Seahawks Notes: 9/4/10
by John Morgan on Sep 4, 2010 11:57 PM PDT
Email
Print
- At 71, Dick Lebeau was the defensive coordinator of the NFL best 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers defense. That's uncommon. Lebeau is uncommon. Alex Gibbs is uncommon. Gibbs is 69. A lot of the talk about how Seattle could have or should have anticipated Gibbs retiring, or that Seattle is off the hook for Gibbs suddenly retiring because Gibbs is old and old people struggle with health, whiffs of ageism. Right now, the sum of Gibbs' health problems is that he's "worn out." That's pretty nebulous. Keep in mind, Gibbs has "retired" before. Maybe there is more that we're not being told, but until otherwise informed, I will consider Gibbs' early retirement just as I would any other coach's retirement on the eve of the regular season: curious, unexpected, concerning and presumably caused by something neither Gibbs nor the Seahawks is eager to talk about.
- Josh Wilson and Kelly Jennings are free agents in 2011. Under the since dissolved 2006-2012 collective bargaining agreement, Wilson would have become a restricted free agent and Jennings an unrestricted free agent. Walter Thurmond did not make Josh Wilson expendable. Seattle did not need to chose between Wilson or Thurmond. It could have, if it was so inclined, kept Jennings, Thurmond, Wilson and Marcus Trufant. Thurmond did not force Wilson out. John Schneider thought trading Wilson for a conditional fifth round pick was a good deal. Assuming Trufant and Thurmond were off limits, Schneider thought Jennings in 2010 plus the pick acquired for trading Wilson was more valuable than Wilson and Jennings in 2010, or Wilson in 2010 and whatever if anything Jennings could have fetched in 2010.
- Seattle retained Mike Williams, Deion Branch, Golden Tate, Deon Butler and Ben Obomanu. It ditched T.J. Houshmandzadeh. Among players Seattle could have cut in place of Housh: Kennard Cox, Kevin Ellison, Jordan Babineaux, Roy Lewis, Matt McCoy, Craig Terrill, E.J. Wilson, Chester Pitts, Steve Vallos and Julius Jones. That isn't to say those players are bad, though you might disagree about a few. It's to say Houshmandzadeh was not the 54th best player on this team.
- Not one of Williams, Branch, Tate, Butler or Obomanu is anything like a proven, stable, reliable receiver. Williams has previously flamed out (though, admittedly, I am a big supporter of Williams.) Branch is an injury risk. Tate has looked shaky and green. Butler has yet to prove himself in regular season action. Obomanu is mostly a special teams contributor. Seattle didn't cut its worst player. It didn't cut from a position of strength. It is in fact quite publicly courting Vincent Jackson. It cut a good, necessary player for no apparent reason.
- The Housh release feels like a botched trade attempt. That's my opinion, speculation if you will. I think Seattle attempted to trade Housh, told him, he shot his mouth off as he's wont to do, and knowing that he would be released, the market died. Unfortunately, the damage was done and the team had to drop him. I am high on Williams, a long-time defender of Branch, think Tate has huge potential, am lukewarm on Butler but was impressed with his preseason and am a big supporter of Obomanu. This team is worse without T.J.
- Is it fair to say Schneider has a pretty ardent size bias? Or is it Carroll? Whoever it is, I used to talk about how to identify a potential Tim Ruskell pick, and after an offseason with Schneider, I feel like I can comfortably pencil in under preferences "big and tall".
- What made the team draft Earl Thomas who is every bit as short for a safety as Wilson is short for a corner? That still confuses me.
- Pissing contests about size or intensity of fandom are stupid. Particularly frustrating though is the argument that good fans do not criticize, or good fans have been through worse and so know better than to be alarmed by questionable moves. That to me is like saying a good citizen shouldn't vote or a good spouse shouldn't confront a loved one that suffers an addiction or a good home owner shouldn't fire the groundskeeper that took a crap in their azaleas. Caring means having opinions. There is no accurate black or white description of John Schneider and Pete Carroll's performance, but if you do not think the Seahawks have done anything wrong, anything, anything, anything wrong, I have a hard time believing you actually give a crap about this team.
- I would contend, in fact, and this is an opinion I have considered since sanctions came down on USC and Seahawks fans appeared out of the woodwork to defend Carroll, that many of the unblinking supporters of Schneider and Carroll do it because they want the Seahawks to win, and any criticism of Schneider and Carroll is classified as a threat to that possibility. See, and we all know this, wins will ultimately decide the two's fate. And wins will ultimately decide how people perceive the two. And so, in a twist of logic but one that makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, if Schneider and Carroll did not make mistakes, then Carroll and Schneider are good, and the Seahawks will win.
- I do not think that Schneider is purposely moving out Ruskell-era players. Red Bryant was found a new position. The linebackers are intact. Kelly Jennings in many ways beat out Wilson for a roster spot. Chris Spencer is here. Sean Locklear is here. Max Unger is here. I can think of more. It's not about Ruskell. It's about a different standard for talent evaluation.
- That different standard seems to be bigger, taller and faster.
- Which is maybe what I am most bothered by. Ruskell had his failings, for sure, but many of his less traditional picks were his best. Lofa Tatupu was too small and slow. John Carlson was too slow. Josh Wilson was too short. Justin Forsett was too small and slow. Darryl Tapp was too short and slow.
- Targeting big, fast players is going into the teeth of the market. Everyone gets that if a player is big and fast, that's good. A successful general manager finds those elusive qualities that make a player successful.
200 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Ruskell re-signed him
I consider Locklear a Ruskell player in the way I considered Deon Grant a Ruskell player.
Fair argument.
I think you’re right about one thing: The crucial requisites that Carroll and Schneider seem to be targeting in players are big and fast.
But I get the feeling that the players need not necessarily be both. Consider: Deon Butler is on the roster and while he’s fast, he’s not big. Also, as you said yourself, Earl Thomas is as short for a safety as Josh Wilson is short for a corner, yet he’s fast. There are more examples, but I am sure you can figure for yourself the players who fit the criteria with ease.
I think the other dimension to consider besides big and fast, is whether or not the player is a playmaker. It would explain the Earl Thomas and Golden Tate selections, while promoting Mike Williams (and to some extent, the release of Houshmandzadeh), etc., though it would not explain why they got rid of Josh WIlson, who is a playmaker and kept Kelly Jennings, who is not.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions
You mentioned that
point being, I wouldn’t consider something like how much of a “playmaker” someone is.
Perhaps Carroll and Schneider do.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Big, headline grabbing, plays
On defence it amounts to:
sacks
interceptions (especially pick sixes)
forced fumbles
skull-crushing hits
It is not necessarily steady, fundamentally sound, or even an asset to the team. Troy Polomalu is a ‘playmaker’ and could find himself in the hall of fame if he can stay healthy (big if) and continue to play at this level. Jordan Babineaux is also a playmaker. No one on this board will ever forget his shoestring tackle of Tony Romo in the ‘06 wildcard game. But he’s not a very good defender, and barely an asset.
Well, if indeed Carroll and Schneider consider something like how much of a "playmaker" someone is, and I can't answer to whether or not they do
But even if they do, I still can’t answer for them, given that as you so rightfully said, it is subjective.
But if I were answer it based on what I view what a “playmaker” is, I would qualify it as someone with the intangible quality who benefits his team such that it that seems to exceed the conventional levels of production, whether measurable or not.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it's entirely subjective
I would think that things like DYAR, even simple yards per carry/catch, or interceptions can give at least rough estimates of “playmaking” ability.
Obviously, those kinds of numbers are easy to make a fetish out of if you don’t take care to put them in context.
In the larger sense, I think with Housh specifically, Q/PM may be (perhaps in anticipation of a crappy season?) targeting players who might challenge their a-thor-tay, so to speak. I really like Housh, and don’t think he’s a bad guy, but he made it clear at times last year (I thought) that he was no fan of Greg Knapp’s offense. I don’t think Carrol and Schneider want that in any way, shape, or form.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I can agree with that.
Though, I’m not sure if Housh’s outspoken nature rubbed the authorities the wrong way.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Some guy in a room making plays for the playbook.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
by SSreporters on Sep 5, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was thinking along the same lines.
With the selections of Earl Thomas and Golden Tate with two high draft picks, I don’t think we can say for sure that they are targeting size accross the board.
The only spot they might be looking at height is at CB. I think it was Brock that pointed out that in all of Carroll’s years at USC, he only had 1 starting CB that was under 6’.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 5, 2010 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Thomas confounds
Tate is still decently big. 5’10", 200 is a common build for a wide receiver. Thomas is undersized.
My Early Take on the Carroll/Schneider Doctrine
“Big, Tall, Fast” or something more aptly called “A Rare Combination”
I don’t think they are targeting one specific attribute for a given position. They want a player who rates really high in multiple attributes. They are willing to risk a lot to get this. So…
Mike Williams is not simply tall. Otherwise he would be named Jordan Kent. Hands, route running, and the way he uses his body to shield defenders are combined with his height, to make him special. The risk? He’s a potential head case who could eat himself off the team.
I’m guessing Walter Thurmond is not simply a 6-foot corner. He shows an athleticism (I know, subjective, but there aren’t even good quotable measurables on this guy, are there? Anyway, he returned kicks. He’s athletic!) And, somewhere said recently that he’s good in press coverage. The risk? That knee.
Earl Thomas is not simply fast. He has a CB’s hips. He possesses good ball skills, and the ability to read offenses. The risk? He’s tiny. Paranthetically, I’m really worried about this. He nearly gave himself a concussion hitting one of the small receivers in the league (5’11, 184lbs.). What if that hit had been against Larry Fitzgerald (6’3, 217lbs.)?
Josh Wilson was fast. I could say he was good in off coverage, as well. But, I think you could make the argument that management didn’t think he excelled at enough things. His height not being the primary factor, but a factor among many.
I think the one pure Big, Tall, Fast pick was Jameson Konz, and that move had practice squad written all over it.
So, where Ruskell wanted whatever qualitles you get from being a 4-year starter at a big university program (which, we have learned are not many), Carroll/Schneider are willing to go anywhere to get that “rare combination”. Including to the street, or 3 newly minted knee ligaments, or the jackass who tested positive for weed at the combine.
by rymong on Sep 5, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well said.
There have been many times over the last 2 years and even in the playoff runs of 06 and 07 where it looked like we didn’t match up physically with the better teams. I think having a new administration that realizes that you can’t just field a team of high character guys with high motors and expect to beat the better teams in the league.
Earl Thomas is not tiny
Compared to other FS in the league. Compare his size to reed, sanders, or polamolu. They’re all pretty similar.
by cmoney18 on Sep 5, 2010 10:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
To make your point, you are asking me to compare Thomas to...
the guy with serious neck and hip injuries in his career? (Reed)
the guy with the blown out arm? (Sanders)
the guy with the twice injured knee? (Polamolu)
I’m worried about Thomas getting hurt and you’ve shown me three small safeties who’ve missed serious time to career threatening injuries. Well, I don’t think Polamalu’s were that serious, but you get my point.
I wasn't trying to comfort your fear of injuries.
If we’re trying to analyze how the FO values size I thinks its fair to look at size relative to position.
by cmoney18 on Sep 5, 2010 10:28 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Point taken.
Sorry, if my response was a little snarky.
Also: I know there measurables say there of similar stature, but I’d still like to see Thomas standing next to Reed or Sanders. He just seems smaller to me.
Both Troy and Sanders have made careers out of both exceptional ball-skills
and VERY physical play.
I’d imagine their injury histories stem more from an affinity to lay the wood.
For some reason, I just don’t think ET will ever been an extremely physical safety.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Sanders and Polamalu have been injured while playing SS a lot more often than FS
Here, Earl is going to be asked to be FS a lot more than he will be asked to be SS.
I do not think the size of each of those safeties were correlational to their injuries. Football is a hitting sport, and safeties, especially SS’s are greatly exposed to violent collisions.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Only thing Reed and Polamalu did was give their defense an identity that offenses feared....
Ed Reed 5’11 200lbs Tckl: 409 solo: 382 sacks: 5 FF: 9 Int: 46 TD: 6
Troy Polamalu 5’10 207 lbsTckl: 453 Solo: 345 Sacks:7 FF: 7 INT: 20 TD: 1
Ya those guys didn’t do much for their teams, defenses or secondaries.
Their effectiveness wasn't being questioned,
only their injury-proneness.
I would rather have a playmaking injury prone safety..
then a 6’2 220 lb safety that hits hard and plays in the league for 15 years.
"Everyone gets that if a player is big and fast, that's good. A successful general manager finds those elusive qualities that make a player successful."
This is a very good point and my biggest concern about the new front office.
Big and fast are good.
I like big and fast in players.
But there are more important things than big-and-fast, and I hope, truly hope, that our FO can identify this.
They grabbed Earl Thomas because he is a “playmaker” despite his smaller-than-average size. Being a “playmaker” seems to be connected to having an “it factor.” A “nose for the ball” or a “nose for the endzone” or playing with “purpose” or “violence” or being a “playmaker” or “great instincts” are all aspects of the “it factor.” Players need this to be truly successful. Earl Thomas seems to have this. Deon Grant didn’t.
I’m not sure why they got rid of Wilson (and others, some of whom seemed to have a certain amount of “it factor”) though the “not in their long-term plans” line seems to fit.
So long as the Queen-and-Prime-Minister can identify this extra “it factor” in players most of the time, we can be successful. If they value big-and-fast over this “it factor” our team is boned for years to come. Though the team still has the best fans, and only some of us are big-and-fast.
But we’ve all go the “it factor.”
I wouldn't disagree with that.
But, “it” is still necessary in a good player. “Good” also being subjective, as are words like “big” and “fast” and “shaky” and “Ruskell-era players” and most of the other words you and the rest of us have used to describe players in this post. However, I think “gut instinct” is part of how choices are made about players, and I think that a player who lacks some measurables gets picked by a team because of this unquantifiable “it factor.” You can use another word that might be more to your liking, but that would be another subjective choice.
Unless we’re all writing using a rubric like, “for a tight end: big means larger than 6’4” and 240 pounds" and “for a tight end: fast being under a 4.4 second 40 time” I’m not sure why we’re quibbling about “subjective” terms.
Big and fast are not subjective. They are relative. As is "good." "Ruskell-era" is concrete.
“Playmaker” is subjective. “It factor” is subjective. Neither have concrete parameters but only describe a feeling. A sense, hunch, etc. In other words, purely subjective.
"Drafted by Ken Behring" is not subjective.
I get that. I understand true and false. I recognize my occasional poor-word-choice might suggest otherwise.
My lesson on “relative” versus “subjective” is complete. I admit fault in this aspect of my education.
I think many of my comments came across in a, er, “different” manner than they were intended. It is late, and was late when I wrote them, too. I’d reword them if I wrote them again. But I felt they were harmless and I am unsure of the reason for initial reproach.
Yes
I can deny your belief that Wilson was an “it factor” player. It’s very easy for me. It’s easy because if you look deeper than the surface of his production you can see that Wilson only had “it” against lesser competition and somewhat unusual circumstances – like 2 INT’s against a QB with a bad throwing shoulder, playing in a snowstorm.
I think John's point was that you cannot objectively deny that Wilson has the "it factor"
But that you can only subjectively deny it.
He’s going off of what we can find in players objectively.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Not convinced.
Two INTs against one QB is not “it factor?”
So you skipped right over the part where
Those two INT’s came during a game where the elements of snow were involved, and the QB who threw those INT’s was battling injury to this throwing arm? Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s dig even deeper. Who was this QB who gifted Josh with those INT’s? It was Brett Favre – one of the biggest gunslinging gamblers among NFL QB’s in the history of the game; not to mention the current career INT leader among all NFL QB’s. On any given day Brett Favre is good to make even Kelly Jennings look like a 1st team all-pro.
And yet, Kelly Jennings still didn't have 2 INTs.
Even with all the snow, and the biggest gunslinger in the west? So Kelly Jennings can look like he has “it-factor” in those situations?
I think not.
And since you decided to pick on his two-INT day, what does you have to say about his TD returns, all three of them? What about his return yardage per INT? None of this works in his favor?
I hate the term "Gunslinger" too.
Mostly because it’s an awesome word, being a gunslinger would be an awesome profession, gunslingers are defined by their accuracy and ability to kill quickly, and yet it’s used to describe a QB who takes chances and is reckless with the ball.
It was used to describe QB's almost lovingly.
But now it’s used by intellectual football fans as a negative, because the best QB is going to be thinking about percentages and the safe play and calculating trigonometry before they throw the ball.
/sarcasm
The should call them "Han Solo"s.
The term “gunslinger” is kinda stupid now matter how it’s used. Gun-users don’t sling guns, they sling bullets.
Han is aggressive, occasionally reckless, and shoots from the hip.
Please don't include Kelly Jennings into this conversation
He doesn’t help illustrate anything other than he is Kelly Jennings. I merely mentioned him as an example, so please do not take an inch and stretch into a mile.
What have I to say about Wilson’s 3 TD returns? Again – surface production that when examined more closely doesn’t look quite as impressive. Who threw those three separate INT’s which resulted in TD returns by Josh. We have J.T. O’Sullivan, Matthew Stafford, and Kyle Boller – 2 bottom of the barrel scrubs, 1 very green rookie.
Wilson is a natural threat at any point in which he gets the ball in his hands – no question. But if you’re only picking off passes against the J.T. Sullivan’s and Kyle Boller’s of the league, then you’re going to hit some fairly long dry spells.
Don't include Kelly Jennings?
On any given day Brett Favre is good to make even Kelly Jennings look like a 1st team all-pro.
Sure. Please don’t throw in blatent hyperbole that is clearly wrong to try and illustrate your point. You mentioned him as an example, then ask me not to use him as an example? Funny.
I’m debating this with you because I’m avoiding schoolwork, and because I’m enjoying taking this as far as you want it to go. When you define “it-factor” into something concrete, THEN try and illustrate how it is Josh Wilson does not have it.
Until then, you seem to be arguing that Josh Wilson’s stats are better than his play. I would tend to agree that his stats might be inflated, or I might tend to argue that he is dominating inferior players as he should, something that many NFL players cannot do. But that’s not the argument you are making, so I’ll argue it-factor with you all night/morning. Pistol has pizzazz, flair, or even je ne sais quoi.
Your turn.
Stay on Target
Jennings isn’t the issue here, that’s all I’m saying. It’s funny because I just had a feeling that you are so in over your head in this argument with me that you would actually reach at something like Jennings – thereby almost turning this into a Jennings vs. Wilson argument, which was never my intention in the first place.
Like I said, on any given day. Favre has shown this time and time again, in fact many DB’s around the league will tell you that they relish facing him because he likes to challenge DB’s and/or do risky things with the ball. On that particular day, Wilson got the best of him – just as many DB’s to have ever played against him have. It could have been Jennings’ day, but it wasn’t. It could have just as easily been Brian Russell’s day.
As for the “It-Factor”, I’m not even the one who got the ball rolling on that, so I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at…
Easy.
John’s point was simple.
"Playmaker" is subjective. "It factor" is subjective. Neither have concrete parameters but only describe a feeling. A sense, hunch, etc. In other words, purely subjective.
Going over very easy to understand concepts in arguments. One being, don’t argue in subjectiveness, argue in concrete terms. If you tell me stats overrate Josh Wilson, and then tell me what you’ve been saying, you are pointing out compeletely correct information. Saying the stats overrate him is somewhat subjective, but telling me where he got them is concrete, and enhances your argument.
When your argument is that Josh Wilson lacks “it-factor,” it is a weak argument anyway, because of the subjectivity of it. “It-factor” is defined in somewhat fuzzy terms as the “”http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-it-factor.htm" >indefinable something that makes someone special" That just being the first google reference that is not to the “it factor” show. Synonyms, would be the words I mentioned like “Pizzazz.” For me to say that “there is just something special about Josh Wilson” and you to tell me that there isn’t is an argument that is unwinnable for either of us.
That was the point that John was making to Chirp. Unfortunately, you jumped in and created your own definition for “it-factor” that really was more about how good he is.
Go ahead and tell me to stay on target, but you missed the target as soon as you began to discuss this topic.
As for "It" factor
When I think of a player having “it-factor”, “it” encompasses most everything that player does. “It-factor” in relation to Wilson is related to what he does when he gets the ball in his hands – I do not dispute that. But does that or has that “It-factor” truly been there when this team needed it most, like with something actually on the line? No, not really.
Someone mentioned Babineaux as having “It-factor”. I think that is probably a better example of a player having “It” even though that quality about Babineaux would seem to be fading.
I really don't like the term "it" factor in football
I think for each of the “it” factor’s you are discribing a specific skill set can be listed. Sometimes they are fringe and unmeasurable, but they aren’t just “it”.
Ball skills
Play instincts
Positioning
There are many of them, but they can be described. If you are looking for “it” factor, watch american idol.
Josh Wilson has very little track record in "on the line" situations.
You are looking for a clutch player? A defensive player has a very minute affect on where a ball is to be thrown, or run to. Unlike a QB ( who has the most impact when a game is in the balance) or a skill player that QB might give the ball to, a defensive player is no more than 1/11th of a defense. So to judge him for not being there for the team with the game on the line is silly. It’s not basketball, it’s football.
“Big play Babs” is a player John identified as more lucky than good a while ago. It’s fading predictably, because the truth is he can’t man cover due to a lack of elite athleticim, and he just can’t stop a reception from happening period. He was in the right place, right time twice against the Cowboys on plays that happened to win the game, but if another reasonably aware dime-back and special teams player was in would he have not made those plays?
The argument over “it-factor” has not been furthered by you or me one bit, for the same reason I mentioned before. It’s subjective.
I am not turning this into a Jennings vs. Wilson argument.
However, you tried to when you told me that Jennings could have just as easily had two interceptions on that day, as could Brian Russell.
So then, riddle me this?
How do you know?
Instead of watching Wilson’s play on those interceptions, and evaluating whether the ball was just thrown straight at him or whether he read the play and used an elite jump on the ball to make a play that those players could not have, you are simply discounting him due to his competition.
“How” he gets his interception says more about his skill and ability than who he gets it against.
Why has Jennings only had one interception in his career when he’s played against all of those quarterbacks that you mentioned? Favre, Boller, O’Sullivan, Stafford?
Because.
A player that makes a play because of his skill is far more likely to repeat it than a player that makes a play because of blind luck.
And John puts in a lot of time here to expose one or the other, blind luck (good or bad) or skill. While he’s not the all-knowing authority on all things football. He looks a hell of a lot closer than a broadcaster or beat writer, and is interested in differentiating between skill and luck.
If you don’t care to know the difference, then you’re not going to get as much out of this site as you could be.
What I don't care about
are the variables involved where Kelly Jennings or Brian Russell are concerned as they relate to getting the best of a QB like Brett Favre on any given day. There’s no point really to breaking that down and explaining it. It is a generalization, nothing more. I’ve watched Favre over the years, and I know he’s got streak tendencies – one of which is going INT throwing sprees.
Honestly, I don't
In my heart, I feel I know both players very well. Through statistical analysis, some of these things can be verified.
Quite honestly, I feel Kelly Jennings and Josh Wilson are close to being one in the same in terms of talent; it is just that their talent is divided up differently among different traits.
But honestly, I could care less which one is truly better than the other. I don’t expect Jennings will be around with this team for much longer past this season unless he does something simply amazing and unforeseen this season.
I understand.
Some say “don’t sweat the [details].” That’s you.
Some say “God is in the details.” That’s not you.
It depends
The Devil is in the details where it pertains to things trying to figure out just how Brian Russell or Kelly Jennings could have similar days to the one that Josh Wilson had against Brett Favre.
God is in the details of breaking down Josh Wilson’s seemingly borderline elite statistics.
But this long, messy, and ultimately unresolved debate was just a textbook example of what the main point was.
Subjective arguments can be argued, but cannot be won.
Sure they can. The unbiased masses vote for the winner, just like American Idol (/sarcasm).
I vote Cashless won. He may have no cash, but he does speak cents. (Hey-OoooH!)
Ruskell-era is not concrete.
Someone already argued with you about whether or not Locklear counted as a “Ruskell-era” player. Concrete means that it is a hard fact. You then set your parameters for what “Ruskell-era” meant for you. So, NOW “Ruskell-era” as seen by John Morgan is concrete. But your opinion that it is concrete does not necessarily make it concrete.
I guess I should have just kept my mouth shut? Apparently using subjective terms is not something you like, and since you run the site, I am open to chastisement when you disagree with my terms. My opinion is that coaches and general managers look for unquantifiable and immeasurable and subjective aspects of players, and choose them partly based on those parameters. No, I cannot tell you what those specific parameters are. But yes, I think they exist.
No, "Ruskell era" is concrete
One might argue the specifics, but there are factual restrictions to what “Ruskell era” can possibly be. For instance, Joey Galloway is not “Ruskell era.” Objectively, Galloway can not possibly be classified as “Ruskell era.”
Now, can you tell me whether Jordan Babineaux has “it factor”? What is “it factor” as defined by Schneider and Carroll? Or is it an amorphous term that can be applied to justify about anything?
I understand.
This is plain stupid and irrelevant to the Seahawks. Why doesn’t everyone agree to disagree and stop nagging at eachother about certain terms. John, everyone may not be as knowledgeable as you. But we are all Seahawk fans, so can’t we just get along? I’m not sure if this is a case of a bad mood or the terms that are being used really do piss you guys off that much. Either way it’s Has nothing to do with the Hawks. I understand it’s been a crazy week, but we need to keep our calm. You guys are great, so let it be.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Sep 5, 2010 2:36 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm pretty sure every person talking is calm
And I don’t think anyone is not “getting along”. I think they are discussing a common trend in sports-fan culture like rational adults. The fact that the discussion got so abstract is proof that “it factor” and all that other scout-speak bullshit is so nebulous.
Playmaker, on the other hand; I have my own, personal, subjective definition for. It is a person who has a greater ability than the average starter to score points on any given play, provided they are on the field. I don’t force this definition on other people, but that’s what it means to me.
Playmaker
That’s exactly how I would define it too.
by PhoneHomeET29 on Sep 5, 2010 12:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't really know what to make of all this offseason
I’m remaining optimistic, but we’ll see when the games start being played. Could go either way. I really don’t have a clue!
I admire your optimism.
I am usually a glass-is-half-full person, but I am pessimistic to the point that I believe the Seahawks are picking in the top 5 next spring.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
I doubt that.
NFC West is soft, there’s talent on this team, Seattle is facing a pretty soft schedule overall. I actually think Seattle is a darkhorse for the NFC West. Depends on the long term impact of Singletary’s death camp and the development of Alex Smith, but, otherwise, who’s gonna win the West? The Cardinals?!
I think the Cardinals have a better shot of it than the Seahawks.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I realize that.
The rest of the team as a collective is somewhat decent.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions
More, or less awful than Leinart?
And great article bee-tee-dub, it was Hemingway in it’s ability to make me admire the writing and conclusions, and feel reeeeeeally shitty at the same time.
This may be the first time ever 7-9 wins the division.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
If we beat the 49ers next Sunday, I'll start thinking you are correct.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Seriously. Unless Brees tears his ACL the Saints will thrash the 49ers
So already they’re in an 0-2 hole.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
This is the first time in a few years I've been excited about
this teams direction. From bringing in new up and coming coaches to the way the FO handled the draft. Now while i don’t agree with the Wilson trade I can somewhat understand it from the FO point of view.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
And This...
What made the team draft Earl Thomas who is every bit as short for a safety as Wilson is short for a corner? That still confuses me.
Earl Thomas is 5’10. That is what he was measured as being during the combine. As far as I know that measurement is not being fudged, like is common with a lot of players in the NFL. The rule Schneider (and now which Carroll obviously subscribes to) is hard and fast – if you play DB and you’re less than 5’10, we won’t draft you. There are obviously other factors involved, but the one regarding height would seem to make no exceptions.
So because ET is 5'10", you draw the line there?
Safety is a taller position than CB. Thomas is at least as short for a safety as Josh Wilson is for corner, if not shorter.
You draw the line at 5'10 with DB's, period.
It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking corner, or safety.
That’s the point I am trying to make. Earl Thomas might be short by safety standards, but he is just tall enough for a DB according to the standard Schneider follows. Go back and look at the last decade of Packers drafts. You will not find a single DB that they drafted which was under the height of 5’10.
And the Packers drafted a number of “short” safeties during that period of time. Nick Collins is only 5’11, so was Marques Anderson. Marviel Underwood was 5’10.
I just think that basing the "no exeptions" off of such a finite group of players is wrong.
You can’t say how many out of 20, or 50, or 100 draft picks would be 5’9" or shorter. So the sample size is ridiculously small. I’m not going to go through the Packers draft picks to see if you missed one just to prove you wrong, and I doubt you are wrong.
But the fact that Earl Thomas is no shorter for a safety than Wilson is for a corner is still true. I can believe that they believe height at CB matters more, because they need to be able to match up man on man in jump ball situations. But I really don’t think there is an literal line drawn between 5’9" football players and 5’10" football players. “Oh, Earl Thomas.” We’ve been scouting you all year, we LOVE your style of play. But, are you 5’10" or 5’9"? 5’9"?!?!?! SHIT! Now we gotta look for someone else.
Placing a value on height, and completely ignoring players below a line are two different things. If they drafted Earl Thomas, I have to believe they could draft Earl Thomas at one inch shorter.
I don't make the rules
I’m not the one who devised this formula. I’m merely trying to show you some of its very basic principles. Height is a factor to Schneider. He learned his craft from guys like Ted Thompson and Ron Wolf, and what he learned from them is that you do not draft (or really even traffic with) DB’s under the height of 5’10.
As I’ve stated previously, there are probably a lot more variables that go into the decision to draft a particular DB, but height would seem to have a hard and fast rule. Now normally, my guess is that Schneider and Carroll would not necessarily be looking for safeties that are 5’10, and would rather have a guy who’s 6’1 or so. Because Earl is the insane playmaker he is, however, he works for them – even though he’s at the bare minimum in terms of height standards.
My guess is you’re wrong about a 1 inch difference not being enough to deter them from drafting Earl. If he were 5’9 instead of 5’10, they probably target someone else in the draft – like say Nate Allen, perhaps.
I agree with you that height is a factor to Schneider and Carroll.
I disagree that Earl Thomas is an example of it. A lesser player that is 5’11" would not be playing free safety for this team.
If a 5’8" Ronnie Lott were to be available at a Schneider draft slot, I believe he would take him. Based on his pick of Earl Thomas over Taylor Mays, and Golden Tate when they still wanted a big target and didn’t know Mike Williams would have this good of a chance of panning out. I believe it is obvious that regardless of their value of height, size, and speed, that skill/ability is clearly a part of the equation, and two players who appear to have special skill/ability but who were no where near ideal height/weight players were picked in the first two rounds of the NFL rookie draft.
We didn't pick Taylor Mays because he's not a fit for FS
Not in Carroll’s scheme, probably not in any NFL scheme. FS is one of the single most important positions in Carroll defensive scheme. It requires a player with Earl’s natural instincts and speed. It was never an Earl vs. Mays type scenario.
Milloy wasn't even on the team at the time.
Also, he’s 36 or 37, so not the long term SS. We clearly had a need at both spots, and Mays has the speed to play deep. He played FS for Carroll in college.
And FS was the much bigger need
If you knew anything about Carroll’s scheme, you might understand that better. The FS, almost by requirement needs to be a special individual. SS you can probably get by with a less talented body. Blowing a 1st on a SS wouldn’t have made a lot of sense.
You sure know a lot, without teaching it to me.
If you backed up half of what you said, maybe I could be learning something.
Making statements of belief and calling them fact doesn’t convince me of anything. Especially when Taylor Mays is a “special individual.”
Taylor Mays is a special *athlete*
He is not necessarily a special football player; at least not at the NFL level. He’s not even a lock at this point to start for the 49’ers. Wouldn’t you think someone who’s special in terms of being a player in this league would have somewhat asserted himself by this point?
As for what I said about Carroll’s scheme, the info is out there, man. Try googling Pete Carroll 4-3 Under. A number of links should pop up. There’s a fairly specific one that seems to be now gone, but you should be able to piece what’s available out there together.
I've been all over the "info."
I was being sarcastic, and in a bad way. I apologize.
I was arguing to argue last night, because I was up far later than I should have been. And your brand of arguing (weak in certain types of logic) is one that I took issue with a bit, so we engaged in one. That was unnecessary and something I shouldn’t have done.
A fear many of us had was that Taylor Mays would be drafted to play FS. If he had been drafted to play SS, we’d have cheered, if he’d have been drafted to play FS, we were very scared.
The fact that Earl Thomas was drafted seemed to go against every safety that Carroll had in college that he recruited (Polamalu was not his recruit), at WR he always had to have the big and tall guy, at TE he always had the big and tall toolsy guy, position after position there were serious trends. It’s a project we enjoyed here before the draft kind of as a reasearch project by a USC fan (bluemax?). The results really made us worry about becoming the Raiders North. Mays has many of the physical tools to be a FS, and while many of us could tell you why Bey-Bey over Crabtree is a bad pick, the Raiders make them consistently.
Good thing is, Earl Thomas, exception to many trends we were gathering, was the pick. And there was much rejoicing. Dude is all kinds of special, is great for the scheme, but the Carroll scheme seems much more sophisticated here than in college, where you truly didn’t see Taylor Mays he was so deep much of the time. That cover 3 looks a lot different than the one we’re seeing here.
Excatly Catoblepas..
FS is one of the single most important positions in Carroll defensive scheme. It requires a player with Earl’s natural instincts and speed. It was never an Earl vs. Mays type scenario. Excatly my friend
You're not the one who devised the formula?
Then who is? Where is it written down? What, factually, are you actually basing this on?
I’ve never eaten snails. Does that mean my eating formula is that I will never eat snails? Talk about logical fallacy.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 5, 2010 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions
The formula is backed by years of draft/roster information...
where the Green Bay Packers are concerned. It is logged, making it verifiable. This info was actually passed along to me by someone else in the media (Danny O’Neil). I then went to , which is about flawless for tracking this kind of stuff. Go look for yourself. Look at the last 10 years worth of Packers drafts and tell me if you find a DB the Packers drafted or even had on their roster whom was 5’9 or shorter.
If the last 10 years (2010 – 2001) isn’t enough for you, if you think that is too close to just being merely coincidental, try going back another 10 years after that point (1991 – 2000). If you think 20 years is merely coincidental, well… You can think what you want to think then.
A fair post, but then I ask, why not trade Wilson before training camp? Before the draft?
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Though I don't know if we can go past 10 years
Because the Ron Wolf era lasted through most of the 90’s.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Can't go past 10 years...?
You lost me there. Please explain.
You used the Packers drafts this past decade as an insight to the kind of height requirements that Schneider requires for CB's.
To say that he learned it from Ted Thompson and Ron Wolf is speculative.
We can only really go off of the years in which he was directly involved in the draft process, which is mostly in the 8 years prior to becoming GM of the Seahawks to get an idea of his drafting formula and his height requirements.
What I’m saying is, I’m not sure we could even use the Green Bay drafts that predate Schneider’s direct roles in the draft process this past decade to support the idea the formula is relevant to this discussion.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
You are missing the point.
John Schneider got his start in Green Bay in ‘92, working as intern under Ron Wolf. Ron Wolf’s philosophy, is John Schneider’s philosophy. Ron Wolf’s formula is John Schneider’s. So going back to the years of 1991 – 2000 as a point of reference only serves to show us an example of that philosophy.
It’s not so much whether or not Schneider had a hand in bringing in talent during that time span; it’s more a reflection of the track record of the man whom Schneider learned his craft from.
Are we on the same page now?
Gradual weeding out process would be my guess
I think the new regime has tried to give each and every player from the former regime an equal opportunity, regardless of what their philosophies might be. Early on though it was fairly clear Jennings was ahead of Wilson on the depth chart, and that the battle was ongoing.
Is it really so stupid?
Do me a favor. Run a head count on all of the 5’9 DB’s in today’s NFL, and then tell me how many you find which are proven good players – not even necessarily elite. I’d like to see what you come up with for a list, I know it won’t be very long.
Besides Bob Sanders and Antoine Winfield, there are not many.
Size does play a factor. No one here denies that. But special players can come in any size, and when you find one, you get him. There is no way if you got a guy with Earl Thomas’ skills, plus sure tackling and hard hitting, but 5’8", he’d be passed up for his inches.
Size is a factor, but having a hard and fast 5'10 cut off is stupid.
What if a 5’9 player has one inch longer arms than the 5’10 player, or can jump two inches taller, or is, I don’t know, a better football player? Not getting him because of rule with plenty of obvious historical exceptions is nothing short of retarded.
Then I guess Ron Wolf, Ted Thompson, and now John Schneider..
..are all retards. I’m glad we cleared that up.
You don't have to believe me
We’re all entitled to our own opinions here, right? Or is that arbitrary around here? Just take it as my opinion if you don’t believe me. Just remember that my opinion is based off of 20 years worth of past NFL draft history. And like I stated, this is not something I came up with completely on my own. It was something I read on Danny O’Neil’s blog, and then referenced.
If you asked any of these men (Wolf, Thompson, Schneider) w/out knowing them intimately, I am sure they would probably deny any sort of plausibility to this – but personnel men are slippery like that.
John Schneider is 38.
If you think a guy is the exact same as who he learned from, why are so many of Bill Belichick’s coaches failing everywhere they go? Or does that only go for slippery personnel men?
Why does that sound like a huge reach to me?
For one, I would say that coaching in the NFL is a bit of different animal than scouting personnel is. Two, I’m failing to see what John Schneider’s age has anything to do with the point your trying to make. Three, if you’re going to regurgitate something that I’ve said and then throw it in my face, please reinforce it with something of substance. You’re trying to draw parallels here that aren’t exactly lining up.
And just because Schneider might take from one of the formula’s Ron Wolf taught him, that doesn’t necessarily mean he is trying to be exactly like him
. Schneider has gone on record stating that he was influenced by several people in the business – Ron Wolf is just one. Again, where you’re trying to take this I am not certain.
Yes he is influenced.
For you to say that because he was influenced by guys who “for 20 years” didn’t draft a 5’9" defensive back, that means they draw an imaginary line between 5’9" and 5’10" and that line was inherited by John Schneider and will not be crossed is a huge stretch of logic.
That’s not proof, that’s conjecture. A word that defines many of your arguments.
I threw out the coaching tree stuff because it sounds as ridiculous as your personnel statement. Hopefully the parts about it that stink make you realize how much your statement did.
Because a guy learned under someone else does not mean they have the exact same standards, characteristics, and the history of the teacher certainly says nothing absolute about the rules of the student.
You can believe whatever it is you want to believe.
But my opinions (AKA conjecture) actually having something backing them up. What do you have, by the way? You’ve argued away with me, deny any sort of correlation between what Schneider grew accustomed to in Green Bay and how it applies to the present, yet I’m not seeing anything offered in the way of an alternative by yourself or anyone else that has attempted to argue with me over this.
It’s simple. You do not like the idea of their being certain set-in-stone rules which might apply to how this regime grades talent. You see that as somehow being threatening, so you’re staying in denial, making claims of “conjecture” even when there are facts staring you in the face that suggest otherwise – all without offering any sort of reasonable explanation yourself.
So I’m done trying to offer you any more insight into the situation. You can think what you want and stay sheltered in your own little world of disbelief.
Cheers.
I've denied any sort of correlation between what Schneider grew accumstomed to in GB and how it applied now?
I strongly believe that Mr. John Schneider’s tendancies have a strong correlation with those of his former bosses, one of the assumptions I lean on. That by the way, is one of my favorite things about him.
Size does play a factor.
I agree with you that height is a factor to Schneider and Carroll.
Pretty much every tendancy that John Schneider has from his GB days, Emphasis on size at WR and DB, emphasis on youth, looking for developmental QBs every yeah, are things that I like. If in fact Schneider would never draft a player with special skills at 5’9", but if he was 5’10" with the exact same abilities he would, I would have found something about him I dislike.
But there is no evidence that he has a rule like that in place. No one has reported that scouts measured Earl Thomas to make sure he was 5’10" and worthy of being drafted, since he was almost unworthy of being a Schneider draft pick. Never has he gone to the Seattle media and mentioned such a ridiculous rule.
As a generality, it’s fine to assign value to height. I am sure that he does, because of his statements on the subject, and yes because of his background in the Packers front office. To accuse him of completely discounting a player for it is different. When I see something that makes me believe such a cutoff exists for any GM/Owner outside of Al Davis, that will be a surprising day.
When you have the time to offer real insight, instead of trying to say that a tendency is a fact, I’d love to see some actual proof that you know more about John Schneider’s roster construction and personnel rules than others here.
If you aren’t going to, I’ll continue to be in denial that you can see from your chair exactly what has been taught to Mr. Schneider by Ron Wolf about specific positions.
Because
If you think a guy is the exact same as who he learned from, why are so many of Bill Belichick’s coaches failing everywhere they go?
Just because a guy takes Belichick’s coaching philosophy to a new team doesn’t mean he takes Belichick’s advanced surveillance technology to a new team.
Regarding the Big and Tall Seahawks theme.
I’m not convinced John. Before the draft, we all were wondering if we’d turn into Raiders north. Expecting Taylor Mays or Dez Bryant to be on the team filled many of us with dread.
Then draft day came, and players who were not even on our radar were drafted, early and often. Earl Thomas, Golden Tate, Walter Thurmond III, Anthony McCoy. Pick after pick, players with actual skill, regardless of size, were picked to join the Seahawks. And yes, chances have been taken on lots of size/weight/speed players, many of whom left the roster not long after they were looked at.
I haven’t heard much about this from you since, until now. I don’t think it is an explanation for Josh Wilson. Tapp, sure. Jackson? The scheme mismatch was obvious, and he was given a lot of time before being sent away. When we get to guys like Houshmandzadeh, and Josh Wilson, I think it’s more to do with a long term approach to roster construction than size/weight/speed.
by cashless on Sep 5, 2010 2:56 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Josh Wilson, Darrel Tapp, Rob Sims, each one had an expiring contract.
Yes, the Seahawks still theoretically had rights to them when the season ends, IF the new or current CBA stuck with the same new RFA rules that the players universally hate, but there are no guarantees on either side.
Yes, they are talented players who are good enough to keep around and possibly build with. That also made them the most likely trade candidates to get draft picks with, and draft picks we got. None of us like the return, but with expiring contracts, value does go down a round or two. And we loved them because they represented some of our best hope for the future the past few years, but each one, while being good at something, was also flawed or undevelopped in certain aspects. I think what those aspects were is what led them not to be in the new regime’s future plans, and athleticism and size played into the flaws for each. Tapp has not broken out as a pass rusher, and lacks the speed they want. Wilson does make big plays, but is not a shut-down corner, and at times has been exposed by Fitzgerald, among others, and his own lack of discipline while going after the big play.
I think they missed out, and missed out big in their evaluation of Josh Wilson, and I know most of us do. But I can’t deny that he also has holes in his game. He’s no where near the value to the team that Trufant is, and I honestly think that Thurmond has a much better chance of reaching that level than Wilson does, no matter how much I love what Pistol is good at.
But I think that they are evaluating him for what he does, and what he doesn’t do, and made a decision on his long term role with the team. Was he ever going to be a consistant starter for us? I’d like to think so, and a while ago I brought up Antoine Winfield as an example of the level he could reach, or perhaps even beyond. I don’t think that they are simply 15 year olds playing Madden, otherwise we would have Taylor Mays.
by cashless on Sep 5, 2010 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think I said this in another thread,
But Q/PM seem to run this team exactly like I run my Madden team. Young, fast, big. This really works out for me, and I believe it will absolutely work for them, provided they can either A.) reload Franchise Mode when their 6’8" WR has “F” potential, or B.) find that spreadsheet with all the potentials for every possible draft we could have any given year. If they can obtain either of those things, this philosophy should work out.
John, I like your good fan/good citizen analogy.
I am a Detroit Lions fan and we have had a great deal of experience with inept management. So there is a tendency to jump all over our new GM if he makes some unpopular moves. Personally, I am giving Martin Mayhew the benefit of the doubt. Though I follow the Lions closely, I am not privy to the information that the Lions FO has and due to Mayhew’s close mouthed nature, he does not explain his moves very much. So I accept that he has reasons for what he is doing that make sense and are part of a larger plan. There are many others on our SB site who do not cut him the same slack. While not calling them out as “bad” fans, I do think they are putting their personal wishes/philosophies ahead of the FO. Especially in personnel moves, you pretty much have to wait a year or so before you can qualify the move as a failure. For most moves.
I agree that fans have every right [responsibility?] to question their teams direction and be vocal when the results are not working out. Good fans don’t shrug their shoulders and say “Wait til next decade!”
Very good article.
I'm all for criticism
I’ve been critical of many of Carroll/Schneider’s moves over on my own blog. I wouldn’t have traded Wilson or cut Houshmandzedah personally, for example. So boo, Carroll! I decry your football decisions!
But when you have MULTIPLE people saying things like “if the Seahawks do X, I’m not following them this year” or “I hope the Seahawks don’t make the playoffs this year,” that’s just whackadoodle crazy. Do you really think self-respecting partisans in other fan bases openly say such things without getting brutally smacked down by their comrades?
Side note: maybe Carroll is biased towards bigger, younger, faster players, and that has led him to make individual moves we all dislike. But Ruskell’s overall philosophy led us to a 9-23 stretch over the last two seasons. Maybe we NEED some young, fast, big guys? My larger point is that while we all have every right to vent about moves we don’t like, to some degree don’t we need to withhold judgement until Carroll’s roster actually plays some real games?
"I hate to break it to you, but there is no big lie, there is no system, the universe is indifferent." -Don Draper
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
rec'd
for sensibility and truthiness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Sep 5, 2010 6:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Truthiness
is a value we should all strive to embody. Thank you!
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 6:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Rec'd
For the fact that you guys keep replying “rec’d” without any recs actually being made
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 5, 2010 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
rec'd
for truthiness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Sep 5, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Completely agree on you main and side point
Fact/opinion based critical review of the team is great. Extreme absolutes that degrade the team are worthless.
We obviously need to make a lot of change since, quite frankly, we stink. We are bad enough that we won’t be fixed in a year or probably even two. The change that is needed is painful, but necessary.
I vote we change the helmets and pants to silver.
then win the SB.
by DJ C-Raig on Sep 5, 2010 6:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My uni idea
Home: Silver helmet/current blue jersey/silver pants (variation of proposed 2002 uni that NFL shot down)
Away: Dark blue helmet/Bright green jersey/current dark blue pants
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions
It's my understanding that you can only have one helmet unless it's for a special, NFL-sanctioned, occasion. Is that right?
And remind me of the details behind the NFL shooting down that uni. I can remember it happened, but I don’t remember why.
You are exactly right
In 2002, we wanted to have (I believe) silver helmets at home and blue helmets on the road. NFL nixed that plan… WAY more here at Greenglare
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I would love silver pants and helmets.
There was a black, blue, and silver mock floating around that I think would be sizick for an alternate. Though the Secret of the Ooze unis take a special kind of asshole to wear, and I love that.
Exactly
but I would add that given the current state of things in the NFL, and particularly in the NFC West, I think we can still be quite competitive as we rebuild.
I STILL can’t wrap my mind around the argument that it would be A BAD THING if we capitalized on our soft schedule in a soft division, made the playoffs and got to host a home playoff game. Maybe these other people have Deloreans with Flux Capacitors, and have seen the awful future results of a “lucky” playoff trip… but all I’d see is “Shit! I get to go to a playoff game and scream my guts out! That sure was fun in 05-06-07! Strangely enough, those playoff games are some of my most cherished memories as a sports fan EVER…. Something like that might happen again! They might get on a roll and go to the Super Bowl like the 2008 Cardinals! Wooooooo!”
See my point?
Back in 2006, the team crawled into the playoffs at 9-7 and COMPLETELY fit the definition of “luckily” getting into the tournament. But then, the Dallas playoff game! My god, what would we trade that for? It was probably one of the top five victories in team history.. is it invalid because we limped into the playoffs at 9-7? Fuck no! Then, we took the eventual NFC Champs to OT in their house (and probably should have won).
Yeah, it would have been better to not have done any of that.. because all it did was embolden Ruskell to make more bad decisions. Yeesh.
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would love to go to the playoffs
Its the FO job to have the big picture and keep moving in that direction. They are supposed to recognize where we can get better and continue moving that direction. Build a dynasty, not a NFC West winner.
Dynasty
this word is thrown around a lot. I guarantee you that no NFL coach or GM has it as their actual, literal goal. Win the Super Bowl? Yup. Create an organization that can consistently compete for Super Bowl titles year after year? Totally! But “dynasties,” however you define them, are rare things and their existence is at the mercy of a lot of factors outside your control as a coach or GM.
Example: I’d stab my mother for the Seahawks to have the success of the Colts. Playoffs year after year, 12 wins a season, a hall-of-fame QB… Damn that’s a sweet deal. But a dynasty? Not even close. One lonely SB ring. Lots of playoff heartbreak. Are the Colts a failed organization because they could not create a dynasty?
When you compare your organization to the 70s Steelers, 80s 49ers, 90s Cowboys or 00s Patriots, they will invariably come up short. As I’ve said before, just win that first Lombardi Trophy. We’ll worry about a “dynasty” later.
Side note: We’ve gotten REALLY lazy as a sports culture defining “dynasties.” As far as I’m concerned, anything other than a string of consecutive World Championships is NOT a dynasty. So, in the Super Bowl era, here’s the dynasties:
66-67 Packers
72-73 Dolphins
75-76 Steelers
78-79 Steelers
88-89 49ers
92-93 Cowboys
97-98 Broncos
03-04 Patriots
That’s it, IMHO.
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 7:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Error
74-75 Steelers…
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 7:18 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll give you that
How about:
Annual favorite
Playoff favorite
Freeseason favorite
Not sucking continually
Word.
I’m down with that. I’m pretty content with simply being competitive from year to year- close enough that when the opportunity comes to win a Super Bowl, we can seize it.
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions
There are other interpretations
The Tang Dynasty is considered to have existed from 618 to 907, despite being interrupted by the Second Zhou Dynasty from 690-705.
The Plantagenet Dynasty ruled from 1154 to 1485, with more branches, territorial variations, succession crises, and interruptions than you can shake a scepter at.
Alexis Carrington wasn’t in the first episode of the season six.
Just saying.
the winnability
of that Chi game in 06 pains me more than the blowout @ Greenbay (retrospectively). But yeah if you get there; anything can happen. The phrase it’s a whole new season really is a lazy but somehow apt summation of the postseason. Just get there though; then see what happens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
Why does everyone also forget that Ruskell's philosophy also helped lead the Seahawks to their first Super Bowl?
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 5, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
that's questionable.
His drafting of Lofa and Leroy Hill, and his signing of Darby and Jurevicious, all clearly helped us reach the super bowl.
But his “philosophy”? Bah.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
It was more his philosophy was good for a team that had been Holmgren-ized.
It had a good offense together, and needed instant defensive improvements. He didn’t build a long term good defense, and struggled to build an offense, but his aggressive FA push and drafting of “playable-now” defensive players helped a ready team get over the hump, and helped dim the future of the team at the same time.
by cashless on Sep 5, 2010 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can someone clear this up?
If we had kept Housh, what kind of cap hit would we have endured by cutting him after the season? Pro-rated Signing bonus hit?
This is correct
I don’t have the links handy, but I give my word that I researched this for another thread.
If we’d waited a year to cut Housh, we would have taken an additional $1.2 million cap hit from accelerators (plus a tiny sliver of his 2012 salary, which I believe will count anyways, but it’s not much).
Any new CBA will have accelerators. This is pretty much guaranteed. The only hypothetical situation where there is no cap hit for cutting him in 2012 is if there is no cap in 2012.
Thanks
Doesn’t look like we a concensus though.
by TrueHawkForLife on Sep 5, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Alex Gibbs better be dying or else I'm going to kill him.
by Robert on Sep 5, 2010 8:33 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 4 recs
according to Clark Judge at CBS:
“Alex Gibbs quit a week before the season. Gibbs is one of the best in the business, and getting him to Seattle was a coup for Pete Carroll. But Gibbs told people there he was worn out and almost surely couldn’t make it through the season. So he decided to leave now rather than later, and that’s tough luck for Carroll. He wants to pump up his rushing attack … no, he must invigorate the league’s 26th ranked unit … and Gibbs was his trump card.”
Gibbs is 70. He retired once last year and Carroll coaxed him to come back. This does not seem like a huge surprise to me. Very disappointing, yes, but not surprising. I spent a lot of time at the VMAC watching Gibbs coach his linemen through binoculars. I saw a tough old coach in control of things, but I also saw an old guy moving slowly. Age and health issues have a way of catching up with all of us, sometimes when we least expect it or want it.
My biggest concern here is not knowing much about Art Vallero, who now inherits the OL Coach job. Vallero has coached a lot of OL and RB over 22 years, but he doesn’t have the reputation of a Gibbs or Solari. I hope Gibbs felt comfortable leaving him in charge of the OL, and that this was part of Gibbs decision to leave now. This is no time for a new OL coach. I hope Art proves to be fully up to the job.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Sep 5, 2010 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, that made me guffaw pretty damn good while on this elevator at OHSU.
Suity McSuit on my right is mean-mugging me now.
You're the greatest commenter in SB Nation history.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
It is obvious.
Gibbs had to retire as soon as he was removed from the presence of god king Nick Reed.
Reeds chi was the only thing sustaining Gibbs’ health.
by nickfru1 on Sep 5, 2010 8:45 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 3 recs
Binary logic at its finest.
If not small, big. If not slow, fast. If not “in”, out. Does it occur that these player evaluations are done on a case by case basis and, as with Earl Thomas, talent trumps template? Perhaps, astonishingly, the new regime believes that the passing game will be more productive without a slow, selfish, one-dimensional possession receiver. Perhaps, after looking at Wilson from every angle they concluded that pass defense would be just as good without him. I can’t believe that Schneider, after evaluating this roster for several months suddenly decided to have a fire sale at the expense of wins. I don’t believe that any of these moves thus far suggest that we are going to mail in this season. Those that overrated the existing talent believe that. The reality is that these moves make us better in the short term and allow us to compete earlier – not next year.
I think 'underachiever' vs 'overachiever' is the closest thing to an operating principle I see
Big, tall, fast, yes no doubt those are coveted. In the case of major cuts like Housh, LoJack, Cory Redding, Seneca Wallace, the common denominator was ‘underachieved’, I think.
The cut that doesn’t fit, doesn’t make sense, and will gripe my buns for all eternity was Josh Wilson. Talk about overachievers. Talk about play makers. Talk about stats not telling the story. Oh well. Walter Thurmond had better grow up real fast, and Kelly Jennings had better start intercepting some goddam footballs.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Sep 5, 2010 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
All eternity?
For reals? I guess I never got the memo about Josh Wilson being the end-all, be-all of football existence. Great kid, nice player. Wish we had kept him myself… but ALL eternity?
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I would add that we don't know what goes on at practice or at team meetings.
Housh may not have been willing to accept a role as only a slot receiver. Wilson may have not been willing to be a nickel corner any longer. Those are the kinds of things that can make major waves during the season. Why delay any kind of inevitability and start fresh. At face value maybe we are less talented then last week but we won’t know until there have actually been games to judge it by.
A couple of comments, after reflecting for a bit:
1) I think the Gibbs thing was another example of PC’s demand for success. The O-line has not succeeded, and it looks like Gibbs is being shown the door. IMO, no new information to offer.
2) PC’s mantra is “Win Forever”, not “Win this year at all cost.” If you can build a dynasty, that’s what it looks like he is trying to do. He has an idea of the kind of players to build that dynasty around, and this year youth is important. Milloy and Hasselbeck are not part of the longer term plan.
3) Speaking of Hasselbeck, the sooner Whitehurst takes over, the better. As fans, we may really want the team to win, but that’s not everything. What if you could run the ball 4 yards every down and score? And win? How boring. I would rather have a team that I felt could beat any other team in the NFL any given Sunday; a team that could make big plays throwing the ball down the field; a team that threatened to take the ball away on every play on defense. Not only would that kind of team win on occasion, they would be fun to watch all the time.
4) Speaking of QBs, unless Whitehurst starts this year and turns into the second coming of Tom Brady, I would expect the Seahawks to use their first round pick next year to take one of the elite QBs (assuming their draft position allows it). In the meantime, lets see what the kid can do. We already know Hass’s limitations, and he no longer has credible skills and he is painful to watch.
Whitehurst has so many extra limitations that Hass doesn't have
it wouldn’t even be an interesting post to list Whitehursts limitations. That’s been done. As far as the value of Hasselbeck leading the team this year, or Whitehurst, we probably won’t win a lot of games with either one. But Hass is a leader and he will teach the offensive players around him a lot about technique and leadership before he retires. There is little the young guys would learn from playing with Whitehurst.
And there is no evidence that Gibbs was ‘shown the door’. That doesn’t make sense. It is unfortunate that he had to retire.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
I would think that Whitehurst is going to learn a lot this year from Hass, especially in areas that he struggles in.
Namely decision making and reading defenses. It is always good to learn from someone who has a different playing style. Whitehurst is a lot like Philip Rivers (skill level aside) so maybe he wasn’t taking much away from sitting behind him.
Happy Feet
learns football from Giraffe-on-Rollerskates. This has all the makings of a Disney movie…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
by jubelthebear on Sep 5, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
That and he's been sitting for a long time.
At this point, he’ll benefit mostly from playing not sitting.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
With Hass in the game, the offense only gets to use the Seneca plays.
Whitehurst gets to use the whole playbook.
Hasselbeck
If Beck gets through the year injury free and shows he can still play, he’ll keep playing SOMEWHERE beyond this season, even if it’s as a back-up in Green Bay or New England (which seem to be the most natural fits for him).
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
So because the O-line (with no Okung and now Willis is on IR)
Did not succeed Gibbs had to go?
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
I'm in a ranting mood today
I do not want to hear, see, read, or acknowledge the following statements:
Carroll and Schneider are trying to make the team younger
Flawed argument. You can’t make the team younger by trading away your best pass rusher (age: 25), one of your best corners (25), an admittedly underachieving draft pick (25), for late round draft picks and a 29-year-old Chris Clemons. If stocking up on draft picks ends up not being relevant to a big trade, then you’re not making the team younger or making it any better. The likelihood of a late round draft pick succeeding in the NFL let alone making it on the roster is very slim, so the Tapp and Wilson trades made this team worse in addition to not making it younger.
Houshmandzadeh is/was a locker room cancer
There has been so substantial evidence to suggest this is true, and personally at the time this rumor came about I believe it was a blatant distraction from the real issue of how poorly Matt Hasselbeck was playing.
This current group of receivers is fine
No it isn’t. The only guaranteed producer on this roster was Housh. Deion Branch will get injured eventually, Tate, Butler, and BMW are all question marks. Mike Williams looked good in preseason but that should not earn him the #1 receiver spot after years of failure in the NFL.
Trading for Vincent Jackson would help the Seahawks for the long term
Seattle needs a quarterback who is capable of using Jackson’s abilities to the fullest extent. Matt Hasselbeck is not the answer anymore and we don’t know what we’re going to get with Whitehurst. This is like plucking and stuffing a turkey before killing it. This trade only makes sense if Hasselbeck was in 2005 or 2007 form, so basically if Jackson is traded then it’s a gamble at the QB position post-Matt.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
by SSreporters on Sep 5, 2010 11:30 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
T.J. was at the least a locker room hemorrhoid
okay, so that’s not as bad as cancer. ever have one in your, um, locker room?
I think Hass and T.J. demonstrated in preseason game 3 that they were perfectly capable of hooking up with their tried-and-true short passing plays from the slot. It just seems Carroll thinks he has other options at the slot position. I’m glad. I see no reason why Butler and/or Tate cannot play in the slot and catch those same passes, plus actually create some run-after-the-catch yardage that T.J. seems incapable of. With T.J., they were paying for a “guaranteed producer” with little big play upside. With Butler and Tate getting more reps, they will at least keep some of us fans more interested.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
damn reply button
that’s my rant for today
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
TJ is a bigger target
And is a known commodity.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
Not trying to be a smart aleck
but… why LIVID? I don’t really get it. Was Vickerson an essential piece for the Seahawks to contend this year or in the future?
My blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard
by Johnny Peel (DKSB) on Sep 5, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
It's little pieces of a puzzle for many people around here.
One or two moves that we perceive to be illogical are fine, but each little strange and questionable move adds to the picture. While each individual move may only change the odds of winning this season by a fraction of a fraction, there’s the larger issue of trusting those with their hand on the rudder.
People around here aren't big on giving up something for nothing, no matter how small the something is.
Seriously, someone needs to count up all the transactions the team has made that someone has said “nice player, but it’s not the end of the world” to. These things add up! You lose enough cheap, average players and pretty soon you don’t have a football team anymore.
the trouble is that Ruskell almost never targeted big, fast players
You comment about going into the ‘teeth of the market" is on, but you can’t just punt and decide never to go for big and fast players simply because everyone else wants them. That’s what it felt like Ruskell was doing, always trying to be cute and out-think the other guys. It worked fine in the 2nd and 3rd round, but wasn’t worth squat in the first when actual big and fast players are available that other teams might actually draft.
By the way, did anyone notice that Denver traded the DB they drafted with our 2nd round pick last year? How glorious is that? We got their 10th overall pick, and they got nothing. Totally sweet.
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.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
