Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica. < Seahawks
Let's chat about Sunday's game, shall we?
Let me start with the defense. Five turnovers is good. Caleb Hanie and Marion Barber led Bears' offense notwithstanding, five forced turnovers is good. Two pick-sixes is good. Four total interceptions and one forced fumble is good. Six tackles for a loss is good. Five quarterback hits is good. Four sacks is good.
Limiting an opposing team's offense to seven points is good. Shutting out your opponent in the second half is good. I wrote this earlier, but Chicago's eight second half possessions looked like this - thrown interception at their own 28, punt from their 23, punt from their 15, punt from their 19, punt from their 33, thrown interception at their 30, thrown interception at their 29, and end of game. Another way to look at it - Chicago didn't get past midfield in the entire second half.
I'll take that.
Chris Clemons played out of his mind. Chris Clemons was more noticeable than Julius Peppers, even taking into account Peppers' forced fumble that led to a Bears' touchdown (which was more Tarvaris' poor pocket presence in the endzone of all places than Pepper's brilliance - though he did make the play). Clemons was consistently in the backfield and was credited with two sacks. He definitely created at LEAST three, maybe four sacks in reality though - with Raheem Brock reaping the statistical benefits. Clem now has 11 sacks on the season, equaling the number he had last season, with two games remaining to surpass that total.
Now, that said, I don't necessarily feel good about the amount of pressure the Seahawks' line, in general, got on Caleb Hanie, especially in the first half. The Hawks apparently feel content in what they're doing, because they don't seem intent on blitzing much and run out of their base 4-3 for the vast majority of the time. This means Red Bryant, Alan Branch, and Brandon Mebane are often left chasing after opposing quarterbacks in the times they're able to collapse the pocket, and this usually means an easy time for those quarterbacks. Hanie finished with 34 yards gained on five scrambles, and for whatever reason, these QB scrambles just make me want to pull my hair out.
The reason these guys are in there though, is undoubtedly to stop the run. On the surface the 132 yards given up on the ground at a 4.3 ypc clip looks bad, but when you look at the numbers it's a little less concerning. Take away those five successful scrambles by Hanie, Seattle gave up 4.3 yards per carry to Khalil Bell and a more respectable 3.0 ypc to Marion Barber. Those two finished with 98 yards rushing on 26 attempts, or 3.76 ypc. This is exactly on par with their 3.7 ypc on the year.
Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor had solid games - Chancellor had his hand on two Seattle turnovers - first forcing a fumble that Thomas came up with, and then later tipping a Hanie pass that Thomas came down with. Richard Sherman had a strong bounceback game, breaking up two passes and picking off a third. Then there was Brandon Browner, who at this point of the season is legitimately a Pro Bowl candidate on the merit of his six interceptions, 220 return yards and two touchdowns. He's fourth in the NFL in interceptions, just one off the lead, first in passes defensed, and first in return yards.
Now, I'm not saying Brandon Browner should be named to the Pro Bowl, but he's making a case for himself to be in the discussion regardless. It should also be noted that in addition to his interception totals and high number of passes defensed, he's an extremely reliable tackler on the outside and has been eminently reliable, playing nearly every down for the Seahawks defense this season. All this from a street free agent playing in his first NFL season.
I'll take that.
Lest I forget before I move to the other side of the football. RED BRYANT IS AWESOME.
On the offensive side of the ball, overall, it wasn't a particularly impressive game but the Seahawks did enough to get the job done. The run game was, as one esteemed Field Gulls writer had predicted, stifled pretty much everywhere on the field, with the Seahawks rushing for 1.8 yards per carry and a total of 60 yards. The rushing total was well off the 100-yard benchmark the Seahawks had hoped to hit for a seventh straight game and the 60 yards on the ground was the lowest such total for the Seahawks since Week 4's matchup against Atlanta.
Thomas said Saturday, prior to the game, "I feel fairly confident in saying Lynch's performance is about to drop heavily through no fault of his own, which really shouldn't change our estimation of his abilities, since he won't rush against top-3 run defending teams back-to-back with half his offensive line missing that much in his career, I hope."
As Thomas predicted, Marshawn Lynch and the Seahawks rushing game's performance dropped heavily but as the story's title suggested (The Seahawks Offensive Line and Context Sensitive Analysis), it's important to take things in context. Chicago has the NFL's 3rd ranked rush defense, according to Football Outsiders' DVOA, so it's not like a whole hell of a lot of teams are running all over them. Particularly teams missing 3/5ths of their starting offensive line. So, as Thomas also pointed out, it's probably not a reason to doubt Lynch and the Seahawks' ability.
The passing offense, particularly in the second half, was more impressive. Tarvaris Jackson went 15 for 19 for 176 yards, a touchdown and no picks in the second half, on par with the type of game-manager, efficient performance Pete Carroll wants out of him. Obviously, the first half was a struggle, with TJack connecting on only 4 passes for 51 yards, but it was encouraging to see improvement as the game went on.
Most encouraging was that after TJack had that awful first half, he started the second half by leading the Seahawks on a five-play, 80-yard touchdown drive that included two explosive plays, first a 33-yard reception to Golden Tate, followed by a 43-yard connection to Ben Obomanu down the sideline. These explosive plays are very meaningful or this (or any) team, and that drive was integral for the Seahawks in recapturing the momentum and essentially taking control of the game. On the road.
Golden Tate again showed up, catching four passes for 61 yards, including the aforementioned 33-yard catch and run. It's becoming apparent to me (though I never really doubted it much) that Tate does indeed have a future with this club, and probably in a prominent role. He's playing disciplined and with confidence, and is probably Tarvaris Jackson's current favorite target. He's making big plays - a 22-yarder last week to go with his 33-yarder this week, and he's been getting more snaps than any other Seahawk receiver.
Mike Williams quietly had a solid effort again, making two nice catches for 31 yards and made another acrobatic catch diving for the ball that was rightly ruled out of bounds. Unfortunately for Williams and the Seahawks, he broke his leg later in the game and is now lost for the season.
I'd go on record saying I hope that Williams' lack of production this season doesn't affect his status with the team - we've heard from Doug Farrar recently how prominent he's been in the leadership role and I still see a lot of potential in him. When he's on his game, he's nigh unstoppable (the two 11-catch games last season would be good examples) and if circumstances were to align a little more favorably for him I could see him reproducing the 65-ish catch year he had in 2010. Regardless, his 2011 season ends with 18 catches for 236 yards and a touchdown.
More notes: Zach Miller finally got some targets, catching four passes, including a huge 3rd down catch on a ball that was thrown behind him that went for 12 yards and a first down mid-fourth quarter when the Hawks were still trying to salt away the game. This catch certainly helped, as the Seahawks retained the ball for four long minutes following that play (the drive ended with a turnover on downs).
Deon Butler had two catches for 19 yards. Cameron Morrah had a 21-yard reception that nearly went for a touchdown out of the "22" formation for the Seahawks - two tight ends, two running backs with Morrah motioning out to the wing in iso to the right. Michael Robinson caught a touchdown pass as he slipped through the line and released out to the wing.
For those of you that read me often, you'll know I have an obsession with Raiders' fullback and former UW Husky Marcel Reece - I love a guy that can effectively play two positions, both a lead-blocking fullback and a route-running wide receiver. Reece is a 6'3, 240 fullback that played receiver at UW; he's learning to lead block but has the savvy and agility to run routes through the line, and Michael Robinson has been demonstrating a penchant to do the same things these last few games. This gives the Seahawks an excellent option to keep the defense guessing and it showed up in the Seahawks play-calling from the two-yard line on Sunday. I like it.
Anyway, there's obviously a whole lot to talk about, but that's what I got right now without re-watching. You guys and gals have had a chance to sleep on the game - I wanna know how you're feeling about it this morning. Hit me up!
Follow @FieldGulls on Twitter | Like Field Gulls on Facebook
162 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I've now voted five times (pro bowl)
And hopefully others are doing the same because BB, Chancellor and Thomas deserve to be recognized. BB’s two touchdowns are tied for the league lead by defensive backs. Do you know which bone Mike broke?
current word is 'broken ankle' -
not sure which bone that would actually be but guessing that it would be tibia (or less likely fibia) down low to the joint.
Thanks
I guess we can just hope him and Sidney will have enough time to heal up and be ready for training camp.
by seachicken101 on Dec 19, 2011 7:38 AM PST up reply actions
I get the feeling that with an offseason BMW with Tjack could be great for development there
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 19, 2011 8:47 AM PST up reply actions
thats what I think
I have no qualms about TJ playing again next year and only see positives with this team being together through an actual training camp after this season.
There is a kind of fraternity and familiarity that can only be achieved through this kind of seasoning.
by Zak Venturo on Dec 19, 2011 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
I really want to move Big Red inside
I feel like he’s the kind of rare talent that would thrive inside. It would allow us to throw another pass rusher on the outside as well. Put Red outside and Branch inside in obvious running situations.
Didn't they try Red inside his first couple seasons?
And he didn’t thrive until he got moved to DE?
I’m thinking a better move would be to put him at TE. The man has hands! He’s only a couple catches short of McCoy, and with no drops…:)
by Highwatermark on Dec 19, 2011 8:04 AM PST up reply actions
He came from the inside, where he was ineffective.
The move to end was crapshoot by the coaches to see if he could play at all.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Yup
His height can give him leverage problems on the inside but this is neutralized by playing against OTs (which tend to be taller than OGs and Cs).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
I thought i remembered the inneffectiveness stemming from injuries
moreso then quality of play. I’m probably wrong though.
The question is,
did he perform poorly as a tackle because he hadn’t developed yet — success can breed confidence can breed more capability — or because he’s a poor fit there (because of his length)?
Probably a bit of both. But the latter, enough to think it’s not a good idea to try out. I like the 3-4 / 5-2 look we have given a few times, and although it seems to be strongly opposition-driven, I think it’s about the best role we could ask for — using Red as a 2-gapper, against tackles & TEs, but not forsaking an additional pass rusher. A 3-4 DE.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
I've thought the same thing.
Red may be ideal at a 3-4 DE. I heard someone from outside Seattle say he really viewed Clemons as a OLB the way he plays, and perhaps grabbing one more very intriguing OLB/DE type makes for a shift to a 3-4 with KJ and whomever in the middle…
I think Mebane, Branch and Red are stout enough to fill the 3 front spots, with new depth coming one way (already here? Pep Livingston perhaps?) or another— through the draft and FA’s.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Why change the scheme?
This team was built to play this scheme, and Red is already playing the 5 tech most of the time. I just want to draft a young Raheem Brock type to come in pass rush situations and maybe take over for Clemons in a year or two. Melvin Ingram would be ideal, I like Devin Taylor for that role too.
Why?
Because I think part of the reason we initially went this route was because it was the quickest way to competitiveness. However, don’t consider going 3-4 to be “changing the scheme” so much as “improving it” if it happens the way I envision.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 8:39 PM PST up reply actions
i think Pete values effectiveness above nomenclature
as the defensive linemen gain more experience in this system and as we add a few pieces including a pass rushing DE and a DE/OLB tweener, I expect that we will see the defense shifting between 2-5, 3-4, and 4-3 looks on a play be play basis, sometimes even using the same personnel in one play for what is effectively a 4-3, and then shifting bryant from DE to DT for what will be a 3-4…
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Exactly my point.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
Good description. I think we're all on the same page here.
I just am wondering what he’s trying to do. What is the plan here. I like that it’s such a mystery and hard to figure out.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 20, 2011 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
"I like that it's such a mystery and hard to figure out."
This is great, because opponents will be feeling just the opposite.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
As many others have said he wasnt successful at DE because of his height.
Also Mebane is quietly making his own Probowl push. Alan Branch and McDonald are also quietly being extremely productive. Our Dline may be the best in the business. We dont get a ton of sacks like like the NYG, but stopping the run, and forcing a third and predictable situation is what is causing all those INTs.
The reason red has been playing more is because Brock has been extremely inefficient until the bears game. This defense is built to weather being behind, but thrive if we are playing with a lead.
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned it...
Seahawks are now in 2nd place in the NFL with 21 interceptions, behind only Green Bay with 27.
Seahawks are also tied for fourth with Detroit for total defensive takeaways at 30 behind Greenbay and San Fran (with 32 each) and the Jets with 31. Maybe people will start noticing?
T Jack was only sacked once
and that was in the endzone when he took all day to get rid of it. Other than that, Bears didn’t get a hand on him. So whilst they throttled the run game, the pass pro held up well – particularly considering the lousy first half.
It felt like the rush vs. protection made more of an impact than that to me.
Felt like there were a handful of throwaways, a couple handfuls of outlets that precluded Jackson going through all his reads. They played us very well.
They know Bevell’s offense, that’s for sure. If Tim Ryan was right about the halftime adjustment of attacking the middle of the field — it sure looked right — I dunno why they didn’t adjust to that, but other than that facet, and the injuries, they picked up on so many different plays, runs & passes, it was kind of shocking. This was the impact that predictability can have. As fans, we think we know so much about play-calling predictability, but mostly we know nothing. But this was quite a study.
I myself recognized at least 4 plays from prior games, before the snap. And a couple plays we ran 2 times in a row. Not a good showing, but the execution was all right. One of Nate Dogg’s gifs against Washington features an 8-man blitz against Tarvaris, where Tate motions from flanker to slot; he is flagged for illegal motion (moving toward the line) before the snap. The exact same play this week, Tate motioned better, but it occurred to me that Jackson was actually at fault there, for timing the snap wrong. He timed it better this time.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
Ya i'm kinda wishing we had kept Byrd
Who did he sign with anyway?
by seachicken101 on Dec 19, 2011 8:19 AM PST up reply actions
Just got called back by the Skins
earlier this month when Fred Davis got suspended
I Bleed Blue and Green
ME...Tweeting Stuff! About my upcoming game...and other random musings.
Agreed
McCoy also does a beautiful job of blocking the football away from his hands. He deflects that crap away like it’s nobody’s business.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Dec 19, 2011 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That must have been it.
Byrd kicked butt in the preseason I was so surprised we didn’t keep him. The sentiment of fans seemed to be he just had the fortune of a couple TDs against backups, but to my eye he was doing a fantastic job regardless of the TDs. But the value of blocking (and McCoy’s athletic ability as a receiver, to say nothing of the hands) was the factor, you’re right.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
McCoy is also fantastic at creating seperation for his size
It is one of the reasons his drops are all the more painful to watch because he is often several steps ahead of his man. I still love McCoy and hope he keeps getting his chances, he is the next Alge Crumpler
Stats are not a euphemism for tits.
I think right now, McCoy is still there because its late in the season.
We are down TEs in general, PCJS would love to keep 4 TEs on the roster, mostly because they use the 21, 22,31,32 sets so much. This team really can use two probowl TEs, kinda how carolina has Shocky and Olsen.
With a Healthy Carlson and Morrah, McCoy is the 10th best tight end on the roster behind Jon Ryan and Red Bryant.
I think, just a gut feeling, that this might be one of our FO target areas in the off season. Fred Davis(insert weed Joke here) Jermicheal Finley, Tony Gonzalez (might be too old for our FO to look at ) and John Carlson are free agents.
McCoy is signed through 2014, but i believe only 105,000 is gaurenteed, so he isnt safe from the axe. Morrah on the other hand has really shown why Holmgren loved him. two weeks ago he hit some monster blocks that broke open holes for Marshawn, last week he made some nice catches.
I hope Carlson's stock has dropped enough he'll sign back for cheap.
I don’t see how the FO can justify paying top dollar for another TE when Miller has been relegated to blocking so much this season just like Carlson 2 years ago.
Well, they may just pay top dollar.
If you look how many targets Morrah and McCoy get, that would atleast be the minimum. We really need a better Oline for pass pro to allow Miller and said TE to be successful.
Carlson just isn't a good enough blocker to be overly valuable here.
He really struggled last year in that department.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
They split out tight ends constantly.
Morrah and sometimes McCoy. They also have those two pull from the backside on run plays a lot, asking Miller to do the inline blocking, which Carlson would probably be more successful at (although very possible still bad at). There’s a role for Carlson here.
maybe Carlson was hampered in blocking by his weak shoulder and torn labrum
similar to Unger being ineffective b/c of nagging turf toe and LoJack succeeding this year due to what he claims is being healthy the first time in his pro career…
I like the upside that Carlson has, but if the FO can find someone better, I guess I am all in
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Yeah, I don't think he's a lock to come back or anything.
But there’s definitely a role here for him if he does.
Best headline ever.
I think the sexiest part of the Bryant pic six (besides all 330 lbs of man rumbling to the endzone) was the absolute devastation of that bootleg. The tight end releases and is wide open but it just doesn’t matter because KJ Wright just straight up ends Caleb Hanie. I wonder what was going through little Caleb’s mind right before he turned to bootleg out? I also wonder how much shit he dropped in his pants when he turned around to find a linebacker in his grill.
by YPbeau on Dec 19, 2011 8:38 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I've watched several times and I can't figure out why KJ Wright was so free.
He has a read assignment, right? Nobody releases in his area so he gets to run upfield? And the Bears just blow the pass pro? Is it that simple?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
I think ideally Hanie gets it off to the TE if Wright blitzes
but the execution favored the defense.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Yes, great play recognition by Wright.
It looks like he’s spying the RB to make his read because as soon as the RB moves forward, KJ reacts. Plus the entire right side of the Bears OL forgets to block.
I like this Hawks squad a lot
but I’m a little worried that the narrative about Tarvaris is becoming “Now maybe the Hawks don’t take a QB in the first round.” We still absolutely MUST draft the QBOTF in the first round, period. It has to happen. Jackson was the right guy for this season for a lot of reasons, but his utter lack of pocket awareness is going to drive me insane. Seriously. Please get rid of the ball faster, and use your much discussed “mobility” to actually evade rushers. Thanks.
Arguably
we could be as good as SF next year without a division winner’s record, a game manager QB who may be slightly better than Alex Smith, and with a shutdown defense if we get a good pass rusher in the first round.
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 19, 2011 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
Nobody in their right mind is saying that.
But it doesn’t mean we can’t give credit where credit is due.
No.
Not “absolutely MUST draft the QBOTF in the first round, period.”
You draft the best player available, with a focus on need. Reaching for a QB in the first round just because it is the first round and you need a long term QB isn’t the way to go. Keep building the team all around, and get that QB when you can. If we get the 2nd DT, 1st LB or a pass rushing DE in place of the 4th or 5th QB of the round, I’d be happy.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 15 recs
I think a LOT of people are going to be disappointed when the Hawks don't draft a QB rd 1.
There, I said it.
I think this is true
and I still think we’re going to be disappointed in April. I don’t think Schneider will want to use all the draft capital necessary to trade up and we’ll end up getting some 2nd or 3rd tier guy that no one has heard of or wants. Hopefully this means our 2012 draft will look something like our 2011 draft (disappointing on paper, exciting on the field).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed
Got stoned last night and meditated on this bad boy for a bit. All the squawk omens are suggesting to me that we aint trading the farm to move up. We’re playing too well w/out an elite quarterback. I think we’ll have a better sense of Tjack vs. the Niners and the Cards, who are more complete teams that the Bears and all the other teams we have been winning against.
I would love to see this team with an awesome QB – but I really believe our FO’s MO is to be unconventional – and its working.
by SquawkMantra on Dec 19, 2011 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The first two sentences of this were so awesome.
I mean, the rest is too, but the first two were so great.
by Danny Kelly on Dec 19, 2011 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't call the Niners or the Cards defenses more complete than the Bears.
The Niner’s D might have a slight edge over Chicago’s but the Cards doesn’t compare. What we’ve seen from TJ is what we’re going to get. I’ll admit what we’ve seen is better than was expected, but I’m pretty sure he’s hit his ceiling.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 19, 2011 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree this is more or less his ceiling.
With protection he can turn in pretty prolific and quality games even against good defenses. With poor protection he will show a lot of erratic play, often poor. I’m certainly open to upgrading that when there’s a good chance to, even still including moving picks. But I’m also comfortable with the time not being now, even 2012 Rd 1, if there’s not a good chance to.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Teams
They are more complete when including all three phases of the game. We saw how Tjack played against the Falcons when the Hawks were down. He was able to use the more recently scrapped hurry up offense to his strengths, and he showed an ability to lead the team to an almost comeback. I’m no TJack homer, but I am starting to possibly be convinced of this whole it takes 35-40 some starts to get and honest assessment of a QB.
As much as I like the idea of getting a QBOTF in the draft (especially either Barkley or RGIII), it’d be foolish to not like the idea of TJACK developing into an even better QB now just because of how he’s played in the past, and how we all as fans have envisioned him not being our future QB.
by SquawkMantra on Dec 19, 2011 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
And because if he does develop into an even better QB
he’d most likely be retained with a contract while the draft capital would all be used to make the team around him even better.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
I posted this in another thread but worth while here too
In december 2011, Tarvaris Jackson has a 104.5 QBR, 67.1 Completion percentage, 8.1 Y/A, 3 TDs and NO INT.
He still is spacially “Special” but honestly if this is his ceiling, im ok with that. I dont think it is though, when he gets some better protection, he might grow more. He may never be Brees, Manning, Rodgers or Brady, but he can definately reach Rothlesberger, E.Manning, Ryan, Shaub range.
I think Matt Ryan is a very good comparison.
Schaub is pretty prolific, probably wouldn’t use him as a comparison, I think that’s out of reach, but I see that you’re drawing a line of separation between true greats, true elites, and prolific, very good QBs of productive passing attacks.
I think Roethlisberger also is out of range; he’s greatly flawed but the ability to extend plays and succeed on a large percentage of them is peerless.
I considered making a Matt Ryan comparison in a different comment, in this same thread, though. An executer who can make any play, is careful with the ball, but who isn’t great and really won’t ever be. But on a team that doesn’t begin to rely on any idea that he can be.
I guess I’m saying, I don’t think he’s that far off from that right now. There’s a bit of a lack of consistency but most of that stems from the flux of the circumstances in injury and offensive line protection.
Which I think may be the biggest & most appropriate, yet least cited criticism of Jackson. He isn’t capable of transcending those issues. Every QB needs protection but the impact of their not having good protection varies. In his case, it’s pretty deflating because of some awareness and decision-deciding issues. (As opposed to decision making, where the decision made is often in question).
Matt Ryan & Tony Romo with comparable scrambling ability are probably about the best comparisons for ceiling, and with a healthy offense and an offseason, I think he’s basically reached that point.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
Pete's name-checked Matt Ryan before
as the type of “point guard”/“manager” QB that he’s looking for.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
I made those compairsons for three reasons.
1. Tarvaris is in his 5th year, though really only has played in 49 games, thats about 3 years.
2. You’ll see in their thrid year Rothlisberger, manning, Ryan, Shaub, Kolb were pretty similar in stats. Plus they had continuity of consecutive seasons to grow.
3. Romo, Ryan, Hasslebeck had significantly more talent around them. Most have several pro bowlers on the Oline and as recievers, the seahawks Have 2, one is a constant blocker(Miller) the other will have been injured for 7 games.
Jackson 79.2 QBR, 60.7%, 7.0 Y/A 12-12 TD-INT With an extremely young offensive line 0 probowlers, and no running game for over half the year. two games left and on a hot streak. Top 3 recievers Baldwin(rookie)-Rice ( Injured 7 games )- Obomanu
Romo 91.4 QBR, 61.3%, 7.7 Y/A 26-14, Very little running game, Several probowlers on Oline, Top three recievers Terrell Owens(Multiple pro-bowls)- Jason Witten (Multiple Pro-bowls), Austin Miles(Pro-Bowler)
Shaub 87.2 QBR, 66.4%, 7.8 Y/A 9-9, Team ran for about 100 yards a game, Offensive Line- One probowler. Top three recievers- Andra Johnson (Multiple Pro-bowls), Kevin Walter, Owen Daniels (Pro Bowler)
Rothlesburger 75.4 QBR, 59.7%, 7.5 Y/A, 18-23, Terrible Oline sacked 48 times, Willie parker hat 1500 yards rushing.- Top three recievers- Hines Ward (Multiple Pro-Bowls), Santonio Homes, Nate Washington.
E. Manning 73.9 QBR, 56.1%, 6.3 Y/A, 23-20, Had an average of 134.25 rushing yards a game, Several multi-pro-bowlers on the line. Top 3 receivers- Plaxico Burress- Amani Toomer(Giants Ring of Honor)- Jeremy Shocky(Mulitple Pro-Bowls)
Ryan 91 QBR, 62.5%, 6.5 Y/A, 28-9, 2x Probowler at HB 1371 rushing yards, 1 pro-bowler on Oline, top 3 receivers(14 combined pro-bowls) Roddy White- Jenkins- Gonzalez
Kolb 81.1 QBR, 57.7%, 7.7 Y/A, 9-8, 100 Y/G rushing, o pro-bowlers on the line.
Top 3 receivers- Larry Fitzgerald(3 time all pro, 5 x pro bowler), Early Doucet, Andre Roberts
Hasslebeck 88.8 QBR 61%, 7.5 Y/A, 26-15, 2 time all pro, 3 time pro bowler Shaun alexander rushed for 1435 yards, Oline- combined for 14 all pro mentions, and 16 pro bowls.
Top 3 receivers- Darrel Jackson Koren Robinson (All Pro, Pro Bowler) Bobby Engram
Portis could be a sleeper-variable in the matter as well.
by twocolorcrayon on Dec 19, 2011 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
Its possible, but he hasnt out played CBJ as of yet, and is inactive most games.
That leads me to believe he is going to have to earn the back up Job first. Not many talented Qbs sit in the 3rd QB spot for a whole year, especially when the guy above you has essentially played him self out of the league.
Heresy.
Next season will be year 3 in a 5 year rebuild plan. And the Hawks needs are 1. QB, 2. DE/DL pass rusher, 3. LB 4. OL depth.
Without the addition of a pass rusher or LB the Hawks are looking to have a top 10 to top 5 defense. With just the guys we have now.
Without a QB we’re still a middling team. So do they try to fill the QB spot in year 4 or 5 of the rebuild? Ridiculous. The only way I see not taking a first round QB is going with a Tannehill type in the second round-if he’s available. But will Carroll be willing to risk his return to the NFL on a project? Or will he go big balls?
Looking at what’s available this draft-3 top end franchise QB talents and no real top tier DL/DE types, and strong on LBS and what our actual needs are trading up for one of the QBs is to be logical choice. And the QB position is the least likely one to be filled via free agency.
In my mind it’s QB or bust.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 19, 2011 10:19 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Hmm.
“Without the addition of a pass rusher or LB the Hawks are looking to have a top 10 to top 5 defense. With just the guys we have now.”
While I think the DB’s are still improving and very good right now (where is the ceiling?), I’m not sure the guys we have now can sustain this across the board. Clemons isn’t young and is about at the age where pass-rushing specialists drop off the face of the earth. Branch has been inconsistent in his career, Heeter right now is looking like Tatupu, unfortunately circa 2009, and Wright may remain simply a versatile player but not get much better at any particular role— a “jack of all trades but master of none” so to speak.
And that doesn’t even take into account attrition through injuries. No, I don’t think we’re done building depth and talent on the defensive side of the ball, and I don’t think we’ll do as well next year without adding to the front seven, be they in a 4-3 or the hypothetically shifting to a 3-4.
Now, that doesn’t mean I don’t think we should look at QB. But if we can’t trade up, our record indicates we’ll miss out on the “big 3” and to me, that means (unfortunately, once again) play wait-and-see with those who are remaining, and make sure you don’t reach.
I’d rather have a long term effective player at a position other than QB, than waste a 1st round pick on one just to say we took the QBOTF.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Of course they'll keep building depth.
But I don’t believe we’ll be able to find a QB outside of round 1, and I think we’ll be able to find LBS/DL in later rounds and via FA.
I just feel like our D is going to be good next year, and with QB this team is an instant contender.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Earlier this year I expected that the thought of playing wait-and-see and delaying drafting a QB
beyond 2012 Rd 1 would make me lose my mind. I envisioned myself throwing a tantrum on the living room floor while my wife & children watched with digust and pity on a fine late April evening. Now? I almost prefer it.
By that I mean, I don’t think it’s the right decision or best way to go, but we won’t know that til at least after free agency and I would love for it to be the right answer or best way to go.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
What is there in the way of LB's
in this years draft
Do or do not, there is no try-Yoda
by ironheart777 on Dec 19, 2011 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm. I might put a post up with general linebacker thoughts.
I haven’t really done anything on the scouting side of things, but I think the linebackers might be worth me putting together a post. We’ll see if anyone else is doing anything, I might talk to Danny about it.
Here’s a quick list from the CBS guys (former CWU English classmate of mine, Rob Rang, and Chad Reuter).
Courtney Upshaw ALA OLB? — He’s 6’2" 265 and more of the classic “tweener” OLB/DE type depending on 4-3 or 3-4 setup. However, he might be a guy to draft due to that versatility and figure out where the defense develops in the future.
Luke Kuechly BC — MLB 6’3" 237. Not overly athletic, but a classic MLB tackle machine ala James Laurinaitis. Very instinctual. Would probably not fit if we are shifting to a 3-4. Top rated MLB in the draft, but only a junior so may not even come out. Might not fit, but then might be the perfect guy to be the center of a storm of athletic players all around him.
Dont’a Hightower ALA — ILB 6’4" 260. Classic SEC/Alabama player. Big fast and meaner than a human being should be… and a little injury prone. Better athlete than Kuechly, but not as pure an inside guy. Perhaps that helps him as we would add to the versatility as he might be a ILB in a 3-4 but a Leroy Hill replacement in a 4-3.
Zach Brown UNC — 6’2" 230. Crazy athletic (on track team as well), plays the weakside very well in a 4-3. Somehow as I read this I had an image of old Seahawks LB Anthony Simmons in my head. Looking up Simmons again, he supposedly ran a 4.28 and a 4.34, so I guess that would make sense.
Interesting thought on him. While most teams put their bulk on the front 7, I suppose given our larger than usual DB’s we might be able to “skimp” a little with the LB’s and put somewhere smaller quicker athletic guys there to fill the middle of the field more effectively. That is assuming of course we continue to stay huge and get even bigger and stronger up front.
That’s a short list of the guys who are (right now) in that mid-first round range. I have no doubt a couple will move up or down as the NFL season ends and the combine season begins. The interesting thing is there are no top5 LB types, which actually fits with the scenario of Seattle possibly getting one of the top LB in the class in the teens/early 20’s.
Also, each of the guys I listed is considerably different from one another yet I could see any/every one of them fitting depending on what direction the team goes, and who returns and who doesn’t.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
And all that of course goes out the window when sneak into the playoffs and make the most amazing run to the SB in NFL history.
Then at least a couple of those guys wont be available, but we’ll be okay with that I think…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 1:10 PM PST up reply actions
This statement is going to be wildly unpopular.
But it would not surprise me if the hawks let Hawthorne walk away in Free agency. Wrigth is primed to take over in the middle, and we need a more expolisive OLB one who could hypothetically blitz on same side as Clemons to overload (Similar to Dumerville/Miller combo).
The more i think of it, the more i doubt we take a DE pass rusher. We will probably pick up another aging vet throw away to replace brock. This is mostly because opposite Clemons will be Bryant in run situation, so the other end will be a part time job (3rd downs and late game lead situations). Last year Brock excelled at this, but this year until the bears game he was a dissappointment. Last year he has 9 sacks this year he has 3.
My belief is a good pass rushing OLB coupled with Thomas, could make pressure more unpredictable. It also helps in coverage where Wright is not as good as he is a run stuffer(MLB type quality.)
I dunno what the coaches think
but I like Wright on the edge. He did well in the middle as well, but the Mike responsibilities for this team make his length & skillset seem a bit wasted there. It’s not a Tampa 2 MLB middle deep drop team, they key a lot on the RB and cover shallow. Wright’s drop backs from Sam into throwing lanes, with his length, and on the edge either sealing or rushing, are pretty enjoyable. He’s not yet a great sealer.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Wright is definately physically able to play Tampa 2
Maybe he needs to study more Film, or maybe he just needs another year under his belt, but he is terrible in coverage(If you rewatch the Bryant INT, it looks like Wright reads run, and loses his man in coverage so just says “Screw it” and blitzes)
Also rewatch the game against the redskins, He got abused nearly every play.
I do admit he is a monster run stuffer, but lacks coverage. He is actually very similar to a young Urlacher. Those are the reasons i think he could play MLB, its also his natural position.
It might allow us to also utilize the cover 2 sporatically on 3rd and longs(resulting in even more INTs)
Agreed, but there's been a lot of good very recent improvement.
I don’t think he couldn’t play Tampa 2 MLB. I just think his talent would possibly be better utilized on the outside.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 20, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think it will be wildly unpopular.
And even if so, who cares. Hawthorne is decent, that’s all. He is by no means an elite-can’t-live-without-him talent.
I don’t know that KJ goes to the middle, we upgrade in the middle, or perhaps even evolve to something else entirely. I actually keep thinking about that 3rd possibility. Like KJ Wright is the beginning of the evolution, and eventually we’ll have 3 or 4 LB’s just like him. Sneaky freakish what-position-does-he-play-anyway inside/outside combo guys who can all blitz and all drop into coverage.
Sort of like Pittsburgh’s linebackers only younger and faster and more versatile; a bunch of 24-28 year old combo guys, instead of a bunch of 27-36 year olds with two inside-ish and two outside-ish backers.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Thats a good point.
Its been a constant blur between the 4-3 over and the 3-4. Branch is a perfect NT, while Mebane and Bryant are like 3-4 Ends. Clemons, Wright, Hill and Hawthorne play like 3-4 Backers, though clemons doesnt have LB responsabilities very often(Kinda like Demarcus Ware)
Yes red has been heathy
But has been playing more also because of Brock’s ineffectiveness. Red plays a significant amount of 3rd downs now, If brock had been effective, he would surely be in on most passing downs. (Something McDonald does regularly.)
Brock was almost a non factor against the Rams, in a similar situation as the Bears game(Lets also be honest that clemons pretty much created Brocks two sacks agaisnt the bears.).
According to Brian McIntyre
Brock and Red each played about half (~30) of the defensive snaps on Sunday.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 8:17 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying that Brock hasn't been ineffective.
I just think that the coaches may be happy with a defensive scheme that lets Red play on 3rd downs. Pass-rushing DE might not be the off-season priority many fans think it is.
I don't think it's as cut and dried as a "5-year plan" though.
Not that I don’t WANT them to take a QB, but I just think more and more lately that it’s definitely NOT “QB or BUST” this year. At all.
Let’s put it this way: Green Bay drafted Aaron Rodgers in 2005 and kept Brett Favre as the starter in 2006 despite his 3,800 yard, 20 TD/29 Int season previous. Favre passed for 3800 again in 2006 with 18TD/18INT. Green Bay then drafted a QB in round 5 (Ingle Martin).
2007, Brett had a better year as the team around him got better, throwing for 4100 yards, 28 TD/15 Int. The Packers then moved on from Favre to go with Aaron Rodgers. Following Rodgers first season at QB, the Packers DRAFTED TWO MORE QBs! Brian Bohm in the 2nd, Matt Flynn in the 7th.
Rodgers turned out to be a stud, and now the Packers are set at QB for the time being. That said though, they did the “churn” thing with the QB position as much as Schneider has done with other positions. Also, it’s been now reported by Andrew Brandt that the Packers actually had tried to trade out of that 25th spot that they took Aaron Rodgers in. Despite Favre’s age and shitty season prior.
Anyway, all this leads me to believe that the search for future QB is NEVER a “this year or bust” situation in Schneider’s eyes. It’s a numbers game, and the Packers hit pay dirt with AR, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t still looking and def weren’t putting all their eggs in that basket. I could see the Seahawks taking a similar path if they’re satisfied with how Tarvaris is carrying the load.
If they like a guy where they’re picking, they’ll take him. They might take two QBs this season, who knows. But I don’t think its as absolutely certain as many people think that the Hawks will take a QB in Rd 1 this year. That’s obviously just my opinion, but I’m just not going to be surprised if we see another position taken in round one.
by Danny Kelly on Dec 19, 2011 10:54 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
The GB situation isn't comparable at all.
Because we don’t have a Favre, and we haven’t had an Aaron Rodgers fall into our lap.
What you’re describing is an “always be looking” strategy, which I endorse. But for the Packers it was seizing an opportunity from a position of strength, while the Seahawks are doing it from a position of desperation.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 19, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Because of John Schneider.
And my point was less about the specific players involved and more that I don’t think JS sees the QB situation as a ‘position of desperation.’
Keep in mind, I’m not disagreeing with your opinion, I’m just arguing that this front office MIGHT see things differently.
by Danny Kelly on Dec 19, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
Desperation???
I think that is an overstatement. I believe the Hawks are in a position of “would-like-to-have” for QB. I feel that TJack is on par or better then Flacco, Alex Smith, Romo, and a bunch of other QBs that will make the playoffs.
Yes, draft a QB if you can, but please don’t mortgage the future. We need depth at DE, LB, OL, S, and RB. The way Kam, Lynch, and Heater throw their bodies around injuries are going to happen sooner rather then later.
On par with Smith I agree.
Not quite on par with Flacco, and not even in the same area code as Romo.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Romo isn't as good as your implying.
There is a lot of talent around him, and it’s been there his entire career. And some of the decisions he makes (like running 25 yards backwards) baffle me.
Those plays just cloud peoples perception of him.
On the whole he’s a awfully good QB with the occasional gaffe.
I think Romo gets a bum rap, and I would take him happily.
That being said, I agree right now Tavaris is playing better than Flacco. Alex Smith? Okay, I’ll grant you that. What other QB’s are in this “bunch” that are playoff bound is he better than? I’m mainly curious.
Tebow or Rivers or Palmer? Maybe, maybe not. (And I did just throw up a little saying that.)
Big Ben? No way. (And I died a little bit saying that.)
Brady? Hah.
Sanchez? Sure.
Eli? I’d take Eli.
Stafford? No way.
Rodgers? Uhm…
Whomever is in Texas? Sure. But that’s only because Schaub is out, and I would take him by a mile.
Brees? Matty Ice? NO and no.
I don’t think Tavaris is terrible, I don’t disagree with your point, but “on par or better” is not something Tavaris is with a lot of playoff QB’s, certainly not “bunches” of them.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
I like Romo too and it bothers me how much he's criticized
but that comes with that job. But, much as I like him, he’s benefited from some good offensive components — weapons & protection — and usually but not always both. He’s more prolific than Jackson, more consistent (the starkness of his inconsistency makes it seem worse than it is) but honestly I think given the same circumstances they’d now perform about the same.
I have no idea why Dallas always fades in December. I wonder if the perception snowballs pressure into a contributing factor of reality.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
Agree.
His problems stem from being with the Cowboys. Anywhere else, he’s not stand out for the mistakes nearly as much, and people would appreciate the good all the more.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
Romo does get a bum rap, however, he HAS had some notoriously awful implosions
Key turnovers and amateur mistakes in critical moments, which most often seem to occur in December/January.
I think that Stafford is becoming tremendously overrated.
His backup came in and did almost as well as he did. He is inconsistent, and it seems like he throws half his passes to the same player. (because that player is the best in the league at his position)
I think Joe Montana and Steve Young were overrated.
They threw a ton of balls at Jerry Rice. Ridiculously predictable of them.
Stafford is absolutely NOT overrated. He’s in his 3rd season, (1st healthy) he’s thrown for 4150 yards and 33/14 TD/Int. He’s had 6 games(!) over 300 yards and two more in the 290’s.
Hasselbeck had only 19 300 yard games in his entire Seahawk career, and never more than 4 in one season. I realize the systems are different, but c’mon. “Tremendously Overrated?!?”
He’s tied for 8th in the league right now with a 7.4 AY/R; Hasselbeck had ONE season in his career higher (2005’s 7.9)
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 3:49 AM PST up reply actions
AY/A... not AY/R. typo.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 3:50 AM PST up reply actions
I'm with Woody, though, I don't think he's yet very good.
He’ll probably get better. Which is kinda scary. He’s very effective. Their offense is very effective. He has that sling’ deep threat skillset that can make a team very dangerous, without playing the QB position tremendously well.
Rex Grossman has done what he’s done. With Bernard Berrian. Stafford doesn’t have the bipolar consistency issues, but he does make mistakes in a very similar way. If he doesn’t figure them out, he could become a flavor of Grossman/Jeff George/Culpepper.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 20, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
And Stafford is now almost 2 full years of actual playing into his career.
We would be absolutely THRILLED to have a 2nd year (game experience) QB perform like he is (third year in NFL).
Jacob, while Bernard Berrian is no Calvin Johnson, Rex Grossman is no Matt Stafford.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Of course, there's also that you said you don't thing he's yet very good.
I could read that as you saying is isn’t yet VERY good, but he IS good. Otherwise you wouldn’t say “he’ll probably get better, which is kinda scary.” And “He’s very effective.”
Woody called him “tremendously overrated” and basically said that Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton are just as good. That’s just grossly erroneous, even if the numbers during his 2nd campaign— roughly 10 starts into his NFL career, vaguely back that up. As you said, “he’ll get better” and he’s already gotten much better since then.
He was better then, and he’s growing exponentially.
Is he perfect? No. Do I have a man-crush? ABSOLUTELY. We had 10 years of Matt Hasselbeck as our “glory years” and in his 2nd year in the league, Stafford appears a better QB by pretty much every significant statistic.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
Stafford to some extent has been hampered
by continuous injuries to their best RBs. Allows defenses to keep 5-6 guys in coverage with double teams on his receivers.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Well said, and I agree.
That got me to thinking…
Here’s an interesting thought. My “betting odds” for the 1st round, based on where we’ll likely pick.
QB 11-1
RB 30-1
WR 10-1
OL 4-1
TE 30-1
DE 4-1
OLB 5-2
MLB 3-1
S 40-1
CB 10-1
Yes, I think MLB/OLB is our most likely 1st round target.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
WR odds seem a little too good. I won't be surprised to see the line move back to about 18-1 as we get closer to the game.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Well, there are a couple of "Pete Carroll" type WR's who will be out there.
While Justin Blackmon will undoubtedly be gone, if say someone like Michael Floyd or Alton Jeffery is there, I think the temptation might be too great. They both fit the Carroll prototype of huge physical talented WR’s.
I don’t think the OL will move to 18-1, more like 10-1. There are several that are rated in the likely area we’ll draft, including the Stanford OG.
RB could change drastically if Beast Mode isn’t resigned, but I doubt it.
I also would not at all be surprised to see us play the “trade down” game multiple times if there isn’t someone on the board Carroll really likes. I think the right WR, OL, DE or LB would be the only things that would trump the trade downs, and QB is the “trade up” spot.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Let's look at it this way
in regards to needs/picks: who are we gonna cut to make roster space for these picks? Receivers? We’ll have to cut one or two already if all of them come to camp healthy.
Corners? Tru’s probably gone and hopefully WT3 is healthy. Maybe room for one.
LB’s? Hill is probably on last legs. A pass rushing LB would kill two birds with one stone and leave our sound barrier line up front intact.
We could probably upgrade some of the OL depth.
Force should be replaced.
And Cholly should be gone.
I’m sure there’s more, but top to bottom we’re pretty damn solid and a lot of our “needs” are on IR right now. In my mind we have a short list of needs, and very few open roster spots.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Always compete.
I don’t think we can’t get better across the board, including players playing now being replaced, and some of the IR players as well. I don’t think cutting fringe WR’s in order to get better ones is a problem. If that means Durant or Butler or BMW or Obo are gone, so be it. It’s the way of the NFL. I remember when DJ Hackett was a decent NFL WR, but then he was gone.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. I’m just not that sentimental when talking about fixed resources and trying to win.
This team is better and getting solid, but the roster spots create themselves by guys beating out the incumbent, or the incumbent gets better by earning the role.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Always compete is sound bite BS.
Nobody is guaranteed a roster spot but when you’ve got good young cheap talent locked up under contract you expend your resources elsewhere.
So Kam, Baldwin, ET, Tate, Sherman, Browner etc. aren’t going anywhere because we can upgrade elsewhere.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I'm not disagreeing with you.
I just think the WR core can easily use additional upgrades on the high end.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly.
With the way Tate(Steve Smith, Carolina), and Baldwin(Engram) are playing, and how Butler (Galloway)was just starting to play before the leg break, with how Rice is awesome, our top four recievers are set, then we have room for developing Durham and Lockett, add some UDFA to practice squad and the cycle continues until break out or bust.
On the other hand, if they do take a receiver early they have to see something special.
Well, that's mainly what I'm saying.
I like the idea of Durham, but he’s a project. After an injury he may only be a practice squad player despite being drafted. And Lockett is the same. Who knows if he can run routes to match his raw athleticism.
As for Butler/Galloway, well that’s not even fair. JoeyG was 5’11 197 with (supposedly) a 4.18, the 6th fastest time ever. Butler was a 4.38. While JoeyG probably wasn’t quite that fast, he was faster, bigger and taller.
And while Tate may have Steve Smith comparisons, that’s light years away from where he’s at. Almost like, in NBA terms, there were a string of “Jordanesque players” who came and went.
Using the high end references is unfair to the current crop. They have some talent and upside, but a guy who projects as an immediate high end starter ala Dwayne Bowe or AJ Green might be too nice to turn down.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
Mainly that's my point-- we should be open to it.
I think we’re now good enough where we can draft BPA’s across the board and bring in FA/UDFA’s to fill any other depth holes.
It’s pretty exciting, really!
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
If we go MLB first round I will lose my shit in twelve directions.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Why?
We could certainly use one. The later in the draft we pick, the more likely it to happen…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Is there really that much of a drop-off from one Mike to the next?
I’d much rather see them go interior D-line.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
To me, yes.
Because elite is elite. MLB elite is a weapon, and while there are a lot of okay Mikes, there are a few who are monsters. And the interesting thing to me is that those guys often fall to this range in the draft.
Of course, that means you have to make sure if you DO pick him, he will be one of the elites. Patrick Willis went 11th, Ray Lewis 26th, James Laurinaitis 35th, Dqwell Jackson and Paul Posluzny both 2.2.. It seems we will pick in the range where a great Mike would make a difference. Assuming there is a great one.
I’m not going to say absolutely we have to pick one mind you, I just think it is more than a viable legitimate option given where the team is right now.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
Remind me
what teams need a RB? Say we let Lynch walk is there a possibility we get Trent Richardson?
Do or do not, there is no try-Yoda
by ironheart777 on Dec 19, 2011 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely there's a chance.
But it would be a waste of 1st round resources. Alabama has a fantastic system, and whomever is their running back next year will look just as good as Richardson and Mark Ingrahm did the past two years.
If we don’t resign Lynch, we’re better off waiting in my eyes.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree
Richardson really seems like an elite RB talent to me. I’d put him right there with McFadden as the 2nd best RB prospect behind Adrian Peterson in the last 10 or so years I’ve been really following the draft. I didn’t/don’t think Ingram was/is that good of a back, I have him as a middling starter who’s good enough with a high level backup but won’t be thought of as a top 10 RB. I think Richardson should get to a top 5 level.
Fair enough.
But I remember there were genuine questions about McFadden due to his size and his low BMI, and his injury history has proven that to be a legitimate thing.
So if that’s the 2nd best RB prospect of the past 10 years, a guy with questions going in who has had a middling career, well, I’ll pass.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 9:59 PM PST up reply actions
Adrian Peterson had injury questions as well.
I don’t really see any question marks in Richardson’s case, maybe that his team is too talented and that might make him look better then he is? I don’t really want a RB in the draft as I am happy with Beast Mode but if all the QBs are gone before a spot we can get up to I’d be happy to get an elite talent of the draft (in my eyes) around the 10th pick if he gets pushed down due to teams taking QBs.
That's exactly my issue-- the team is too talented and makes him look better.
I was mainly pointing out the issue with DMF as the “2nd best RB prospect of the last 10 or so year” — if that’s the comparison I’ll pass.
I would prefer Polk or James later. I just don’t like Nick Sabin’s Alabama though, so I’m biased.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 20, 2011 3:52 AM PST up reply actions
Of the top 12 teams; in the draft needing an RB...
CLE and WAS have the biggest need but have a bigger need at QB, STL could potentially take Richardson but would probably opt to fill one of their gaping holes (WR, CB, OL). TB or BUF maybe if they felt upgrading their very good backs to a potentially great back. Last, if IND wins another game and STL or MIN picks #1 I could see them taking Richardson.
Good points
Now let’s jump in the Delorean and hold Ruskell’s dog hostage until he trades into that spot.
by sonse7en on Dec 19, 2011 11:22 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
you say we are a middling team without a QB...
and yet we are 5-1 in our last 6 games with a pretty horribly beat up offense. I know we have had the benefit of beating some bad teams, but… we are beating bad teams on the road, and that is what good teams do. we beat Baltimore in a smash mouth football game, and that is a good team. we lost to the redskins largely due to mistakes/inconsistency of an incredibly young roster.
Have you watched this team for the past 7 weeks? Because I don’t see a middling team. I see an above average defense that is threatening to be elite for a full season next year (especially with two more “plus” players at LB and DE), special teams that are elite (top 2 punt team, top 10 kick defense, top 10 kick returns, #1 FG blocker, above average FG kicker), and an offense that started the season as a complete debacle leading to a 2-6 start but has now become above average in efficiency and scoring.
This is no middling team.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
And what's likely to be a pretty unexciting pick isn't going to help.
This draft does not excite me at all and it’s kind of at odds with Seattle’s needs. I’m already trying to prepare myself for the let down.
Richard Sherman didn't excite me much when we drafted him.
And like most of us, I went, "K.J. Who?!?! when it happened.
Sure, it excited me after I heard more about him, but at the time I thought “why are we reaching for this random guy who is supposed to be available two rounds from now.” Because, you know, after a couple hours of hearing the pundits, you start to actually believe their efforts of brainwashing.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Well I don't really listen to the pundits much.
It’s just that there probably isn’t going to be a particularly interesting player in the Hawks range, or someone who we can all cross our fingers and hope drops to them. That obviously doesn’t mean it’ll be a bad pick, I just don’t think it’s going to be someone that makes us feel ok about missing a QB immediately after the draft.
Here is the good news.
This draft is ladened with lots of offensive talent, a lot of teams with replenish offense this year, that could leave us some decent defensive cogs left. There most likely will be no elite ends/OLBs available but we might get a freak of nature type ability wth little experience, that can learn OTJ.
Well here are a few players i think we could use.
Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois JR. Leads the nation in sacks. This could be our next Leo. 265 lbs, 6-4.
Brandon Jenkins, DE/OLB, Florida State. 6-3, 265 JR 7 sacks, but last year had 13.5
Lower rounds:
Vinny Curry marshall, 6-3, 265 11 sacks.
Frank Alexander 6-4, 255 SR, 8.5 sacks.
By lower rounds do you mean 2nd or 3rd?
My DE man crush this year is Melvin Ingram South Carolina. They use him like we used Raheem Brock last year, he can play base DE, he stands up on the outside rushing and dropping like Clemons, he can line up at 3T on 3rd and long. South Carolina has 3 real good DEs who can all rush the passer but Ingram looks like the most complete right now.
Last year my man crush was Aldon Smith and I think Ingram is a decent comparison only with less length and strength but better speed.
The potential 2nd-3rd rounders I like are Devin Taylor also from South Carolina who’s a Jr and may not declare this year and he’s a freakish 6-7 250 and Andre Branch from Clemson who looks like a good LEO speed rusher.
I’d rank the DE’s that would likely interest Seattle as
1. Melvin Ingram – USCarolina
2. Whitney Mercilus – ILL Jr Declared
3. Nick Perry – USCali Jr Declared
4. Vinny Curry – Marshall
5. Brandon Jenkins – FSU Jr
6. Devin Taylor – USCaro Jr
7. Andre Branch – Clem
8. Frank Alexander – OKL
You could be right, i havent done extensive research on the DE/OLBs yet.
So i cant speak too intellegently about it, but you can expect between now and the draft that i will probably get a wild hair and do apost or two.
That disappointment will largely vanish if the Hawks turn around and draft a QB in rounds 2 or 3 I bet.
On the other hand, if we come out of the draft and FA with no quarterback we can pin our hopes on, the anguish will be heard in China.
Especially given that 2013 is considered a weak class for QBs thus far. (Yes, it’s early for that judgment I realize. There are surely some Robert Griffins or other project guys in there that are invisible at this point.) This is what seems missing in whiskey_chainsaw’s excellent post above.
He writes:
Keep building the team all around, and get that QB when you can.
But to a significant degree, “when you can” get a QB is in the first round of the draft. (I trust at this point we all recognize that this is a probabilistic statement.) So, to the extent that’s true, there’s a reasonable logic to considering “reaching” in the first round, or “overpaying” if you prefer (not sure I get the distinction). My $.02 at any rate.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Think so?
I think if they draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd folk’sll be all like

Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
I do.
Unless something crazy happens like Luck/Barkley/RG3 are traded for not-totally-unrealistic compensation and it’s with a team besides us. Fans want a QBOTF but they’ll swallow their disappointment and watch highlight clips of the rookie.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
And, by that I mean
I don’t think they’ll draft a QB in round 1.
by Danny Kelly on Dec 19, 2011 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's going to be hard to
The way they’ve been playing lately, they’ll likely be out of the race. And while there was an excellent piece on here a couple weeks back about how the odds of a franchise QB are much better when they are drafted in the first round, Schneider and Carroll have demonstrated an ability to find good players outside of the early rounds of the draft. So we’ll see what happens!
Yep.
If we aren’t hearing serious rumblings about the Seahawks trading up during the first 6-7 picks, I think we’re taking the best pass rusher available in the 1st round and taking a QB elsewhere.
Well, I will believe the rumblings of anything only after they've happened.
I certainly never heard anything about Atlanta trading up to get Julio Jones until it happened. Maybe it was out there, but until the hands are shook, it’s all just hot air.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
I think you're right.
I’m fine with it, now. I know they won’t consider themselves set at the position. What they do, how & when, I dunno. 2012 Rd 1 does seem to be very low probability right now though.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 10:07 AM PST up reply actions
I think they see the QBOTF thing as a fluid situation
I don’t think they see it like “ok, everything’s set, now we just need one more piece”. They will add a QB or two every year until they find ‘the guy.’ The urgency that the fans/media feels is probably a lot different than what they feel.
They didn’t draft a QB this season but picked one up in rookie free agency and got their starter in FA. If they’re not satisfied in the options available to them in the Draft, I think it’s highly probable we see much of the same.
by Danny Kelly on Dec 19, 2011 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, it's harder to go proactive non-stop roster churn at QB,
but they seem motivated to try to do similar on a smaller scale. It’s a little more costly (Whitehurst trade) but that’s not too problematic.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
I still don't think a 3rd rounder is that high.
And the salary wasn’t ridiculous. It was slightly high for what it was.
I would expect to see, if no trade up can be reached, a scenario where we start the season with Tavaris battling it out (while with the advantage of being the declared starter) with someone like Matt Flynn or Jason Campbell. Someone with some time in the league that can be had at a discount and would provide a strong case as a backup QB who can make spot starts or step in due to injury.
I also don’t think it would be completely out of the realm of the possible to see Charlie back in a depth role, but with a smaller contract. He knows the team and offense, and his options will be limited. That would only happen though if Portis takes a leap forward and they see him potentially passing Charlie up (and affording them not paying for a Campbell or Flynn who expects to fight for time, or they do draft a newer “QBOTF” and Portis is pushed out.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
I don't see Flynn as a Carroll type player.
Too short, not athletic enough.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He's taller than Tarvaris, according to NFLDraftScout
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=17070&draftyear=2008&genpos=QB
http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=55979&draftyear=2006&genpos=
With comparable 20 and 10-yard splits, faster shuttle and 3-cone drills.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
Well color me stupid.
I still don’t believe Flynn is 6-2.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
For what it's worth, I don't think Flynn's on the radar for other reasons
There were no rumors of interest in him in either of the last 2 offseasons, like there were for Charlie, Kolb, Palmer and Favre.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 19, 2011 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Where did all those rumors begin though?
And when did they begin? And might the fact that we’ve won 5 of 6 with Tavaris change the volume level a bit. Because if we were losing right now, I promise you there would be a front page Seattle Times article talking about Flynn, and Campbell, and whomever else you can put on that list of “possible available QB’s.” But right now the talk is of hope and playoffs and all the fun new kids kicking ass and taking names.
QBOTF talk (outside places of intense focus like FieldGulls) doesn’t happen until the offseason, at least when your QB and team are both playing better than expected.
I also think the fact that Schneider already knows GB and who and what Matt Flynn is makes it less likely to follow the same path volume-wise in the media. If Schneider likes him, we’ll know when we go after him, and if he doesn’t, we’ll know when we don’t go after him.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
But this doesn't mean I think we WILL go after him.
Just that he’s a likely candidate if we do go vet from outside the team…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 12:35 PM PST up reply actions
Teams cover their tracks without a trace on occasion.
Just saying: We don’t know if they looked into Flynn.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
I don't think the cost was that high either.
What I mean is, typical roster churn has swallowed up a small handful of late round picks for the likes of LenDale White, but that it didn’t work out is no big loss. Lots of others have come for no draft capital at all.
But with QBs, there is mostly going to be some cost, in draft capital, in roster space and in playing time.
The Whitehurst trade should have been a little smaller but Arizona not having anything better than Derek Anderson that year might have been the single biggest factor that produced a Seattle division title, so the cost of 2 competing teams drove it up. And it was still a little on the cheap side compared to what potential starting QB prospects usually cost. So typically it costs more even then that.
In roster space, it’s not often a significant thing, but you only keep a couple, compared to 10 linemen, and whether you are proactive nonstop or traditional personnel management, QBs tend to have a bit longer tenure on the roster. Teams take the time to figure out if they have something.
In playing time, if/once they are given any or earn any: what QB is playing is often publicly a big deal. Which means it’s a big deal because it affects coaching job security. Once you put him in, coaches tend to give due diligence in giving him a few games to see if he can figure it out. And not just game time, but practice reps, are limited, and it’s zero sum: giving one guy reps takes them away from someone else.
In contrast the typical roster churn costs almost nothing in any of these facets. So that’s why I think the cost of QB churn is a little greater.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 19, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Makes sense.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 19, 2011 12:37 PM PST up reply actions
I'll be very disappointed if the Seahawk
A.) Don’t go QB in the 1st
AND
B.) Wait until the 4th or 5th to screw around with a project QB.
AND
C.) Don’t sign someone like Matt Flynn to compete with T-Jax and essentially dump Whitehorse.
If they’re content with their QB situation then I’m not content with them handling the offense.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
We would all be disapointed.
But the fact of the matter is, if a franchise QB isn’t available, and the cost of trading into the top 5 is prohibitive there isn’t really anything they can do.
by wetzelcoal on Dec 19, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
God I hate Clayton sometimes...
From his wrapup of the weekend:
The Bears’ 38-14 loss to Seattle was explainable: Caleb Hanie was the quarterback and he’s simply not good enough. The drug arrest of Sam Hurd and the controversy involving Marion Barber not talking to the local press distracted this team. The Bears have lost four in a row and don’t look anywhere close to a playoff team.
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
I've noticed the majority of media coverage fails to even mention that the Bears had an opponent.
Pretty incredible for multiple journalists to write entire articles about a game where they fail to even name the winning team.
I was also listening to the Sunday Night football program on ESPN radio
And they pretty much ignored the NFC West when discussing the playoff picture…although Arizona did get a shoutout as “one of the hottest teams in the NFL.”
Whatever. We’ll show you, media!
I think them saying
’Zona was one of the hottest teams in the NFL was like a really shitty pun the writers tried to come up that they could snicker about……like saying “Miami made Buffalo play cold and look like a bunch of little beaches(bitches).” I think its just a sportscaster thing, when I was 10 and wanted to be an anchorman, I used to think of shitty puns to use if I ever did become an anchorman….
Make It Matter
by Seahawk Junky on Dec 19, 2011 8:21 PM PST up reply actions
According to the team itself, Hurd had no effect
Take THAT Clayton
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 19, 2011 1:10 PM PST up reply actions

by 

































