For the Seahawks, Wide Receivers Matter Too
Hmmm, all I've heard for two weeks is how our QB looks scared and lacks pocket awareness and won't throw anything on time. I agree with everything said, but something seems oddly familiar about the first claim, at least. Remember saying that "Hasselbeck doesn't want to throw down field because he can't or won't trust his receivers?" Oddly enough, it took someone pointing out that the arguments were similar to make me to realize that there is one position that has escaped criticism as a whole outside the obligatory Golden Tate bash of the week.
The wide receivers.
Now maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am here. There's now a new throw away position in the NFL (at least according to fans that watch Brady and Manning and perhaps Brees) and that's wide receiver. Like 'the O-line matters more than halfback,' argument, the new 'quarterback matters more than wide receiver' idea has become a notion people believe in.
I have to shake my head and say bullshit. I understand the view but I feel it's wrong and excusing the position entirely has gone on in favor of dumping it all in the QB's lap for the last three seasons. It fails to see the entire and very significant problem this offense has faced and will continue to face.
The last time this offense truly hummed it featured Bobby Engram and Nate Burleson, but let's be honest, it might as well have been Hasselbeck and Engram on the field because Bobby was Matt's number one and last option when things broke down. Why? Execution. Bobby Engram ran accurate routes, broke on time and gave Hasselbeck nice consistent windows to stick the ball into. The times he threw to Nate Burleson, Nate was either in man coverage or the route was simple enough to ensure Hasselbeck could trust him to complete it properly.
As Bobby Engram left and Nate Burleson missed the season in 2008 the QB became what we dumped on more and more and more and blogged about how it was time for a change. Meanwhile, the wide receivers got excuse after excuse including the silliest sentence ever uttered EVER. "Someone has to be open."
Actually no, there doesn't have to be anyone open. Wide receivers bust at a pretty high rate for a reason and that's because in order to play football at this level, even as a backup, you must be able to run routes well and run them properly at a high percentage to be successful. I'll give you an example from my own knowledge...
Jason Hill played football at Washington State. Though he was a superior athlete in college, he didn't do anything except run streak routes with his reported 4.24 speed. The kid was fast, but completely green heading into the professional ranks and big surprise, his speed is essentially worthless. He was so bad he couldn't even break into the depth chart, sitting at 5th or 6th on the roster for the 49ers for the entirety of his tenure.
Brandon Gibson, on the other hand, also from Washington State, ran solid and consistent routes in college, he lacked good speed or short burst, but he had great hands and solid footwork that allowed him to create enough separation to make catches in the shorter fields, and not surprisingly, he's talented enough to start in the NFL. Sam Bradford has leaned on him quite a bit in his first two seasons.
I'm really looking hard at last year and seeing Hasselbeck have similar looking problems. Although in his case, Matt did take fans' advice at times and just "Hasselchucked" it up regardless of the defense to try and make a play. At times, he threw some terrible interceptions for no other reason than to give his guys a chance as people are screaming for Tavaris to do now. I understand the feeling, but I think people are letting their frustrations cloud their opinions just a little bit.
Also, just to get this off my chest. Doug Baldwin gets all the credit for the route he ran against the 49ers for the TD. The fact is, it was great route by him, no doubt., but it was also a well executed throw by Jackson on time right out of the kid's break so he could turn and run almost as soon as he broke open.
Let's say that's Golden Tate last year. He probably runs that play at eight yard depth instead of fifteen, sits down late, Matt tries to force it when he shouldn't have to and the play is turned into a pick six. Watch how fast Hasselbeck gets blamed for that throw. Or let's say it's Mike Williams. He's probably doubled by an underneath linebacker and over the top by a corner as the Steelers did all game to eliminate quick throwing lanes that would make Mike Williams effective. Why is none of this stuff considered?
Let's take a true hard look at the receiving corps.
Mike Williams is slow, far too slow to be a number one. Last year, the looks he got were in single coverage mostly and Hasselbeck stuck the ball in some tight spaces even then. Williams doesn't get off the snap well and creates minimal separation. Meanwhile, he doesn't complete timing routes very consistently. This is true of both this year and last. It's hard to judge when or where he's going to make his break on a simple curl. He's got the best hands on the team, but I wouldn't expect him to get many targets from any Quarterback until he runs routes better or somehow develops a first move worthy of an NFL wideout.
Golden Tate is the next most talented, but his routes are less then stellar so far in his career. He's good in a few ways, speed is solid, first move is strong against press and can hand fight like Anquan Boldin. His big problem? You're never sure where he's going to be, that's a huge problem when your QB needs to trust and sometimes throw to a spot in double coverage to get a completion.
Zach Miller will not see the football a lot this year. His career is built on shorter routes. He executes well and is strong off the block, he doesn't get knocked around like Carlson, but unlike Oakland, we don't have Hayward-bey to pop the top off the defense as Randy Moss might say. (I know he's not a wideout, but he is a receiver and was billed as such when signed.)
Ben Obamanu is the best route runner on this team and consistently finds ways of putting his body between his defender and the ball. He had key drops that have been excused by the fact that they were high throws. Reggie Wayne makes those catches and so should Ben. He's got a complete game if he can learn to bail out his QB and make the tough ones. He also dropped a TD in San Fran and that can't happen either. There's also the lack of awareness for the ball in the air at times that bothers me.
Doug Baldwin, this kid's already shown to be someone Tavaris puts some trust in. Doug has great hands and uses his body well, shows great concentration and footwork. Clearly working in a pro-style offense has put him ahead of guys like Golden Tate and Ben Obamanu. His first move off the snap could be better, but I almost feel like I'm nit-picking here.
Deon Butler, well, what can you say about DB? Small and gets knocked around quite a bit, he's really fast, has solid concentration in traffic. He's got a knack for shorter quicker routes because of an elite first move and his hands have shown their quality through him catching and holding onto a football in the process of breaking his leg. Can't say much about his routes because he didn't run many different types. He's good on streaks and does well on short tosses that function more like screens than the typical short passes.
Did you see what was missing?
Right now, this team lacks a complete package wideout. Maybe Sidney Rice is that guy, but I don't know. None of these guys I mention outside Deon Butler have an elite first move and that's important for a number one wide out at least. This is how Darrell Jackson could catch 4 passes for 60+ yards against Champ Bailey or humiliate Shawn Springs for 9 catches in a playoff game. There's a reason why Steve Largent never missed a beat going from Jim Zorn at QB to Dave Krieg, Steve had everything but speed, but that didn't matter when the QBs could always trust him to be right where he was supposed to be, on time and alert for the football.
When you really look at this position now, it looks like a bunch of horribly mismatched parts despite some folks believing it's a position of strength. There are definitely flaws in Tavaris Jackson's game, but there are also glaring holes at the position that needs to help him find success.
60 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice perspective, good writeup
We’ll see if it changes when Rice comes in.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
Nice read thanks
I think the high bust rate of highly drafted WR and the fact rookies rarely do well, as well as the Largent example, really demonstrate the being a quality NFL WR is really more of an art form and based upon intangibles than people give it credit for.
I also feel that the relationship (meaning trust, understanding what the other will do in a given scenario et al) between the QB and WR is a huge part of the equation. Look at TJ Housh without Palmer, Branch without Brady, and (hopefully not) Rice without Favre…
Based on this assessment, TJ better light it up when Sidney Rice gets back.
Because the two already showed chemistry in Minny. And by chemistry, I mean, TJ threw the ball in Sidney’s general direction.
Don't hold your breath...
It’s not going to happen…..because Rice is not the x factor here. T-Jack is. He’s the primary source of the problems in the passing game.
by Derek Stephens on Sep 22, 2011 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Seems like he's disagreeing with the premise of the post.
"Scored a Deer Head" - Scruffy Lefty
Field Gulls | Follow me on the Twitters
Derek's post below this one has a lot more information, so I see his point
It just ruffles my feathers when I see a well written argument, and a comment saying “nuh uh so-and-so sucks” to disagree without any backing whatsoever.
Derek's one of the new writers.
His first story was quite good, and also happened to be about TJ being not good.
So it’s not like some drive by troll saying so and so sucks.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Yeah, totally understandable.
Taken out of context it could seem flippant.
"Scored a Deer Head" - Scruffy Lefty
Field Gulls | Follow me on the Twitters
Welcome to Field Gulls
FG commentating always reminds me of the Terry Pratchett adage. “People don’t use the time when you’re talking to listen to you, they use it to think about what they’re going to tell you next.”
The FG comments section can be a lot like that, coz we’re well stocked with smart, knowledgeable people. I like it! If it does make it hard on occasion to motivate oneself to write.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Nicely articulated
I don’t have the football IQ to identify each WR’s skillset so it’s nice to see someone lay out the differences between each of the guys in our corps.
And this why the FO drafted Tate, Durham signed Rice and Baldwin.
Just saying the front office sees the issues as well.
by Redzone59 on Sep 22, 2011 2:30 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Definitely not agreed on all counts.
BMW will never “look” open, doesn’t mean he isn’t. Obo proved last year he can be counted on for open looks.
I know we don’t get the all 22 tape, but when we do get to look down the field, players have been open. TJ threw a couple right over guys heads Sunday, and they were open.
What I see is a guy that doesn’t recognize who is about to come open, and when he does the window has closed. Add to that that he doesn’t have the back shoulder accuracy to throw to covered players. Or maybe even the OK from the coaching staff to try it.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Sep 22, 2011 2:32 PM PDT reply actions
I get selected All-22 tape
As Rewind/Gamepass users do. It’s highly selected tho, so I gotta wait for it to accumulate to do much with it.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Nice thorough write-up...But...
M Williams is fine. He’s a possession guy. His routes are fine. He uses his body and length to create separation. There’s a reason he was making double-digit catches in games last year….he can create space by being physical, and he can snatch the ball outside of his frame. You don’t need any more from him than that. He’s never going to be a burner, and never going to pull away from secondaries. He’s not a No. 1 and nobody should put that on him, but his size and length demand that he play on the outside because he can neutralize press coverage with his body and hands. Rice is a true No. 1 when healthy but who knows when that will be. Obomanu didn’t just stop running routes all of a sudden. Tate I agree on. Baldwin, pretty much agree on. Durham is emerging. Though I agree that the WR position should not be a “throw-away”, T-Jack was a bigger reason for Sunday’s awful showing, than the WR corps. Guys were open. Baldwin, Miller, Obo and BMW were all open often. Two of the same guys that Matt was finding open last year (BMW and OBO) are still out there now, and I’m not buying that they lost that much of a step in the off season. SEA clearly needs a No.1 and Rice was brought in to be that guy.
by Derek Stephens on Sep 22, 2011 2:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
He's only been a target in man coverage for a reason. One on One he'll win.
teams are taking him away with a linebacker covering quick throwing lanes and a corner playing over the top. He’s not seeing man coverage because teams don’t respect anyone else on this team. So he’s currently ineffective, which is what I noted.
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 22, 2011 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Yip. That's exactly why we added Rice in the off-season
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions
How often has this team
sent out 4+ WRs? Seems like 90% of the pass plays include 3Wrs, with a back and TE helping the line do its job. Until this offensive line can block a pass rush of 4-5 you aren’t going to see many open receivers.
This is an excellent point.
Something we saw last year, too, in that our pretty good TE’s were too often kept on to block.
I’ve been watching this for years. Matt always seemed to play better when the field was spread. If we went out in a two-back, two TE set I was like “oh shit, watch Matt force this one”.
by djafrot on Sep 22, 2011 5:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Amen!
You said all of the things that I would like to think I was thinking, but wasn’t.
by Tezlin on Sep 22, 2011 3:20 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
BMW runs his routs like he knows TJ isn't going to throw it his way,
but if it’s in his area code he can catch it. Miller the short routes should be bread and butter for a inexperienced and or crappy QB.
But I’ll put it this way, Sam Bradford would trade his receivers with ours in a heartbeat and he seems to be doing fine.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Sep 22, 2011 3:29 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
If that's the truth and I think you're wrong there, then he should pack up and go back home.
Quitters never prosper.
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 22, 2011 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions
The last 2-3 seasons with Hass it was always the lines fault,
now, with an even worse QB it’s the line’s and the receivers fault?
I’m not buying.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Bradford, lets swap the whole offense, including the O-Line.
Great transaction, will trade again. A++++++
I think you're onto something here.
The Rams are a fine example of a team that has the other pieces but hasn’t got any good receivers. If we had everything but WRs, we’d be the Rams. And yes, Bradford would give his eyeteeth for receivers like ours.
The Seahawks are more of a team where people like Sydney Rice, TJ Houshmanzadeh, and Deion Branch churn through, flailing, and then go somewhere else and prosper again. I have a hard time believing that the receivers are the problem when we’ve seen such talent come and go, and we just haven’t been able to do anything with it. We’ve seen Sydney Rice play with the Hawks, briefly, and it was… unspectacular.
I certainly appreciate the article, I like the effort to see things a different way, but I can’t say I agree.
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
by Bisquick McBob on Sep 22, 2011 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The lack of receivers definitely slows down that offense
It was very, very noticeable by the end of last year, particularly when I reviewed their game against us.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Doug Baldwin & Sydney Rice = Engram & Jackson ??? In the future, we hope.
I hope the FO doesn’t trade Deon Butler away for a fifth, or some such give away.
Elite speed being so sweet. (No, my real name is not Al Davis).
Good article. Thanks.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Sep 22, 2011 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I think that Sidney Rice
Could be head and shoulders better than Darrell Jackson ever was.
GET OFF ME!!!
I disagree
Don’t take this the wrong way but I found this whole read to be thoughts over thoughts, not objective. Not a bad thing persay but I object to those thoughts! And if it’s a rebutal to a certain way of thinking it did not sway me in that direction, I read this as if it was just a series of comments about other aticles, I have a scientific mind so forgive me.
It is nice to look at things in as many directions as possible but JacobStevens just wrote an article that was front paged that was fairly objective and had stills and documented play by play. Along with watching the game those are the types of arguments that make sense to me and sway my opinions.
In regards to your comments
but unlike Oakland, we don’t have Hayward-bey to pop the top off the defense as Randy Moss might say
It was not Heyward-Bey it was because the Raiders had an ultra-dynamic running attack and were pretty good at selling play action. Nobody was worried about Heyward-Bey.
I’m really looking hard at last year and seeing Hasselbeck have similar looking problems. Although in his case, Matt did take fans’ advice at times and just “Hasselchucked” it up regardless of the defense to try and make a play. At times, he threw some terrible interceptions for no other reason than to give his guys a chance as people are screaming for Tavaris to do now. I understand the feeling, but I think people are letting their frustrations cloud their opinions just a little bit.
So TJ has Matts Arm? They are two different QBs and have no direct correlation.
In my opinion Hasselback never had the arm and still doesn’t have the arm to make some of those throws as evidence how the Titans lost to the Jaguars opening day Hasselback had the right idea but just couldn’t execute it. If TJ has the arm and the ability to make a throw he should do it unless he can’t execute it, that has nothing to do with WR ability it has to do with the ability of the QB.
Also, just to get this off my chest. Doug Baldwin gets all the credit for the route he ran against the 49ers for the TD. The fact is, it was great route by him, no doubt., but it was also a well executed throw by Jackson on time right out of the kid’s break so he could turn and run almost as soon as he broke open.
I don’t think you should praise Tarvaris for making throws he should make while downplaying his lack of confidence in his wr and highlighting it as we have a glaring hole at Wideout so take that people. I feel like this article is just venting over a lack of continuity in the passing game, although I like the idea of looking at each individual wr skill set and looking at what we need or analyzing how they fit into the puzzle, I disagree that we have a glaring hole at WR unless Sidney Rice is in fact injured and never plays to his capability. I think time will tell if we really do need to draft a WR but I know the answer is not sitting out there in Free agency or a practice squad somewhere that would have a unique ability that our WR don’t possess, but I dont really have any objective proof of that.
by Jazzercise! on Sep 22, 2011 4:25 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Look at Matt's most successful games
Against the saints all of his throws were to space or against man coverage, when he had to make a route judgement versus coverage, who did he go to in that situation? Brandon Stokely, who was going to run the right route, understand his coverage and be ready for the football. He wasn’t punching the ball in between defenders to Mike Willams or laying it into golden tate, he was throwing to a guy who showed command of his position.
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 22, 2011 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions
It also, conveniently, was the man who only runs routes 8 yards off the line of scrimmage and in.
Perhaps it had less to do with receivers running precise routes and more to do with Matt’s inability to hit tight windows when the ball had to travel more than 20 yards in the air…
"How much blow can Charlie Sheen do? Enough to kill two and a half men." -Jon Lovitz
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 22, 2011 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I wonder sometimes, if Seahawk players visit this site on occasion...
…I mean, why not? It’s easily the best one for the Seahawks (no offense to Addicts, Eric Williams, 17 Power, etc. etc.). Anyway, can you imagine what a Seahawk WR would think after reading this article, one that blames the failure of Seattle’s passing game on them?
Man, that’s gotta suck. ‘Cause they can’t speak out, not without undermining the confidence of their fearless (and talentless) leader…
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
No. You've missed my point entirely. The article is NOT, Repeat NOT to excuse Jackson
Jesus, it’s like the need to hate the QB for the last three years has just meant everything else is off limits. Forget that. Everyone contributes. Why pretend doesn’t any want to take a hard look at this position without saying “Yeah but, if we had so and so we’d be awesome” I’m simply contending that despite the view of more “modern” nfl fans Wideouts matter too.
But I guess they don’t if you have crap at QB so meanwhile Matt’s had a pair of decent games and we’re stuck calling another guy a wuss, scared, fearful, limited and dumb.
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 22, 2011 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Just calling it like we see it.
Seattle has the best WRs they have had in a long time, maybe forever. A few years ago when Obo got hurt, Engram was out, and Wallace was going to start at WR but injured his calf in pre-game warm-ups, and so Payne (doing this from frail memory), Kent (not sure if he even played), and I can’t remember the name of the other posse member, but they were completely over-matched and Hasselbeck had no chance. That was when a clear deficiency at the position made a huge difference.
The same simply can’t be said today. Not even counting Rice, Seattle has more than capable WRs.
And as far as your article not to excuse Jackson, here are your words:
“‘quarterback matters more than wide receiver’ idea has become a notion people believe in. I have to shake my head and say bullshit. I understand the view but I feel it’s wrong and excusing the position entirely has gone on in favor of dumping it all in the QB’s lap for the last three seasons. It fails to see the entire and very significant problem this offense has faced and will continue to face.”
How else should we interpret these words, and your calling out all the WRs by name and indicating their weaknesses?
Finally, we are not lumping the past 3 years together when we talk about the QB situation in Seattle. I’m not anyway. I am specifically calling out the poor play of TJax, along with the fact that the QB is the most important position on the team, and how the team plays will be magnified or diminished by the quality of play at that position.
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
Courtney Taylor, that's it (thanks to Mistfit74 for reminding me in his comment below).
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
You should take it as I wrote it. The words 'excusing the position entirely' are picked here for a reason.
Because no one has asked any questions about it, there’s just been an assumption that with a better QB they’d be better players and I’m simply saying that I don’t believe that’s the case, at least not entirely. The position has very well skated because of the QB play alone and I was tired of it.
by Joshua Kasparek on Sep 22, 2011 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, and it is really valuable to weigh as many considerations as possible, and that's what your article brings to the discussion...
…and if I didn’t say so before, I appreciate it.
The reason I have focused on QB play (and this takes nothing away from what you wrote) is that my interest as a fan is to understand the most serious, and decisionable aspects of the team’s performance.
As someone pointed out earlier, the most basic responsibility doesn’t fall on TJax’s shoulder’s – instead, it’s all about PC, on at least 3 counts: one, for signing TJax; 2, for putting him in as the starter; and 3, for how has coached TJax to play. The latter is more nebulous, but I think we can fairly assume that PC has told TJax to stay in the pocket and not turn the ball over, and that is precisely what TJax has done.
I can’t fault the WRs for their quality of play, because as far as we can tell, they are playing as well as they can. Baldwin is a rookie, Tate was hurt by the lock-out in developing his route-running, BMW is what he is. Miller doesn’t know the offense, and none of these guys have played with TJax long enough to build a rapport with him. Plus, we haven’t seen any analysis that indicates poor, sloppy or lazy play on their part (not that it doesn’t necessarily exist).
Prior to the Pittsburgh game, a lot of criticism was leveled at the offensive line, both for their lack of protection and run blocking. This was easier to see then poor WR play, because you could see it. With the WRs, it’s tough to know what play was called, what route they were suppose to be on, or if/when they flashed open. Easier to see a breakdown in pass protection.
The point of all this is to attempt to justify the relentless criticism that TJax suffers from many of us fans. We can see how poorly he plays, and we know what competent QBs under identical conditions (collapsing pocket, covered WRs, weak running game) look like. And we also know how QB play makes such a massive difference in the quality of a team (too many examples to cite, but just take a look-see at this year’s Colts).
Finally, the situation is potentially fixable with one simple decision. While we generally don’t criticise who plays what position on any given down, we know that PC has other options at QB, at least one of which appears (to some of us) as a significant upgrade over the current starter. We could be wrong. Perhaps time will tell. But in the meantime, we are likely to continue to criticize TJax as long as his play warrents it.
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
We have the best WR corps one paper
Guess how much that means.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, I'll guess:
1 – it means that their value will remain on paper only until they play with a good QB,
or
2 – it means that they SHOULD be good WRs, but they may not be, no matter who plays QB
or
3 – it means that we have some WRs who have enjoyed NFL success in the past (Rice, BMW, Obo, Miller) but this is a new year, and who knows how they have progressed/regressed as professionals
That’s all I got. I give up. What does it mean?
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
Speaking of Seattle WRs...
…has anyone else noticed the career resurgence Deion Branch has had since re-joining New England?
About the 2011 Seahawks: "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, tis that I may not weep." Byron
Burleson's also having another good year as a #2 in Detroit
I picked him up in fantasy for last week. Housh, though… jeesh.
I’m a surprised Branch is into his second season with healthy knees. Looking at his stats, his production is weird. 2006-2008 were good years but just 8 games in ‘08. Most YAC of his career in that year at 5.3, 13.5 YPC or so every year… then he sucked for two years and now he’s better than before we got him.
So what happened with him? 2008 is probably Hasselbeck’s worst year. I think he does better, like MW will, as the second wide receiver.
One thing I do like about our acquisitions this year is the recognition that a real #1 WR makes a tremendous difference.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 23, 2011 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Wait. What. No. Huh. Wait. Huh. Who are you. What.
Ok. So. Wait. Huh?
You’re using two recent games from a QB on his decline, on another team, against different teams, as support for why you think this fanbase overrates our receivers?
That… that just doesn’t make any sense at all. Hell, one could argue that it’s Kenny Britt doing all the work that makes old #8 look like he’s recinarnat, but the fact is it’s BEEN TWO GAMES.
Of course, the same could be said about Tavaris Jackson, but unlike Hasselbeck, TJ has a whole career of suckitude behind him, while Hasselbeck just had half his career defined as such.
If Hasselbeck had this crew of receivers during his prime, who knows how much more successful he’d be. And yet, here’s Tavaris Jackson, dumping down 4 yard passes hoping for YAC to make his final numbers look somewhat respectable.
Bah, I say bah.
Who said anything about overrating our receivers?
I tend to agree with what the article’s implication that most often, when people try to analyze what works on an offense, the analysis starts and ends with the quarterback. You hear people on the radio talking about how Aaron Rodgers beat Micheal Vick. I take the article in the context ot the other article about Cosell and the qb/receiver mismatch. It’s not that we have bad receivers, it’s that we don’t have a complete set of uninjured receivers. We need that #1 who elevates the play of receivers like Branch, Houshmanzadeh, Burleson and Mike Williams. Tarvaris might actually play better with receivers who get open more quickly and get more separation so that he could make quicker decisions. It’s interesting. I’d like to see a real-life fantasy league in the spring where fans can collaberate to develop experiments like putting Jackson on the Eagles for a game and playing KC or swapping our line out for Tennessee’s and letting Hasselbeck play behind that. Let’s get that going. Real experimental football science.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 23, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
A few things:
BMFMW is open even when he’s not.
Baldwin isn’t as good as being portrayed in this article.
Golden Tate? Agree 100%. His lateral agility and YAC skills are great and he’s beginning to show he can make the tougher catches. Sharpen up that route-tree and we have a viable #2 and part-time slot-guy. At least I hope he can learn to also play outside.
Obo? I’m cooling severely on him. Starting to look like Ruvell Martin minus the hands – or Courtney Taylor.
Sid Rice’s problem is health. When he gets going he can be great. He’s another ‘open even when covered’ guy who can high-point the ball a la BMFMW and Fitzgerald. He can get deep. He can run routes. I’m so excited to see him play.
I wonder how much teams are blitzing vs. their base defenses? Are teams content to destroy our offensive line in base defensive fronts, allowing more in coverage by default?
Until we 1. Protect the QB, 2. Provide a rushing threat consistently, and 3. (I agree) Pass the ball down-field with some success it won’t matter all that much who or what we have or don’t have. This team is in trouble in a lot of ways and building around a future Field General is a great way to start. And, we have started that – except for actually having said Field General.
2011: F*%ked.
If anything, Tate should be better outside than in the slot
I’m still not sure about his ability to catch in traffic.
Baseball isn't played because it's *interesting*. Baseball is played because without darkness we would not appreciate the light: without sorrow, we would not appreciate joy. Baseball makes us savour life and reminds us to treasure every second we have on this beautiful planet, because such moments may never come again. Baseball is played, my dear friend, because without it we would not appreciate the time we don't have to play baseball.
by Thomas Beekers on Sep 23, 2011 3:28 AM PDT up reply actions
There is evidence to the contrary of this
Manning lost Harrison and didn’t miss a beat. Brady has had too many receivers to keep track of. Randy Moss was far more effective with a good qb than on Oakland or post-Gannon Minny.
I like your article and agree to a point but I think that there seems to be less team impact from having mediocre receivers than there does from having a mediocre qb. I think that’s why people attribute more of the passing game performance to the qb.
by negative 1 on Sep 22, 2011 7:43 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Absolutely.
QBs make their receivers exponentially more than receivers make their QB.
For fuck sake, Hasselbeck’s success with the shit he had to work with for his entire career here is evidence enough for local folks.
Not that your post was all the way incorrect in logic, but, uhm, post Gannon?
I had forgotten Gannon was even with Minny ever, but looking into it, yes he was… however, he was gone after the 1992 season. Moss’ first year was 1998. Six years later.
1998 – Randall Cunningham.
1999 – Jeff George and Randall. (And George had the good year, not Randall.)
2000-2004 – Dante Culpepper… and that’s when Randy left and Dante fell apart.
But, 6 years is quite a gap. This might have been a typo, and I’m not trying to call you out personally here while being the “Fact Check Police” but this is a good reminder for all of us to make sure that you don’t just spout random statistics or “facts” without proofreading them a little.
"How much blow can Charlie Sheen do? Enough to kill two and a half men." -Jon Lovitz
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 23, 2011 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions
My fault
Wrong qb having one good year. I remembered moss first year coinciding w/ the resurgence of a qb on the tail end if his career. I couldn’t remember who but I stand by the point.
by negative 1 on Sep 23, 2011 4:04 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Moss' time at Minny was all good though.
It was like the HoF WR like Randy Moss could make any QB a plug-and-play. However, the truth is that was a talented group of QB’s he had in Minny. Randall had a lot of good years in the NFL, Jeff George was a 1st overall pick with a rocket arm and while aged by that point, could still sling in the right scenario— Minny was the right scenario. And Dante? Well, pre-knee injury Dante was on his way to the HoF.
You made it sound like there was a time he wasn’t effective in Minnesota. But the problem is that your point that you stand by isn’t one backed by anything other than your own fuzzy memory. Where is the “bad year” here and how did his numbers change from QB to QB at Minnesota?!? So what if Randall and George were near the end of their careers? They were still effective QB’s while they were there. And Dante sure did fall off the shelf without Randy (albeit post knee-injury.)
If anything, Randy Moss’ time in Minnesota supports the argument that Krazy was making in the first place about the importance of the WR compared to the QB.
"How much blow can Charlie Sheen do? Enough to kill two and a half men." -Jon Lovitz
by Tyler Jorgensen on Sep 23, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
But what about the receiving corps as a whole?
Brady and Manning go through receivers but they don’t quickly change the way they use their #1s, 2s and tight ends. Successful offenses seem to find a system that works and don’t go in for radical change. Maybe the quality of receiver and quarterback but I think the type and tendencies of the players at those positions being comptible is more important
by EthelGemerman on Sep 23, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
um..
quality is important, type and tendencies maybe more.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 23, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
That kind of gets to the Branch question.
We made some pretty wholesale changes between 2008 and 2009 that could have made Branch less effective. I mean, it’s not like he’s just back to his old self in NE, he’s playing better than he ever has. The passes being thrown to him in Seattle couldn’t have been so bad as to explain the drop in YPC, and YAC in particular, in 2009-2010.
by EthelGemerman on Sep 23, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
gj best article all year
hands down. thanks for giving a different perspective. hopefully the angry ones will read this
I don't think a conclusion about the WRs can be made without a good QB.
But, you can tell pretty easily how good the QB is, even without quality WRs. (i.e. Bradford last year)
I can't wait until I see
Rice, Baldwin, Miller, Bull Durham, and Williams in on some passing plays together. I feel that this is the best receiving package we have right now.

by 































