2011 Seahawks Defense
by John Morgan on Nov 29, 2010 2:47 PM PST
Email
Print
We'll do a full tape breakdown this week excluding the irrelevant parts of the fourth quarter. I will focus on Seattle's inability to defend runs around end and defend passes on first down. It is frustrating how easy it is to decode the Seahawks defense. The Leo concept sounded ripe for attack, and though the Seahawks have posted some better sack totals, the defense on the whole is as bad or worse than it was under Mora in 2009 or Marshall in 2008. That burns.
It's allowing more points per game and more yards per game than under Mora or Marshall. And not by a small amount either. In 2008, when Seattle was the 30th ranked defense in football by average yards allowed, it gave up 378 yards per game. This season, it's again ranked 30th, but it's now allowing 399 yards per game. That's. really. bad. It certainly makes you wonder about scheme decisions.
The intention of starting a Leo end was not to tally more sacks. Sacks are a superficial stat -- an outcome associated with good defensive play. The goal is to field a better defense and Seattle hasn't. Under Mora, the Seahawks were 24th in yards allowed, giving up a somehow tolerable seeming 356 yards per game. So, from atop those lofty shoulders, Seattle has stood upon and taken a nosedive.
I dreamt last night and in my dream I asked Pete Carroll if this Leo thing was here to stay or if Seattle would move towards a more conventional 4-3 next season. I can't remember what he answered. That somewhat impacts which players Seattle will retain, but not a ton. Here's a look at who Seattle can, should and probably will not keep around. And where that leaves Seattle in 2011.
Sure things
Young, good, irreplaceable.
Young, talented, cheap.
Young, already contributing, cheap.
Likely to stay
Curry is signed to a big contract. He's talented enough to stick and expensive enough and inconsistent enough to be a drain on the team. Seattle pretty much has to stick with him because the alternative is trading him for scraps.
I thought Seattle signed Cole to be a better Howard Green. Instead he became a starter. There's value in capable depth, because teams that like to rotate their defensive tackles as much as Seattle does really need four capable tackles. Which makes me wonder why Seattle has done so little to shore up the position. Colin Cole is fairly cheap, all in all. His guaranteed money is paid and his signing bonus was small, and so if Seattle wanted, it could drop him, but to what end? Seattle needs to upgrade eventually, but, well, I've been on that merry-go-round for awhile. Cole can stick around and younger players can contribute as part of a rotation.
Bryant is only "likely" to stay instead of a "sure thing" because if Seattle scraps the Leo 4-3 and decides it needs pass rush from more than 1 1/2 defensive linemen, Bryant is again a misfit without a position.
Heater's an RFA after this season, depending on the new CBA. He's good enough, young enough and cheap enough that I expect Seattle to stick with him. Could replace Tatupu.
Balmer is still signed to his rookie contract. He's versatile and talented and young if not particularly good yet.
Good special teams player, good situational linebacker and still signed to his rookie contract.
Davis is young and cheap, but hasn't contributed a ton. You never know with young players. They can appear in 15 games as a rookie and be replaced in the off-season.
Free agents
In his first two seasons, over 32 games and 26 starts, Mebane had 7.5 sacks, 7 tackles for a loss and two forced fumbles. He was bulked up to 330 and playing Chuck Darby's one-tech position. Dan Quinn, Gus Bradley, Jim Mora -- whoever decided he should lose weight and play his "natural" position: 3-tech. He's actually an under tackle now, sort of splitting the difference.
What made Mebane so valuable in the first place is that he could hold up against a double team and still rush the passer. It meant Seattle could start a NFL-type three-tech beside him. Someone that was quicker, more agile and better able to track the ball carrier in space. Even someone like Balmer would make sense, should Balmer develop.
So now Mebane is approaching free agency and I am not sure if Seattle wants to retain him or if Seattle still values what he can do.
The Seahawks have stuck with him this far. Never know, but probably a goner. And to sign where?
Chris Clemons
Seattle will probably re-sign Clemons. I am ambivalent about Clemons. On the one hand, he generates pass rush and makes some plays against the run. I don't want to blame him for other players playing poorly. On the other hand, it's hard to fully qualify how much Seattle is hurt by starting an end that can't help but allow a short corner for opponents to exploit. If Seattle rushed seven pass rushers every down, it would lead the league in sacks but field the worst pass defense in football. Sacks without defense are irrelevant.
Brock is 32 and signed to a one-year contract. He's had a quality season, but given his age, it might not make sense to sign him to free agent dollars. Depends on what he wants. I wouldn't block anyone younger on behalf of Brock.
One-year contract. Seattle has a package called "nickel Babs" so you would think they value him or something about him, but Babineaux is textbook replacement talent. I like the guy, but let him go to a team that's looking for a veteran piece. Better that Seattle give those snaps to a young talent with potential.
My opinion has no impact on decisions made by the front office.
Can't argue his special teams contributions, but Terrill gives you little else to be excited about. Terrill isn't likely to get any better and so there isn't much use keeping him around and taking snaps away from developing talent.
See: Craig Terrill.
Pete talked Milloy out of retirement. This season might be the final straw. At best, he's a pretty good veteran without much of a future.
Expensive veterans
Pete and John will probably review Trufant's contract in the off-season and determine if he's still worth his cap number. If they determine no, it will be interesting to see if the Hawks can renegotiate. Tru is a local guy and has spent his entire career in Seattle. He is not a glaring problem per se, but turns 30 this Christmas. A lot of what can be said for Terrill can be said for Trufant. It's not that he's bad. It's only that he's not great and not getting better.
Same story, different position. Tatupu's the younger of the two and might have some hidden leadership value. Seattle isn't in a cap bind, and so I think Tatupu gets another shot, but eventually the discrepancy between his pay and his value will probably force a move or a restructure.
Special teams contributors
If you had to assemble a defense from the sure things and those likely to stay, it would probably look like this:
LEO: Dexter Davis
UT: Kentwan Balmer
OT: Colin Cole
SE: Red Bryant
WLB: Will Herring
MLB: David Hawthorne
SLB: Aaron Curry
RCB: Walter Thurmond
LCB:
SS: Kam Chancellor
FS: Earl Thomas
Pretty ugly.
Seattle needs talent at LEO, strongside end, defensive tackle, weakside linebacker, middle linebacker, cornerback and strong safety. So, adjust your draft board accordingly. There isn't a ton of talent to salvage and a lot of holes about to open up. Many of the players slotted to fill a hole won't make the grade. Every position needs depth and every position but free safety, strong side end and strong side linebacker need new talent that can push to start right away.
116 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mebane is the only one keeping us tethered to the 4-3, IMO
If we (foolishly) let him go, then we might as well go 3-4 considering the talent we have here.
I don't see why we would
Our LB’s and DL are built for the 4-3, and changing to the 3-4 would require some bigger changes, ones that take seasons to fully transition.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Nov 29, 2010 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
Any young talent in FA?
Not pipe dreams like Ngata but decent under valued players we could acquire? Old people need not apply.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
Your read on Mebane confuses me.
It appears to me that the UT position is far more effective with Mebane on the field. Is there any reason the FO would chose NOT to re-sign Brandon, other than $$$ or possibly signing a more-capable replacement?
To me, it seems like a no brainer. Even if he does demand big money (which is a stretch; he hasn’t really lit the world on fire enough to demand it), I’d imagine he’d be retained. Especially considering the number of holes on the roster.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
What I don't get
is why not just move him back to what he was doing in his first two seasons?
by The Ancient Mariner on Nov 29, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
My read on Carroll's comments about Mebane is they recognize the difference he makes.
That alone doesn’t dictate their plans for the defense or the personnel. Nor his.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
There's a typo in the last paragraph:
So, adjust you draft board accordingly.
Since we’re on the subject of rebulding the defense, here are some of the notable defensive players under the age of 30 that we could target in free agency:
Ray Edwards DE
Marcus Spears 3-4 DE
David Harris LB (likely to resign with the Jets)
Manny Lawson LB
Bernard Pollard SS
Yes.
Among NFL cornerbacks, only DeAngelo Hall (615) has allowed more receiving yards than Kareem Jackson’s 580 this season. Opposing QBs are 32-of-63 for 580 yards and four TDs against Jackson and 27-of-46 for 370 yards and three TDs against Glover Quin. The worst offender by far, though, is strong safety Bernard Pollard, who has been burned at a rate of 22-of-29 for 370 yards and seven TDs(!).
But his struggles this season also mean that he’s likely to be available. And how big of a concern are his issues in coverage if he’s stepping into Milloy’s role at the line of scrimmage?
Yeah, I agree he's awful in coverage. But Milloy is pretty much a liability in coverage at this stage in his career too. It's more about how we'd use Pollard.
The question is, is Pollard any better as a thumper/hybrid linebacker around the line of scrimmage than the much cheaper/younger Kam Chancellor? Kam certainly has the build for it.
He is a very good hybrid linebacker/thumper, and not much in coverage.
None of this is new.
Last year he played fantastically for Houston, however they have him back in coverage more and away from the line of scrimmage, lessening his effectiveness.
I don’t know that he would be so worth replacing Cam with, given Chancellor’s youth and potential, however he would be the ideal type of safety to match with Earl Thomas, I would think.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 8:29 AM PST up reply actions
I think Bradley goes out of his way to put Milloy in position to succeed
and perhaps the Texans don’t scheme around Pollard’s strengths the way Seattle does with Milloy.
That being said, Milloy seems to be very assignment correct. So even when his legs betray him, he’s at least where he’s supposed to be. The same probably can’t be said of Pollard.
I kind of said the same thing in a response a little higher up the thread.
I very much agree that the Texans don’t maximize Pollard’s effectiveness.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
Manny Lawson is definitely on my radar.
Of course I’m pretty sure Jon Gruden will keep him.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
Yep. I face-palmed on that play. That was a gimme sack.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
It happens. Speed was a concern with Tatupu and speed peaks very early.
I don’t want to damn him after one uneven season, especially given his off-season, but his 2010 hasn’t been encouraging.
Dunno for sure but don't think it's decline.
We know successful career paths generally follow something of a bell curve of performance, and sometimes that guides our thinking too much. It might be true in the macro, but when the standard deviation from replacement level to good starter is really somewhat small (difference from starter to league elite is IMO often quite a bit greater), thinking in the macro doesn’t make assessment accurate enough.
So Lofa’s been significantly better a few years ago than this year and injured years (BTW I am convinced he’s very banged up). The tools to return mostly to form are all still present. just because he will eventually decline doesn’t mean a drop within a 3 year period indicates decline.
But I am concerned that his body might just be past viable physical fortitude over the course of an NFL season. Maybe he’s not declining but he’s small and his value lay somewhat in physicality and the injuries have stacked up and possibly he won’t be able to string a year of good games together again.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
Correct me if I'm wrong....
But wasn’t Aaron Curry a MLB at Wake Forest? If so, I don’t really see why the Seahawks organization don’t explore that as an option. Also, I think that most would agree that Aaron isn’t living up to his potential… If he were to move back to his natural position(MLB) we might get to see his greatness.
What about Leroy?
Is he still under contract/would he come back? I wouldn’t want to see him at MLB but he’s better than Will at WLB
Which is kind of a shame.
We all know how good Hill can be when he’s healthy/not under arrest.
by Coach Owens on Nov 29, 2010 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
I'm gonna be bummed when Tru is gone
He graduated the year before I did at WSU. It felt like such a coup when he fell to us in the draft. I got his jersey as a birthday present during the playoff bye week in 2006 and have worn it while watching ever game since. I’m going to hate when the day comes to retire that jersey.
Youth
Seems the equation on both sides of the ball should be: is the incumbent starter likely to be available in two-to-three years, when the Seahawks might again have a chance to be actually good? If not, is there a younger player either on the roster or available in the draft who has a reasonable likelihood of being at least a league-average starter in two-to-three years? If the answer to that question is yes, dump the old guy and start the young guy and see what happens. The regular season next year (and possibly some games at the conclusion of this year) should be as much about talent evaluation and skill-building as it is wins and losses. The Hawks have been ugly the last few years, and it’s going to take some more ugliness to get back in contention.
I think of strong safety. Milloy’s been good, at least in the box and on blitzes. One could argue he’s been the best player on the defense this year. But he’s surely not going to be producing at a league average level in 2013. Will Chancellor? Would the likelihood of Chancellor being a successful starter in 2013 be increased if he were to start this year? Next?
Don't expect a "youth movement" you're speaking about until the Seahawks are completely out of playoff contention
I’d hope if we’re somehow eliminated, mathematically, that players like Chancellor, Thurmond, Whitehurst will start in the place of older, more experienced incumbents.
Being mathematically eliminated, however, is unlikely to happen, considering both the Seahawks’ and Rams’ schedules, and the fact they play each other in week 17.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
I think this is overly simplistic.
The team has a chance to be good next year. No reason to submarine it.
And I’d even argue that disregarding potential to be competitive at current, to myopically focus on younger talent for the future can actually somewhat impede the ability to develop that talent or even scout whether their capabilities are NFL caliber.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
I don't agree with any part of this.
No offense.
Seattle has little chance to be good next year, and playing older talent won’t help that.
Playing younger talent is virtually the only way to know if that talent is good or not. Way too many stories of players passed around the league, not even starting in college like Cassel and Hillis, and then becoming stars in the NFL for me to believe that practice is an adequate tool for evaluating talent.
I don’t think what jaeger says is overly simplistic. I think it’s common sense arrested only by coaches’ and executives’ need to retain their jobs.
Fitzpatrick is proof that playing is the only way.
Fitzpatrick will be a hot commodity in 2011. He was a journeyman just six months ago.
Rich Gannon, Kurt Warner, David Krieg… on and on.
It is what it is...
Kurt Warner is clearly a special case,
but what a freaking special case. A superstar in STL, then a dog’s dinner for the NYG before becoming a superstar once again in ARI.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Nov 29, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
He was actually decent in NYG, though oft injured.
IIRC, they moved on not because of his lack of performance, but because they went and got a QB of the future in Eli…
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
Both the Rams and the Giants benched Warner for poor play
and was replaced both times with QBs that went on to lead the franchise. Warner wasn’t signed by the Giants to a 2-year contract to be a franchise QB. He was considered washed-up at that point (in 2004).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 2, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
So, I had read the SgtSasquatch question that led you to respond with the later post, which was awesome.
To be clear, if I’m not, I am not arguing against playing younger players. I think you made a good point and a good case for how, when and why, and how some of that is active and current right now. Jeager also has.
Sorry; for the sake of brevity (difficult for me) I sometimes present my counter-point stripped down without acknowledging what I might agree with. I know a lot of us in the community here does that. It can be abrasive and rub people the wrong way. Although I appreciate it from others, personally.
We definitely disagree on the prospects of Seattle being good next year. There are so many factors, so many. Very few of them are actually going to be significant or driving factors. Obviously QB stands out. Since 2011 QB is such an unanswered question — it could be Hasselbeck, Whitehurst, a rookie, a traded for player that could be a developing prospect or a makeshift veteran, or a mix of any of the above, maybe 3 or 4 of the above — I just don’t think we can really gauge the likelihood right now.
Normally, you kind of can make a ballpark assessment, and it’s appropriate to consider that in terms of personnel strategy. So if I agreed that it’s more likely that we’ll be bad, I could understand, cast a wider net and forget about the single season in front of you if it impedes your ability to build the future. And I recognize: it easily can and often does impede.
Deciding the chances are low now, and suggesting abandoning the season, to me is defeatist. And myopic. It’s well intentioned and still just as capable or potent of a personnel and building strategy as within a more certainly appropriate scenario, so I’m not so greatly concerned or anything. I just think it’s not terribly appropriate right now.
Which is not a significant thing, really, except that I don’t think a single season is something to take lightly. I know there’s potential to fall into the trap of pursuing a winning season now and it costing you for the long term, and I think that’s what we have at the moment. That potential can be mitigated, and recognizing the potential risk, in and of itself, is not quite enough for me to buy in to directly manifesting that mutually exclusive conflict, and pursue the future with strategic disregard for the current.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Why does playing a younger player now (i.e. Whitehurst as primary example) "suggest abandoning the season."
It isn’t defeatist and myopic to “go young.”
If anything it is optimistic, as you are looking at how much more potential those young guys could have to be good by the END of they year, when it matters more.
We went the other route, played the vets, looked better the first few games, but then the ceiling was reached, and we look to be going the wrong direction since other teams who DID go young are now reaping the rewards of higher talent ceiling players maturing before their eyes.
It is actually easier argued, given the quite clear results that show the divident of playing the older players has not been all that great at 5-6, that it is far more myopic to play the older players out the gate.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions
Well, "go young" the resulting tactic of the strategy I'm arguing against rather than the reasoning behind the strategy.
“Go young” isn’t defeatist.
“We won’t be good next year so don’t bother trying to build a winning team but instead spend those resources on ‘going young’ to increase prospects of developing better players for the future 2 to 3 years from now” is defeatist.
And I say above, I’m arguing against it, but I’m not really arguing against it, just arguing about the bounds of building for the future, and arguing against the forsaking of the objective of competing right now.
I can get behind “going young” in very many situations. Earlier this year, leading the division playoff race and hoping to get better over the season, not so much. I wanted to see how good this 2010 team could be. After this KC game, I can get behind it, even in the midst of the still hopeful playoff race.
For the remainder of this year. I don’t see the value in starting with the presumption that next year is lost.
Gotcha.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
One reason I feel this way, is I don't think it's viable to fully employ a youth & future pursuit.
I have seen it done. I have seen Tennessee completely blow it apart. They’ve also constructed good teams with veterans and castoffs without blowing it completely apart, but I have seen the complete do-over. I have seen it work.
I think it’s difficult to do, difficult to sell, difficult to be viable even if you sell it and do it, because you’re kind of stripping context. You’ve said it can become difficult for you to evaluate some Seahawks relative to the rest of the league. Expanded scouting would rectify that somewhat. There would still be some concern, I think.
Since we know how difficult it is to separate individual performance from the rest of the team, does that hinder coaching? I think training is not hindered, but observing what needs correcting can be hindered. Playing rookie QBs before they’re ready may be a fallibility, but I do believe in development of players being hindered by a bad team forcing them into bad habits. I do believe that good teams evaluate, acquire and develop talent better than bad teams, but I also believe it’s easier to develop talent within those optimal situations. Veternas “taking a rookie under their wing” is an inflated factor, often a non factor or an inhibiting factor, but I do believe it can and often does make a positive difference.
I don’t know if you feel the same way. If not, maybe that’s why you think, when there’s a conflict, embrace what’s more important and has greater prospects for success, which is long term building.
Since I do feel this way, I hope you see why I think future vs. now is overly simplistic and not likely viable to me. Emphasize and maximize the youth and the future, yes. I think the 250+ transactions of Carroll & Schneider is part of a strategy to enable more chances at picking up on developing talent. The time limit inhibits certain evaluation, but it does enable more chances than the typical static 53 man roster. Yes, I am in agreement that developing talent is essential, it’s ethereal and difficult and you can’t just rely on scouting and drafting to get the right talent, you need to maximize your chances. I’m with you there.
Just with the caveat, as much as is feasible. I don’t think complete disregard for veterans or current seasons is feasible. Maybe that’s not how you feel and that sounds like a straw man, but it’s the only position I could understand that would lead you to disagree.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not clear here-- are you saying that Tennessee is a success story for constructing good teams with vets and castoffs?
Because if so, show me where those well constructed teams have won any playoff games? Because that’s what it’s all about, right? Getting to the playoffs? Winning? And I can’t seem to recall many playoff teams that made it while “rebuilding” using primarily older veteran players.
Almost every substantial and long term “mini-dynasty” (including our own in the early-mid part of this decade) was constructed using a youth movement that matured and developed, as opposed to taking a mediocre at best team and adding a few solid veteran pieces. And that is why you go young, when given the opportunity.
The potential one step backward to get five forward have clouded everyone’s view. The win now ethos turns into a desperate cry to focus only on the six inches in front of your face, when there’s a whole world of better possibility out there.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I don't care to establish a baseline using playoff wins or anything,
but I was saying that Tennessee had completely blown it up before, going radically young to maximize potential development, and came back within a couple years to be good again. They did eventually go on to add veteran talent like Mawae, but they more or less started by blowing it up. That to me is one of the best real world examples in the NFL that I think you guys are advocating for.
And it worked, in my mind. I think it accomplished what you are thinking of and hoping for. A competitive team. Results aren’t indicative of the success of this kind of thing, in some ways. They went 13-3 and didn’t make or win a Super Bowl. Not because they weren’t that good. Most teams in the playoffs are that good, good enough to win it all.
Does that clear it up? I’m saying, I’ve seen it work. And then saying, it’s still not so likely to be successful that it’s clearly the right or superior strategy.
As far as how other teams have found success, I don’t know if mini-dynasties and above have all done it one way. I don’t know.
But the contrasting example to make is not to take a mediocre team and add a few solid veterans. Nobody here is shooting for mediocrity. And not going balls-out, “forsake the chances of the next year or two” youth-oriented, is not shooting for mediocrity.
It’s building for the future as much as possible within the bounds of still competing right now. I understand if you, John, jeager and others don’t feel like that’s youth-oriented enough. I think you have good reason to. I just think that’s about the extent that I would be comfortable with myself, and I know I have good reason for that boundary.
Gotcha.
Wasn’t sure which evolution/time frame you were looking at with the Titans.
Well stated.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:53 PM PST up reply actions
Sobering
My buddies and I were just to the left of picture, 2nd row on the 5 yard line. I could see the writing on the wall after that play.
The only sure thing we have built towards to the future on defense is the secondary, which will be enduring a painful growing process next year if the trio of Thomas, Chancellor, and Thurmond III all start.
That, and I'd bet another CB is drafted in the off season.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
If we could perform 'inception' on Pete Carroll, what idea would we plant in his head?
by farmer cam on Nov 29, 2010 4:08 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Sign Brandon Mebane and Mike Williams to nice, long contracts.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
by Nick Andron on Nov 29, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I would say draft defense defense defense...
and a quarterback
A Center even.
I am seeing Chris Spencer start to surface as a substantial component to the ongoing problems with the running game. Good pass blocker, though.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
But you're right, the guards and RT are much worse needs.
by jacobstevens on Nov 29, 2010 4:22 PM PST up reply actions
I hope Unger can become a good player
That would eliminate a need. I don’t see it happening though. He seems to lack the strength to be functional
by hawksfan1401 on Nov 29, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed. So frustrating -- everyone had high hopes for him
He and Curry just haven’t justified their draft position. Unger has started and gotten a ton of game experience, but just hasn’t performed.
I'm hoping a year not playing just spent in the weight room building explosiveness and bulk will help Unger be functional.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
Was that subliminal advertising?
Because I have a sudden urge to palm a grapefruit.
Even the greatest inventions , theories or concepts throughout history
could be made better with the addition of tits.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
word on the street is that Tits draft stock is dropping
failed the wonderlic
I knew Tits should have come out earlier
Punks jump up to get beat down.
by Lo Pann on Nov 29, 2010 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
How about Wonderlic my balls?
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
The question is, where does this young talent come from?
After the draft, there really wasn’t any available was there? Basically, in order for this defense to get better, it’s going to take a few more drafts and maybe some shrewd Balmeresque moves.
A lot of our current defenders can benefit from better teammates
A better Over DT to push or replace Cole, another OLB if Heater is moved to MLB, another CB to replace Tru or Jennings (and keeping Clemons & Mebane)….that’s a much better D after a singe offseason.
Instead of signing Brock and Siavii and Milloy, etc
Play less capable players with better potential.
On the Seahawks alone, Forsett/ Hawthorne were low-round/undrafted players hardly given a shot. Practice and prejudice is not a solid way to evaluate talent. Want to know if someone can play in the NFL? Let them play.
so, in reality, if we are to rebuild this defense in a hurry
we’re going to need to find steals in the late rounds and undrafted free agents? What about free agency?
I don't think it's a very strong FA class.
And “in a hurry” might be a stretch.
Though a new coordinator might be a start.
(Which isn’t to say Bradley is bad, but defensive coordinators are known to work magic (and the opposite))
When you're playing as bad as the Seahawks D.....changes have to be made
They looked soft and out-of-position yesterday. Coaches should take some responsibility for that.
Completely agree.
The coaches need to be held responsible for the team they field. True, they were handed shite for talent. But that is why they get the big bucks. They have the entire offseason and training camp to get their best guys ready, get their backups ready, and put together schemes and players to compete on Sundays.
The win/loss record and statistical ratings are not kind to the Seahawks, and there needs to be accountability for the coordinators as well. Unless always compete only applies to players.
To be fair, the Seahawks' d-line was absolutely fantastic until we lost Mebane, Bryant and Cole.
Around that time they were about fifth-best or so in the NFL. I don’t blame all of the problems they’ve had recently on Quinn.
by Coach Owens on Nov 29, 2010 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
We also played mostly bottom of the league run offenses
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 30, 2010 9:20 AM PST up reply actions
We played SF, Gore is/was among the best this year.
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Let's not forget about screen passes!
What drives me crazy more than anything is we stop an opposing offense on 1st down and 2nd down. Now its 3rd and long and screen pass for 20+ yards. We need to figure this out.
Draft
I think we should draft a really good ref for Seattle kinda like new orleans has. I’m torn as to what I think the Hawks should use as their number one pick…. Qb? DL? OL? Or sniper who shoots balls mid air. Cannot wait to see what new team we have next year after we win the Sb this year. Yay Go Hawks!!!!!
by DKrottenhawk on Nov 29, 2010 6:10 PM PST via mobile reply actions
As I said on Sunday
There aren’t enough draft picks to fix this team. Ruskell really put us in a bind.
This season has surprised me in the way they have relied on veterans.
At SC one of the things Carroll was known for was playing true freshman if they had more talent. I am a little surprised that attitude hasn’t shown itself yet.
From a psychological point of view, does anyone think that maybe Carroll is focused on winning now in order to justify his hiring or quiet the critics? Maybe trying to win a little leeway(sp) in order to survive a youth movement next year? Just a thought.
I thought this was giving me a deja vu vibe. Glad I know why now...
"You tell me with confidence that you think Charlie could have done better and I will laugh beer in your face." JohnnyOsprey
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 2, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
I hope Lofa is gone myself.
And since Aaron Curry is already somewhat adept at shedding blockers would it not be wise to at least try him at MLB with responsibilities of blowing up running plays, playing a deep middle in zone and occasionaly blitzing. It just seems like expecting him to play the run, zone cover, man cover and rush the passer (even occasionaly as the nose) is expecting too much. I mean how many NFL linebackers do all that and are successful.
Since he was drafted I have just drooled over the idea of Curry being a MLB in the Urlacher mold. If Curry did move to MLB and was successful where would be a better spot for Hawthorne SLB or WLB?
Pete is great, but remember hes all about his image.
You know how bad he wants to show people that he can carry NFL weight now being back in the league? He employs these veterens to patch certain spots up on the team because he wants to prove everyone wrong. He wants to be the guy who turned a 4 win Seahawks team into a NFC West champion. (doesnt say much)
It would be ideal if we could utilize these veterens that have already peaked (stokely´and milloy) for backup positions to young talent, not the other way around… Implementing a stratgy that responds to young players’ injuries with veteren experience is perfect because you are substiting the young player with someone who can provide peak performance for a short duration.
In addition
He will put in the guys that are going to provide immediate impact… He needs to make the playoffs, even if it means taking reps away from younger talent….
In Regards to Lofa, have you compared pictures with him now from when he started in the NFL.? dude dropped in size so much…
We have the 30th ranked defense after week 11...
So your assessments seem right on. In all fairness though, the Seahawks have had a really tough schedule…
According to nfl.com, the seahawks defense has 6 of the top 10 offenses in the league on it’s schedule as of week 11:
Chargers (W)
Giants (Big L)
Saints (Big L)
Chiefs (Big L)
Broncos (L)
Falcons (?)
I think we might rebound this week as a morale booster against the 1-10 Panthers though…
If the pathetic
panthers come to town and whip the nonexistent Seattle Defense, Gus Bradley should be publicly fired on the field following the game, live on television.
John Hancock
by mrcoffee1969 on Nov 30, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions
Carolina, for all of their losses are the against the pass...
I honestly wouldn’t be shocked if Hasselbeck thows more INT’s if the run game still has no traction…if we lose this game with another flat performance, I think we should play Charlie the rest of the way and see him get some more experience…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
