I know this was posted on PFT, but I did see this on another site. PlansComeback

via windycitizensports.files.wordpress.com

I feel the guy does have a decent shot at helping a team with a good front four become more effective in lining up and such. I would't count the guy out, he's a pure warrior on the field. Not exactly the most physical or fastest guy around, but still a player if he's healthy. He'll help someone out. It won't be in Seattle, though.

Has it felt like a long time since we had this thread? It's because it has been a long time since we had this thread. I apologize for the lack of vigilance.

Anyway, as the title indicates, this is the thread for everyone to shoot the shit about everything not related to Seahawks football, or football in general. For a good jumping off point, I'll talk about the two TV shows that FGers can't get enough of.

Continue reading this post »

In the first article of this series I looked at free agents and draft hopefulls at defensive end. This time I'm going to take a closer look into wide receivers. It can be argued that we don't need any wide receivers. Baldwin was an undrafted rookie that led the team, Sidney Rice the high priced free agent signing of last off season, not to mention the new contracts that Mike Williams and Ben Obomanu signed last year. I haven't even mentioned Golden Tate who started to show life mid/late season, Deon Butler who was promising in 2010 but missed most of 2011 due to injury, Kris Durham drafted last year, and the wild card Ricardo Lockette. That's a pretty deep bunch of wideouts. I don't think it's good enough, but more importantly I dont think Pete Carroll thinks so either. Here is the quote from Pete Carroll:

"You're always looking for touchdown makers on offense," Carroll said. "You always want to get guys that can score. So if there's a wide receiver in the draft that would be cool, if there's a big-time running back that would be cool."


We'll address the running back portion of that quote at a later time, Pete Carroll mentioned specifically draft, but do you wait and hope your guy isn't taken or if there is a guy sitting there in free agency, do you take him? Well you take him. First though, you have to determine who on the roster you are going to keep and let go. My list of WRs to let go are as follows: Mike Williams - vanished this year, love his height in the redzone, but he can't seem to get open or targeted there. He played in 12 games and got 18 receptions... 18!! For our #2 WR, unacceptable. Ben Obomanu I would also let go. Nothing wrong with the kid he's been great for a 7th round pick, he's just not better than the guys I'm keeping. Deon Butler - First, I hate that he is on my cut list. I really like him. A 3rd round pick in 2009, good hands and work ethic, but it's a numbers game and slot receiver is full. That's my cut list for now, but depending on how free agency and draft go, there may be more.

So what does that leave us with? Rice is your starting #1, as it stands Ricardo Lockette would be best option at #2, your slot receiver is Baldwin, #4 is Tate and your what call your possession receiver is Kris Durham. Rice as we know is injury prone. Lockette although has tremendous potential is untested. Our slot guys are awesome, Baldwin and Tate likely to rotate, with Tate getting in as well when we are in a 4 WR set. Kris Durham in my opinion is the best route runner on this team, and has great hands. He's 6'6" and should get a lot of looks in the redzone as well. So in my opinion we need a starting #2 at least, and that is where I'll focus. There are some big name WRs out there, but I will avoid going into those here, I don't think front office would consider adding: Vincent Jackson, Wes Welker, Marques Colston, or Mike Wallace (RFA)... although any one of them would be awesome I admit. OK, here you go:

Free Agents:

Dwayne Bowe - KC Chiefs - back to back 1000 yard seasons. He didn't come close to his playmaking 15 TDs he had in 2010, but he's a good wide receiver to compliment Rice. I know he's a #1 in KC, but I don't see him in the same league as the ones I mentioned above. He can also slip into #1 when (or if... can't assume) Rice goes down with injury.

Mario Manningham - NY Giants - Nicks and Cruz are your main targets in NY and I think they let Manningham go due to not wanting to tie up more money in WR. Manningham missed some time with a knee injury this season, but it's nothing major. Last year 60 receptions and 57 the year before that. Consistant.

Pierre Garcon - Colts - Probably one of the more interesting names on this list. He can break off long receptions and is a playmaker. His main problem is dropping the football. He's only 26 and lightning fast. 765, 784, 947 were his receiving yards the last 3 years.

Reggie Wayne - Colts - What? News flash, Wayne is no longer a #1 WR. He's 34 years old but will still have a lot of value to someone as a #2... us. Why? Lockette, Baldwin, Tate and Durham were either rookies or 2nd year guys. They need a veteran WR to help them out. What? Rice? He'll tell the kids how to deal with being injured. Wayne would be perfect for that roll and can still play football... maybe he just had a down year but that along with age will scare some teams away. 75 receptions for 960 this year.

Stevie Johnson - Bills - I actually really like him. I'm on the east coast so I get a few more opportunities to see him play than maybe those out west. The knock on him... he's undisciplined. He plays with emotion which isn't bad, but it is if you cant channel it. He's not a true #1 WR, his skills are best suited being #2 and next to Rice, would be great.

There were a few others I didnt put here (Laurent Robinson - injury prone, Desean Jackson - headcase, and Brandon Lloyd - interesting but can't list everyone).

NFL Draft:

This draft class is pretty interesting. I think this class is deep, not deep in elite WRs, but deep in good solid WRs. Now because of the depth here, I'll write up a couple that could be our first round pick if Carroll descides to go there, a couple of potential 2nd round potentials and a couple of sleepers to spread it out a bit.

Justin Blackmon - Oklahoma State - 6'1" 208lbs - It is very possible that he could be there at 11/12. With this class and it's depth, you could see teams in need like the Rams or Jags pass on WR in the first and take one in the 2nd round and still get a solid prospect. Blackmon makes plays, he's got wheels and is a good route runner. Blackmon constantly received double teams and still wound up with 100+ yard games consistantly. He's the best hands down, no doubt about it in this draft class.

Dwight Jones - North Carolina - 6'3" 228lbs - Don't let the weight fool you, he is a very fast, physical receiver and is tough to bring down. He has good hands, 85 receptions 1196 yards and 12 TDs this year. Watch his combine and proday... you'll be impressed. His 85 receptions may seem low compared to others projected in 1st round (Blackmon - 121; Kendall Wright - 108; Michael Floyd - 100), but he does everything well and didn't have a good QB throwing him the ball.

Marvin McNutt - Iowa - 6'3" 216lbs - Remember this name in the 2nd round! He does everything well: good hands, good speed, good routes and good blocker. He finds another gear to beat you downfield. He averaged more yards per catch than any of the wide receivers I mentioned in the first round with 16 yards per catch and had 12 TDs.

Nick Toon - Wisconsin - 6'3" 217lbs - Toon will be a 2nd round pick because of his NFL roots. His father Al Toon played for 8 years with the Jets. This version is a bit of a puzzle. Wisconsin is a running team so Toon's production may not be up there, but from what I've read is likely the best blocking WR in this class. Don't misunderstand, yes he can catch too. He's a good route runner as well. I do like him from what I've seen... I want to see more at the combine.

Jordan White - Western Michican - 6'0" 215 - I admit I didn't know anything about him until I started looking over wide receivers this week. In hindsight, how could I have missed him? He led the nation in receptions with 140! He also posted 1911 yards and 17 TDs. So umm why isn't he first overall pick in the draft? Small school syndrome, but there is some talent to be sure. He can stretch the field but virtually untested. 3rd round or later sleeper.

Risard Matthews - Nevada - 6'2" 215 lbs - Another smallish school kid with skills. Colin Kaeperneck's main target before he was drafted by the 49ers last year. His production without an NFL calibre QB throwing him the ball this year? Even better... 91 receptions 1364 yards, compared to 56 rec 879 yds with Kaepernick. I havent been able to find much film on him, but oddly enough was able to find a 40 time of 4.5. 4th or 5th round.

Well there you have it. These are the players I think would fit well with the Seahawks in that #2 WR position. If nothing else, we need depth at #2, and that has that skill set to slide over to number #1 in the case of injury. I ask you, which way should the Seahawks go? Free Agency or Draft? Or make your arguement for keeping what we have. Personally, I think for WR that the free agent option is better, unless we can draft Blackmon, but even then is WR what we want from our 1st round pick? He's likely the best player on the board if he's there at 11/12 so yes you take him. Any of the WRs I mentioned I'd take over a drafted WR. I like what we have with young WRs and Lockette is no different than bringing in a WR from the draft... he's just as fresh, but has 1 more year with the playbook. We need the veteran WR though to compliment this group... we are very young. What do you think?

"Are you not entertained?"

This is the third in a series of posts designed to build on Davis' theory of the Green Bay Roster Model and its concepts therein. In his theory, there will be a roster churn every year, averaging about 13 players a year. This series expands on those hypothetical concepts and asks, where will the churn hit?

In my first two installments one and two I talked about the wide receivers and the offensive line. We will flip the page now and talk about the defense, focusing on "The Line." The traditional 4-3 set has two big husky guys in the middle to run stop, and two faster guys on the outsides to pressure the QB but that are big and strong enough to also "set an edge" or funnel a play back inside to the linebackers.

We are not a traditional 4-3. This hybrid called the 4-3 over shifts the linebackers to the strong side, because of the shift it calls for different types of linemen than a traditional 4-3. Personnel wise it appears closer to a 3-4 with three husky guys and four linebackers. For us we play with that type of personnel, only one of our linebackers is effectively a down lineman who is a dedicated rusher. That rusher, as most know, is the Leo.

Beyond that, Pete Carroll loves to use substitution packages to "cover" any weaknesses left by base packages and special teams. This can sometimes make for extraordinary play, but often times results in the churn. Also because of the blending that occurs on the line I will only separate Leos from other linemen. A typical 3-4 team may only keep 6 or 7 linemen, sometimes as few as 5, but the typical 4-3 carries anywhere form 8 to 10 linemen. You can add into that number that generally one or two will find a spot on the practice squad and you can have up to 12 defensive linemen on a team at any given time. Generally speaking though, the average is 8 and 2, for a total of 10 linemen.

Defensive line is also one of those places that has been severely churned over the last few years, this does not in any way eliminate the need to acquire new talent, in fact it may be one of the spots Seattle needs to focus on most.

In 2011, the Seahawks were, depending your point of view, either the top of the worst, or the bottom of the middle in both sacks and pressures. Most of that is because the scheme calls for a penetrating 3 tech, and on passing downs having two effective ends who can get to the QB. We had one DE who performed and none of the other components.

Lets start with the Leo position, since it is extremely critical in generating pressure.

Continue reading this post »

There already have been a lot of great suggestions by the illustrious members of this community. I want this to continue and hopefully become a resource where everyone can gain an intricate knowledge of the game we love. Thanks to everyone who contributes.

My original text:

I've always loved football. I started playing when I was 7 and didn't stop until my high school glory days ran out. However, I was never blessed with the opportunity to play under great coaches (or a great team for that matter). I would like to expand my knowledge of the game starting with the defense. I figure other people may feel the same way, so I thought it would be a good idea to have a FanShot to suggest and discuss books and websites that are informative. Smart Football has been a good starting place for a little bit of everything, but I really want to learn more.

Field Gulls, what are your favorite books and websites that truly break down the X's and O's of the game we obsess over?

Suggested Sources:

Field Gulls

Smart Football

Football Outsiders

Advanced NFL Stats

Pro Football Reference

Zone Blocking System - An FSU Perspective

Pete Carroll 4-3 Under Defense

Pete Carroll 4-3 Under Defense - Blitzing

Monte Kiffin Defense Part 1

Monte Kiffin Defense Part 2

Football Defense

As discussed here and there in the 49ers playoff run, this 49ers team shares a lot of elements that fit in with Pete Carroll's ideas for this franchise. Strong defense, strong special teams, offense playing it safe. This is the kind of model you often see defensive-minded coaches bring in, and I think it's a big part of the reason why there are indications that defensive-minded coaches are more apt to fail, at least until they learn the value of a good offense.

The two teams built with the defense-first model lost to a much more well-balanced and well-rounded team (the Giants) and an Indianapolis Colts-like offense-only team (the Patriots). That's a shame, I was hoping for a defense-only Superbowl. The Giants-49ers game again highlighted the value of a franchise quarterback. Ravens-Patriots, oddly enough, had Joe Flacco completely outplay Tom Brady, but the Patriots still won. Conclude from that what you will.

It's pretty clear when we're talking about successful models nothing trumps getting a great or elite franchise quarterback. Even if a defensive team once again gets to the Superbowl (last one was the Bears, I guess?) all that proves is that it's possible, it's still the less likely of the two paths. Possible or likely is a distinction I personally think is worth keeping in mind.

Continue reading this post »

I've seen a lot of posts suggesting that doing mock drafts and discussing what position of need should be 'targets' is ridiculous because free agency is before the draft and who knows what signings the Seahawks will do, and what free agents will leave. I don't agree that it's premature to do mock drafts before free agency at all. There are a few reasons for that.

One, in doing mock drafts and assessing who might be available when we are on the clock, it gives you a sense of what positions you 'have to' target in free agency because the guy that fits your team the best may not be there by the time you draft.

Two, it also gives you an idea of how much you may need to spend in free agency on a player. For instance, if Lynch was demanding $7M/year for 5 years and you knew that Trent Richardson would likely be there at pick 11/12 (he wont be) or if there were say 3 elite backs in this draft class, you may decide to let Lynch go for that price. If it was a weak draft class for running backs you may approach Lynch differently and think his demands are about right based on the free agent market, what he brings to our team and what is available in the draft. It all plays a part.

What I want to accomplish with this article is to see what might be available to us in free agency that fits our team style and what I believe PC and JS are looking to accomplish.

I want to take a look at the defensive options. I can't possibly list all of the players that are available for any given position (example: roughly 38 DE free agents) so I'll narrow down the list a bit and base it on skill set, then I'll list some possible targets available in the draft (various rounds) that again I believe would be 'targets' based on what I believe the team is looking for. First up: Defensive End

DE: Free Agents (pass rushing)

1) Mario Williams - Texans - DE/OLB - Williams tops this list based on his name and reputation. He has speed off of the edge and will get pressure on the QB. He's only 27, but comes with some risk. He is coming off of two injury plagued seasons in where he only played in five games this year and 13 games in 2010.

2) Cliff Avril - Lions - DE - Avril had probably his best year of his career this year with 11 sacks and 6 forced fumbles (9 sacks and 1 FF in 2010). The knock on Avril is his run defence, it's pretty non-existant. He's going to get paid by someone.

3) Anthony Spencer - Cowboys - He puts up decent number for DE/OLB, 6 sacks and 4 forced fumbles. He had a couple of really poor games in 2011, but overall is a good/experienced option that may not come cheap, but less that top two. In 2010, Spencer had 5 sacks and 2 FF, 2009 had 6 sacks and 2 FF... consistent that way.

4) Jeremy Mincey - Jags - DE - Mincey is coming off his best year as a pro, registering 8 sacks and 4 forced fumbles. In 2010 he had 5 sacks and 0 forced fumbles. To me, Mincey is a tweener... is he coming into his own and becoming a force on the line or did he just have a great year in a contract year? He's 28 so his window is shrinking to figure it out.

5) Jonathan Fanene - Bengals - DE/DT - I like him. He's a guy that can move inside and play DT as well, he is a good run stopper with quickness to get to the QB, he had 6.5 sacks this year, only played in two games in 2010, but had 6 sacks in 2009. He's not going to force any fumbles for you (0 in career), but he's an all heart guy.

6) Robert Mathis - Colts - OLB/DE - Age 31 - Worth a post 9.5 sacks 3 FF in 2011, 11 sacks 1 FF in 2010, 9.5 sacks and 5 FF in 2009. Might be better suited as our WILL LB than DE, but hey that's not my job to assess... here are the facts: Gets to the QB! Playmaker (37 forced fumbles in career), Yes he's 31 but has good 3 years left in him as starter.
Other notables available: John Abraham age 34, Andre Carter age 33, Michael Bennett age 26 (RFA).

Continue reading this post »

Danny's recent post about the general rules and guidelines of Field Gulls (and the litany of comments afterward) got me thinking back to the time before I started writing for the site. I had been reading Field Gulls for a few years and never even created a profile, generally content to sit back and read the articles and occasionally peruse the comments section. I wanted to join in, but was a little intimidated so I just chilled.

Continue reading this post »

After I wrote this comment and sparked the subsequent discussion, including Beekers' frank and self-deprecating response, I wanted to add a few more points and reply to a few other comments in the following subthread. I began composing a comment, but it got pretty long, so I thought I'd extend it to its own FanPost and include more of an exposition of my recent thoughts on the matter.

I thought about making this a direct personal response to Beekers, in the form of an email or something like that, but I thought I'd post it publicly, as I'd like to see what sort of meta conversation I can spark regarding the current and future state of the Field Gulls.

Disclaimer: In the interest of clarity, or of drawing relevant comparisons, I may refer to specific people, specific comments, or specific blogs. My purpose is not to call anyone out or crucify anyone, so please don't take anything personally. This sort of meta discussion can unintentionally come across as a proverbial pantsing at times, and I don't intend it that way. It was for that reason I chose to make this a FanPost rather than a story, and why I think it may be best if this stays off the front page. I want to generate discussion, but I'd rather keep that discussion in the living room, if you will.

A point-by-point response to Beekers' reply to me.

You, me, any writer here, we all put in our time for free. That should certainly be appreciated, but it doesn’t exempt us from criticism. People should not just feel free to be critical of content, it should be encouraged, because the interactive process between community and writers is the lifeblood of any blog. As long as you’re not an asshole about it, and Ninjahawk was not.

You're very right, it doesn't exempt us from criticism. In fact, if anything, we should be the most criticized contributors on the site, if for no other reason than relative volume of content produced. But there's a difference between constructive criticism and completely nonconstructive, passive-aggressive snipes angled directly at anybody, including writers and mods. In my opinion, the comment that sparked this discussion was one of the latter.

Besides, it has been made abundantly clear to me before that my brusque tone of commentary is pretty unwelcome here on this incarnation of Field Gulls, and try as I might I never seem to be able to change it for any extended period of times. I think it’s an outlet thing, since I’m too much of a nice guy in real life (Yeah, I know. “What?” It’s true though).

I often disagree with you, but I appreciate your analysis and commitment to the site, so I don't feel it necessary or appropriate to express my disagreement with "God you're an asshole," or anything more or less direct. You aren't petty, you aren't mean, and you don't go about fault-finding. Your tone can be brusque and you don't sugar-coat your messages, but there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

We keep going over this so it’s becoming a bit of a broken record, but again; Field Gulls is a different entity now. Most of the story content is commentary (humorous or otherwise) or filler, rather than analysis, and the vast majority of it is highly positive and fan-emotion-based. Since that is the content, that is the level of commentary you encourage, and the new commentators you draw in. And that, in turn, means that blunt and “boring” analysis becomes unwelcome, both in comments and, inevitably, in stories. You can add as many writers as you like, but a blog will inevitably get a tone, a tenor, a dominant narrative that welcomes one level of discourse and discourages another.

You've said this a number of times, and I've gotta say I disagree. I mean, I understand your point and I agree that that can and will be a reality. But I disagree with your conclusion- just because that may be a trend doesn't mean it should welcomed, accepted, or tolerated. Emotion driven fan discourse and straightforward objective analysis can and should coexist.

The fact of the matter is, you know more than a lot of us and sometimes you act like it -- and that is completely acceptable. Imagine Pete Carroll joined our discussion. At some point in our conversation, I stated as fact something I erroneously believed to be true about, heck I dunno, the relationship between Marshawn Lynch and Tom Cable or something like that. If Pete said, "No, you're wrong, it's actually this way," would we jump all over him for being petty, nit-picking, or an asshole? No, because he's an established authority on that subject. He knows Marshawn and Cable personally and interacts with them regularly.

Just the same, you've demonstrated repeatedly, through analysis and tape-watching, that you are well-studied and well-versed in many of the intricacies of NFL defensive and offensive theory and practice. That doesn't mean you're infallible or the ultimate authority, but I'd say you're unarguably one of the most knowledgeable and informed contributors on Field Gulls, and perhaps in all of SBN's football blogs. And don't argue with that assertion. ;)

So this is my long and verbose way of saying you've earned your stripes and we accordingly owe you the appropriate deference and respect. Now, don't confuse this to mean I'm saying we need to place you on a pedestal. Not at all. What it means is, in discussions when you clearly know a lot, if not more than us, you have every right to speak as an authority. And personally, I'd rather you just state your observations and analysis bluntly and objectively, rather than tiptoeing around our delicate sensibilities and wasting our time.

I don’t think I’ll ever pitter-patter around the issue or be circumspect in politeness, or say anything other than “you’re wrong” when someone is wrong. And I think part of it is cultural differences. But I’m not really making excuses. Just saying, it’s not intentional, and feel free to nudge me whenever I seem out of line.

Yes, I do think culture differences may play a part in the misunderstandings. I spent three months in Europe and I saw pretty explicitly that Europeans and Americans communicate differently. If you were to arrange all manner of communication on a spectrum, with internet troll or the average BBV, BTSC, or NN commenter on one end (ZING!), and the stereotypical 19th-century British gentleman at the other, we Americans often range toward the classless end and Europeans in general (from my experience) tend more in the opposite direction. Obviously this isn't a rule.

As jacobstevens so eloquently put it,

I sometimes then realize my offense is more pride than that the tone was inappropriate. I would rather a straightforward blunt tone than a sugar-coated one, for the community. There are tactful ways of countering that, and respect is a critical part of really good discourse. But pleasantries over honesty is not.

We're all big boys on here, whether you're 12 or 72. If you don't like being told you're wrong, don't be wrong! But no, seriously, I'd rather be told I'm wrong than continue to believe something that is, in fact, wrong. And honestly, if you're reading this and thinking, "No, I'd rather him be nice to me and pat me on the back and gradually coddle me into realizing I just didn't quite have it right"--I can't think of anything to say but "Grow up and enter the real world."

See how much agreement Ninjahawk has, in the form of the encouraged reccing. That’s not new or surprising, it just is what it is.

I don't really care that four people anonymously rec'd it (the fifth, amusingly, was Beekers himself). The other four people didn't care to partake in the thread. Not that the lurkers don't matter, they do and we love you, lurkers! But a number of people (all regular contributors, mind you) stood up and vocally and passionately disagreed. This is a pattern that I've noticed.

A decent majority of the people that tend to get all bent out of shape about you, Beeks, are often folks who rarely contribute anything of substance anyways. I know that sounds harsh and judgmental, but it's true. There have certainly been regular and enjoyable contributors who've taken umbrage with your tone at times, but I've definitely seen plenty of people come and take passing shots at you, people who I'd just as soon not read comments from again. So just because some people anonymously rec'd that post, please don't take that to be a microcosm of the entire community.

And if I'm the odd guy out here, and the majority of the community disagrees with this entire post, well I suppose the "rec"ord may demonstrate that. Then I can know the direction we truly are headed as a community and I'll just go sulk in a corner with Beekers and the rest of us objective folk. :)

* * * * *

In summary, I suppose I'll say this: let's not lose our objectivity. We don't need to be so hardcore and fundamentalist that we develop an elitist reputation like Lookout Landing (a blog I also love, but one whose comment sections often have an undeniably marginalizing tone).

But if we cease to be rational and objective, I don't see much that sets us apart from the drivel that comprises much of the rest of the Internet. And I want to be proud of Field Gulls. I am proud of Field Gulls. Immensely so. Let's continue to hold ourselves to a high standard of civility and intelligent discourse, and couple that with the natural warmth of emotional fandom.

I don't know if the Seahawks should invest a good chunk of draft capital acquiring Robert Griffin III. I don't know if Pete Carroll and John Schneider would want to go so far out of their way to draft him, or if there's another QB that is (or could be available) that they would rather get. A lot can change between now and late April, and nothing is set in stone (other than Andrew Luck getting picked #1).

Assuming there isn't a devastating injury or outrageous scandal in the next three-and-a-half months, Griffin is the 2nd-best QB in the 2012 Draft, and will almost certainly be one of the first 10 players picked. Right now the Seahawks will either wind up with the 11th or 12th overall pick, and the chances that Griffin falls to us is probably less than 1%. So if the Seahawks want Griffin (and I am not certain they are, as I said), then they'll need to trade up for, arguably, the best QB the Seahawks could possibly hope to acquire this offseason.

And the path to the Heisman-winning QB out of Baylor University goes through The-City-That-Probably-Has-A-Nickname-But-I-Don't-Feel-Like-Looking-It-Up, Cleveland.

Continue reading this post »