag about for either side.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
Lets hope both our teams can make it into the top 25 next year.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year the Seahawks were slightly better than the Niners on offense
[T]his roundtable is about next year.
I think that the Hawks’ offense will improve more from 2008 to 2009 than the Niners will. I think the Hawks will be less injured than last year (knock on wood) and that Crabtree won’t produce rookie records receiving.
The Seahawks weren’t the only team to have injuries.
No, but they were one of the teams most affected by injuries last year. The Cardinals were one of the teams least affected by injury.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with everything you said
Except while I think both offenses will improve, I’m not sure which one will improve more. I think the two offenses are pretty even, with maybe a slight advantage to the Hawks.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's a matter of perspective.
In my view, the Hawks’ offense would have to have the worst case scenarios happen (Hasselbeck, Jones injured or severely declined) and the 49ers offense have the best case scenarios happen (Hill or Smith being competent, Crabtree/Morgan producing at all, the line improving a lot more) to be even.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seneca Wallace is a better QB than any QB on the 49ers, for starters.
One could make a case for the offensive linemen too.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And by better I don't necessarily mean by a whole lot.
But better all the same.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about that
He’s never done much of anything. I know the Niners QB’s haven’t either, but I don’t see how you could be so sure that he’s better than Hill.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 9, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace had 11 TDs against 3 INTs last year
Hill had 13 TDs and 8 picks. Hill had a better completion percentage, more yards and a slightly lower QB rating, but (as mentioned umpteen times) the ’Hawks had a severely injury-depleted WR corps. Hill also had 8 fumbles in 9 games; Wallace had 4 in 10 games.
by thebyron on Jul 9, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Wallace's performance is completely reproducible
by Nate Dogg on Jul 9, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Hill's?
And would a regressed Wallace be that much worse than Hill, if worse at all?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 9, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's say he isn't better than Hill.
If he’s worse, it’s still not by a whole lot. Seneca Wallace is clearly a backup QB, if a good one. Why is Hill touted as such a strong starting option?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 9, 2009 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But, but...
Dre Bly and Nate Clements!
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jul 6, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you aren't insinuating that the 49ers don't have the best LB corps in the league!
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 6, 2009 9:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that they have to be better, they just have lower expectations
If you lower your expectations of their production/performance, you can easily assign them a “B”. They may also deserve a higher grade because they have more LBs on the field at a time.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
What did that have to do with what I said? I never said anything about either of those players or even the defense. Only that neither offense is very good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was actually responding to the post above yours.
If you hit the “up” button on his post you’ll see he was following up on Fearless Frog’s statement: “Anyway, I can’t wait till the defense roundtable begins.”
by thebyron on Jul 7, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah I see.
Still not sure what his point was though. Clements is probably the Niners fourth or fifth best defensive player and Bly is just some random filler.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
...Which, I'm sure, will still constitute a 'B' grade for DBs at least.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 8, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
B? Pahh.
Only A’s are worthy of the mighty 49’ers.
Stacey Nelson throws flaming screwballs.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jul 8, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
I never said Fooch’s grades were fair.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 9, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whooo!
I know my fans at Field Gulls will disagree, but that’s the glory of debate.
Hey, that’s us! Whooo!
Seriously though, the grades so far seem pretty fair. Everyone has huge questions, each grade could easily be way off by the end of the season or be dead on. We just can’t tell until the injuries start hitting.
by Fear on Jul 3, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually don't disagree too much
I see a similar no-production-as-of-yet-but has-potential receiver corps that the Hawks had last year.
by Ezzra on Jul 3, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe VanRam will blow up our acceptance of these grades
…by giving the Rams a B.
I think Fooch is being a bit sensitive when calling us out. I’m a bit sceptical of the individual grades he gave the 49ers, but I think he’s spot on when it comes to the overall. Hill has been successful in the Singletary-mandated conservative offense. While he may not rate a high grade when compared to the other NFL QBs, he just might be a good fit for theirs.
I think the jury is still out, but I think he’s right when saying that there’s more likely to be improvement rather than stagnation or regression. However, they could be an improved offense, and still win fewer games, if the Rams and Seahawks improve from last year.
by PerryCollective on Jul 3, 2009 9:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the Seahawks' chances of improving over last year are much higher than the 49ers'.
But I’m not sure how much “potential” is a factor in these rankings.
by djafrot on Jul 3, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From a team standpoint, I totally agree
Because of injuries, etc. the Hawks are more likely to gain more wins this season than the 49ers, in my opinion. However, I think the individual personnel of the 49ers are more likely to improve – though it may not translate into wins, if that makes any sense.
by PerryCollective on Jul 3, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That does make sense
…and I completely agree. We’ve given Fooch some (deserved) crap for his individual grades, and I’m still not sure whether or not I agree with this one, but since pluses and minuses aren’t being used he’s not WAY off (I’d probably call them a C-) and his analysis seems on the mark. The possibility that their offense improves but the 49ers still lose more games is an interesting one and wouldn’t surprise me at all.
by thebyron on Jul 4, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seahawks?
Can the Seahawks be a top 15 offense still, yep, but there is no way to know until the team is well into training camp and preseason.
If Matt stays healthy (and there is no real reason to think one injury will lead to many more), and if Seneca can build on last years playing time as a backup there is no reason to think Seattles QB depth can not lead them back to the playoffs. Wallace may not be the future answer at QB but he can still lead this team in short spurts (this year). All in all I feel good about this year, but the team needs to start looking towards two years from now. Drafting a QB in the first two rounds next year is must. Also Teel and Rowe need to show they can go in training camp as third stringers and then maybe next year they can shoot for the backup job.
As for RB/FB Seattle has depth, but not the Pro Bowl type talent they have had in the past (Alexander, Warner, Waren, John L, Strong). What that means, who knows, but it doesn’t mean that the RB’s the team have can’t be “good”. I really think Jones can go for 1100-1300 yards if he touches the ball 80-85% of the time. Forsett has the talent to be a great change of pace back (think a notch below Maurice Jones Drew), and TJ has great feet and good speed to go with his power to make the “three headed monster” a legit, monster. Schmitt hits like a brickhouse, and Griffith is a good smart FB so there is talent there. There’s talent there, but alot of question marks until well into preseason.
The TE and WR spot is very good. Housh, Burleson and Branch could be a top ten WR core this year (if all can stay HEALTHY). Add in Butler and Obo as the fourth and fifth WR and that is some nice depth. After those top five, there is still some “talent”. If the team keeps a sixth out of any of the question mark crew (Payne, Taylor, Kent, Bumpus, McMullen, Hass) they may get a nice suprise. I still think the team keeps Taylor and moves Bumpus over to the PS for one more year. As for the TE spot, the team has one of the best “young” TE talents in Carlson, but after that their depth is not good. Owens and Newton are question marks and Morrah, Tereshinski are way to young to think they will even make the team. So, the WR talent and depth are good (maybe great), and the starting TE is very good but the depth is ok/poor.
Then you have the O-line, the question mark. Jones is still a top five LT when healthy (microfracture is not a small issue). Wahle is only three years removed from a pro bowl (95-96 season), but he can’t stay healthy. Spencer has all the talent, but issues with play calling and health. Sims looks good in spurts, but seems to have issues with speed players, and bad footwork. Then you have Lock, the guy is talented, but has not looked as good as he did in 2005-2006 and he has had some issues with injuries as well. Here is where this team starts and stops, if all can stay healthy they could be very good, but if injuries stackup again this team will be in trouble. Unger and Willis are the only two guys I would trust to step in right now, but Vallos and Wrotto are not all that far behind. The starters are good, the depth is ok, that sounds like most of the team, lots of talent lots of question marks.
by JustinWF on Jul 4, 2009 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maurice Jones-Drew in himself is probably a top 10 starter.
Forsett doesn’t have a chance in hell of reaching that. Hell, he might not even make the team.
Also, 95-96 was over a decade ago, I think you meant 05-06 ;)
But I agree more or less with your analysis .On paper, we’re no worse than many of the teams pegged as contenders, but we simply won’t be able to judge anything until we WASHEMPLAE.
…Good god, I want preseason to start.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 4, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
Very true about Forsett. But I really think he has “some” Jones-Drew in him, but maybe I should have said two or three notches below Drew at this point, not just one. I really think Forsett could be a good change of pace guy that can catch the football out of the backfield. As for Forsett “not making the team”, I’m not sure about that. From everything I have read (and seen in the past) Mora and Knapp like to keep a minimum of five RB’s, sometimes six. That leaves Jones, Duckett, Schmitt and Griffith as “locks” and one maybe two more spots. I would say Forsett is a lock for that fifth spot, unless Devin Moore plays out of his mind in camp and preseason (not going to happen, Moore will be a PS player at best this year).
Your dead on with the 95-96 comment, Wahle would be pushing Gray (or Warren Moon) for oldest Seahawk ever.
by JustinWF on Jul 4, 2009 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Forsett.
And yes, 2 or 3 or 5 notches… But I’m very high on Devin Moore. I think Moore can do what Forsett does if he can show the same determination and toughness, but Moore won’t be caught from behind the same as Forsett.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jul 4, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely not just one
One notch below MoJo is Steve Slaton. A notch below that is Leon Washington or Jerious Norwood. A notch or two below that is Forsett.
As for how many halfbacks make the team; I think the plan might be to carry less than usual as we don’t need to lean on our fullbacks as much. 5 still seems a reasonable number, but with 5 Forsett is no lock.
by Vasilii on Jul 4, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree about MJD.
Off-topic, but did you see Steve McNair shot and killed?
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=10643962
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jul 4, 2009 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh My God, no.
Fuck. He was one of my favourite players. I have his Titans jersey still.
by djafrot on Jul 4, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holly crap.
What the hell is going on with high profile people (Jackson, Ed McMahon, Fawceet, Billy Mays) dying lately.
Terrible news.
by JustinWF on Jul 4, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
>:(
The last few weeks have been terrible for celebrities. I hear Clint Eastwood and Patrick Swayze haven’t been looking too hot recently either…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 4, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good writeups
Got the offensive rankings down pat. Arizona should once again be the class of the conference, at least offensively, St Louis is not nearly ready yet to compete, San Fran looks mediocre but with one or two upside players, and Seattle looks good only in the extremely unlikely event that everyone stays healthy.
by Vasilii on Jul 6, 2009 7:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
49ers at least will have the best running game this season!! (In the NFC West)
I hope no one disagrees with what appears to be fact. Of course this comment is directed at a healthy season for Gore. Even if all teams offenses in the NFC West remain healthy, the number one running game will be in San Fran. So will our offense be the most effective? Hey we all know about late in the year how important that ground game will be. I can’t wait for the season to start. Our wideouts will perform.
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 6, 2009 8:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Our wideouts will perform"
I beg to differ. And while I expect a healthy Gore to lead a fairly good rushing attack, I’d give Steven Jackson and the Rams the edge for best in the division. Jason Brown, Jason Smith, and Mike Karney are all great additions in that regard, while the 49ers….re-signed Moran Norris.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 6, 2009 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The oft-injured Stephen Jackson?
Nah
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 6, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
Jason Smith is still a rookie, although he could be very good. You forgot to mention that the Niners signed Marvel Smith and already have a talented young tackle in Joe Staley. I don’t see the Rams line being better (Barron at LT?) although I do think Jackson is a bit better than Gore.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Marvel Smith's injuries were obviously enough to keep many teams away from him for a long time in the offseason.
I don’t think Staley is that great and even if he is, Smith obviously has far better potential.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And as for Staley being someone paving the way for Gore,
I don’t what you’d make of this, but according to it,
The bad news is that in the running game he’s very poor indeed and may well be the most flimsy blocker of all NFL Tackles. Inside, outside, bull-rushed, Joe is consistently beaten by nearly every DRE he faces and if it wasn’t for a dominating display against the inconsistent Dewayne White of Detroit in week 3, the picture would be even worse.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 7, 2009 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed with most of what you said.
But Marvel Smith almost HAS to be an upgrade over Barry Sims and you didn’t mention that. Staley isn’t a very good run blocker and while his potential isn’t as much as Jason Smith’s, he can still get a lot better (and be at least as good as Smith this year). He was a converted TE so he was expected to be quite raw as a run blocker.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I'm not mistaken
Gore had fewer total yards in 16 games than SJack in 12 and fewer YPC than Julius Jones last year.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I beg to differ"
You would!! We will have a WR or TE get 1000 yds and a WR or TE get 750yds. Raye has flown under the radar, and will catch many by surprise!!……………CMON preseason!!
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 6, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're entitled to your own opinion
. . . your deluded, over-hyped, wildly-irrational opinion.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a second
1000 yards from a TE? Are you talking about VD or your rookie getting Tony Gonzalez numbers? Son, you have been playing too much Madden.
by ninjasocks on Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raye has flown under the radar because he hasn't ever led an elite offense before.
I curse the day I didn’t save that chart with the offensive numbers by teams with Raye as an OC. Just about all were in the 15-25 range.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 7, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
He’s not very exciting/good.
by Brendan Scolari on Jul 7, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















