2008 areas of need

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
see it:

OFFENSE
* New right guard. Gray is done. A great career for us, but he spent
most of the year getting bullied more than Chris Makepeace. A key
component in the failure that was our ground game.
* New RT if we don't sign Locklear. We should try to sign him, but if
some other team is going to pony up LT money and try to switch him to
that side, we'll have to let him go. We're already paying someone LT
money.
* Another OL option to work in at LG. Let's face it, the run-blocking
was f-ing terrible this year and the line in general was a big
culprit. That having been said:
* A new starting RB. Dunno if we need to spend a top pick on one, but
I'm pretty much done with Alexander. Morris was better this year,
plain and simple. I suppose Shaun might bounce back and be decent at
best next year, but he's not getting any younger, and if he's at the
stage in his career (which it looks to me like he is) where he's going
to give us something like 1,100 yards on 300 carries, no, that's not
successful nor is it good. 3.8 ypc is not acceptable -- teams don't
win because of that, they win in spite of it. Our terrible run-
blocking notwithstanding, Shaun really did nothing this year to make
me think that he's primed to bounce back into above-average
territory. We need above-average production if we're going to make a
Super Bowl run.

DEFENSE
* Another cover corner -- two, if Trufant leaves. Sorry, but
Babineaux can't cover anyone. He's made some big plays for us in the
past (usually in zone defense, or a big tackle), but he's a liability
as a nickelback. Teams go three-wide far too often in this day and
age for us to keep rolling out a third CB that cannot cover. As for
Tru, we should sign him to reasonably fat cash if we can.
* Another safety. Grant was pretty good this year, Russell not so
much. Sure, we stopped the deep ball, which is great, but Russell
didn't do a whole lot else. According to the writer at
FieldGulls.com, who broke down the tape after every game, Russell was
more of a liability than a plus for much of the year. Russell gets
built up as this scrappy playmaker, but he wasn't a font of
interceptions nor was he making a ton of key stops either. He was
typically just kinda... there.
* Tubbs to get healthy, or another DT to step in and help Mebane stuff
the offensive line. A rotation of Tubbs, Mebane and Bernard should be
pretty productive.
* A more accomplished DE to step in for Tapp if he doesn't develop any
further. Tapp had his moments this year but they came in bunches and
much of the rest of the time, he disappeared. He typically wasn't
that great against the run either. As for Kerney, sure, great final
totals, but some his success came in bunches too (against bad teams,
typically). This is not to disparage Kerney -- that was a good
signing, although I was skeptical when we brought him aboard -- but at
the same time, he disappeared in some games too (where was he
yesterday?) He's a keeper for now, no doubt, but that doesn't mean we
can't use another good DE to rotate in or start in place of Tapp.

That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
disagree or otherwise chime in.

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>sea-seahawks

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 13, 10:49 am, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
> particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
> all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
> see it:
>
> OFFENSE
> * New right guard. Gray is done. A great career for us, but he spent
> most of the year getting bullied more than Chris Makepeace. A key
> component in the failure that was our ground game.
> * New RT if we don't sign Locklear. We should try to sign him, but if
> some other team is going to pony up LT money and try to switch him to
> that side, we'll have to let him go. We're already paying someone LT
> money.
> * Another OL option to work in at LG. Let's face it, the run-blocking
> was f-ing terrible this year and the line in general was a big
> culprit. That having been said:
> * A new starting RB. Dunno if we need to spend a top pick on one, but
> I'm pretty much done with Alexander. Morris was better this year,
> plain and simple. I suppose Shaun might bounce back and be decent at
> best next year, but he's not getting any younger, and if he's at the
> stage in his career (which it looks to me like he is) where he's going
> to give us something like 1,100 yards on 300 carries, no, that's not
> successful nor is it good. 3.8 ypc is not acceptable -- teams don't
> win because of that, they win in spite of it. Our terrible run-
> blocking notwithstanding, Shaun really did nothing this year to make
> me think that he's primed to bounce back into above-average
> territory. We need above-average production if we're going to make a
> Super Bowl run.
>
> DEFENSE
> * Another cover corner -- two, if Trufant leaves. Sorry, but
> Babineaux can't cover anyone. He's made some big plays for us in the
> past (usually in zone defense, or a big tackle), but he's a liability
> as a nickelback. Teams go three-wide far too often in this day and
> age for us to keep rolling out a third CB that cannot cover. As for
> Tru, we should sign him to reasonably fat cash if we can.
> * Another safety. Grant was pretty good this year, Russell not so
> much. Sure, we stopped the deep ball, which is great, but Russell
> didn't do a whole lot else. According to the writer at
> FieldGulls.com, who broke down the tape after every game, Russell was
> more of a liability than a plus for much of the year. Russell gets
> built up as this scrappy playmaker, but he wasn't a font of
> interceptions nor was he making a ton of key stops either. He was
> typically just kinda... there.
> * Tubbs to get healthy, or another DT to step in and help Mebane stuff
> the offensive line. A rotation of Tubbs, Mebane and Bernard should be
> pretty productive.
> * A more accomplished DE to step in for Tapp if he doesn't develop any
> further. Tapp had his moments this year but they came in bunches and
> much of the rest of the time, he disappeared. He typically wasn't
> that great against the run either. As for Kerney, sure, great final
> totals, but some his success came in bunches too (against bad teams,
> typically). This is not to disparage Kerney -- that was a good
> signing, although I was skeptical when we brought him aboard -- but at
> the same time, he disappeared in some games too (where was he
> yesterday?) He's a keeper for now, no doubt, but that doesn't mean we
> can't use another good DE to rotate in or start in place of Tapp.
>
> That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
> disagree or otherwise chime in.

Whoops, sorry to piggyback my own post, but I completely forgot TE.
Yeah, we need one of those too.

Santolina chamaecyparissu · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

On Jan 13, 10:49 am, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
> particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
> all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
> see it:
>
> OFFENSE
> * New right guard.

Since there are quite a few positions that need to be addressed I'm
wondering if they might want to stand pat at guard and center. There
are several young players on the roster who at least on paper could be
developed.

(snip)

> * A new starting RB.

Yes, and that's the case even if you think Alexander still has
something left. Watters was still an unquestioned starter when
Alexander was drafted.

(snip)

>
> DEFENSE
> * Another cover corner -- two, if Trufant leaves.

Hell, yes. Sign Trufant, and please don't ever leave Peewee manned up
on a tall WR ever again.

> Sorry, but Babineaux can't cover anyone.

He's a "tweener", too slow to cover WRs and not mean enough to start
at safety. He's fine on special teams and maybe could be a backup in
a pinch.

(snip)

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 13, 11:19 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:
> On Jan 13, 10:49 am, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
> > particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
> > all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
> > see it:
>
> > OFFENSE
> > * New right guard.
>
> Since there are quite a few positions that need to be addressed I'm
> wondering if they might want to stand pat at guard and center. There
> are several young players on the roster who at least on paper could be
> developed.

Stand pat? Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but come on, Steve, you
watched the same games that I did this year. Our run-blocking
SUCKED. We were among the worst in the league -- I don't know if I
actually saw any other teams with worse run-blocking. I'm all for
trying to develop Willis, Wrotto, et al, but going into the 2008
season with this same starting five is going to yield the exact same,
if not worse, results (Gray is done, and Walter is just another year
older and that much less effective).

So, I agree we need to develop our backups, and if you are suggesting
that we put them in the starting lineup next year, that's one option
-- but if we are to win in 2008, either those backups need to be ready
to play *NOW* (which I think is realistically unlikely, but who
knows), or we need to bring 1-2 guys that CAN play now and that are
good. Otherwise, expect the ground game to be another morass of shite
next year.

Santolina chamaecyparissu · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

On Jan 13, 11:41 am, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 13, 11:19 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13, 10:49 am, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
> > > particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
> > > all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
> > > see it:
>
> > > OFFENSE
> > > * New right guard.
>
> > Since there are quite a few positions that need to be addressed I'm
> > wondering if they might want to stand pat at guard and center. There
> > are several young players on the roster who at least on paper could be
> > developed.
>
> Stand pat? Maybe I'm misunderstanding here, but come on, Steve, you
> watched the same games that I did this year. Our run-blocking
> SUCKED.

Let me clarify. They have three young players at interior line
positions, plus Willis who is listed as a tackle but maybe can play
guard, so there is a hope/expectation that there will be some natural
progression here. You therefore don't necessarily approach free
agency saying, "oh my god, we're terrible at guard, let's open the
checkbook for the next Tom Ashworth," and you don't necessarily
approach the high rounds of the draft saying, "oh my god, we're
terrible at guard, we have to take the BPA." Of course, if a good
value free agent or can't-miss prospect present themselves you
seriously look at them, that goes without saying. It also goes
without saying that you at least have to add o-line players every year
in the lower rounds of the draft.

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Jan 13, 1:49 pm, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:

> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion.

[Snip great wall of text]

> That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
> disagree or otherwise chime in.

My wishlist in order of priority top to bottom.:

2 Guards. One proven free agent, the other
a draftee to groom.

Running Back. Pass catching skills and a fan friendly running
style a must. I'm pro moving away from Shaun immediately.
I'm not going to boo or attempt to re-write history. I think
his performance this year was at least as much to do with
injury and awful blocking, but it's time to move on.

2 TEs. One pass catching stud. The other a youngster to groom.

A couple of young DT prospects. Doesn't matter where we
get them.

A tackle prospect. Maybe get lucky.

I could live with another DE prospect I guess. Nothing else
on D really concerns me all that much. Unlike Santolina,
I like Jennings and think he progressed well. I also like
both of our safeties just fine.

BillB

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

Squidly wrote:
> On Jan 13, 1:49 pm, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion.
>
> [Snip great wall of text]
>
>> That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
>> disagree or otherwise chime in.
>
> My wishlist in order of priority top to bottom.:
>
> 2 Guards. One proven free agent, the other
> a draftee to groom.
>
> Running Back. Pass catching skills and a fan friendly running
> style a must. I'm pro moving away from Shaun immediately.
> I'm not going to boo or attempt to re-write history. I think
> his performance this year was at least as much to do with
> injury and awful blocking, but it's time to move on.

Part of succeeding as GM in the NFL has much to do with knowing when to
give up a lot for a position and when to give up a little, hoping to get
lucky. It sounds like you're saying it would be okay to give up a lot,
ie, a big chunk of cap space, for a RB. I agree with "moving away" only
to the point of risking a high draft pick, but a high priced FA? I'd say
it would be better to take a chance on Alexander bouncing back next
season. Once you get more a a cap break cutting Alexander, then you can
afford a high priced FA. 20 mil of cap space tied up in RBs? No good.

Stephen

seahawk · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 69

dinoscop@gmail.com wrote:
> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion. These are in no
> particular order, and it's quite possible we can't (or won't) address
> all of these areas, but here are the places we need to upgrade, as I
> see it:
>
> OFFENSE
> * New right guard. Gray is done. A great career for us, but he spent
> most of the year getting bullied more than Chris Makepeace. A key
> component in the failure that was our ground game.
> * New RT if we don't sign Locklear. We should try to sign him, but if
> some other team is going to pony up LT money and try to switch him to
> that side, we'll have to let him go. We're already paying someone LT
> money.
> * Another OL option to work in at LG. Let's face it, the run-blocking
> was f-ing terrible this year and the line in general was a big
> culprit. That having been said:
> * A new starting RB. Dunno if we need to spend a top pick on one, but
> I'm pretty much done with Alexander. Morris was better this year,
> plain and simple. I suppose Shaun might bounce back and be decent at
> best next year, but he's not getting any younger, and if he's at the
> stage in his career (which it looks to me like he is) where he's going
> to give us something like 1,100 yards on 300 carries, no, that's not
> successful nor is it good. 3.8 ypc is not acceptable -- teams don't
> win because of that, they win in spite of it. Our terrible run-
> blocking notwithstanding, Shaun really did nothing this year to make
> me think that he's primed to bounce back into above-average
> territory. We need above-average production if we're going to make a
> Super Bowl run.
>
> DEFENSE
> * Another cover corner -- two, if Trufant leaves. Sorry, but
> Babineaux can't cover anyone. He's made some big plays for us in the
> past (usually in zone defense, or a big tackle), but he's a liability
> as a nickelback. Teams go three-wide far too often in this day and
> age for us to keep rolling out a third CB that cannot cover. As for
> Tru, we should sign him to reasonably fat cash if we can.
> * Another safety. Grant was pretty good this year, Russell not so
> much. Sure, we stopped the deep ball, which is great, but Russell
> didn't do a whole lot else. According to the writer at
> FieldGulls.com, who broke down the tape after every game, Russell was
> more of a liability than a plus for much of the year. Russell gets
> built up as this scrappy playmaker, but he wasn't a font of
> interceptions nor was he making a ton of key stops either. He was
> typically just kinda... there.
> * Tubbs to get healthy, or another DT to step in and help Mebane stuff
> the offensive line. A rotation of Tubbs, Mebane and Bernard should be
> pretty productive.
> * A more accomplished DE to step in for Tapp if he doesn't develop any
> further. Tapp had his moments this year but they came in bunches and
> much of the rest of the time, he disappeared. He typically wasn't
> that great against the run either. As for Kerney, sure, great final
> totals, but some his success came in bunches too (against bad teams,
> typically). This is not to disparage Kerney -- that was a good
> signing, although I was skeptical when we brought him aboard -- but at
> the same time, he disappeared in some games too (where was he
> yesterday?) He's a keeper for now, no doubt, but that doesn't mean we
> can't use another good DE to rotate in or start in place of Tapp.
>
> That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
> disagree or otherwise chime in.

Another thing about DE is that Kearney isn't going to be a long term
solution either so getting some good young blood at DE makes real sense. We
need to find a young Kearney type that will be with us for a number of
years.

--
William P. Tomisser
"Power Of Ten" Band
www.poweroften.net
Anchorage, Alaska

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Jan 13, 6:21 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:

> Part of succeeding as GM in the NFL has much to do with knowing when to
> give up a lot for a position and when to give up a little, hoping to get
> lucky. It sounds like you're saying it would be okay to give up a lot,

Well this is my "wish list." It was presented without
consideration of how we'd actually go about doing it.

> ie, a big chunk of cap space, for a RB. I agree with "moving away" only
> to the point of risking a high draft pick, but a high priced FA?

No, probably not. I've not yet looked at the free agent list.

> it would be better to take a chance on Alexander bouncing back next
> season. Once you get more a a cap break cutting Alexander, then you can
> afford a high priced FA. 20 mil of cap space tied up in RBs? No good.

I don't disagree. We'll have to be creative, lucky, or both
to solve this one.

BillB

Warren Louthan · Joined: 10 Oct 2007 Posts: 16

"Squidly" wrote in message @v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 13, 1:49 pm, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:

> Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion.

[Snip great wall of text]

> That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
> disagree or otherwise chime in.

My wishlist in order of priority top to bottom.:

2 Guards. One proven free agent, the other
a draftee to groom.

Running Back. Pass catching skills and a fan friendly running
style a must. I'm pro moving away from Shaun immediately.
I'm not going to boo or attempt to re-write history. I think
his performance this year was at least as much to do with
injury and awful blocking, but it's time to move on.

2 TEs. One pass catching stud. The other a youngster to groom.

A couple of young DT prospects. Doesn't matter where we
get them.

A tackle prospect. Maybe get lucky.

I could live with another DE prospect I guess. Nothing else
on D really concerns me all that much. Unlike Santolina,
I like Jennings and think he progressed well. I also like
both of our safeties just fine.

BillB

Where do we sit on the draft list now anyway? There are a number of helpful
ways to go with a first rounder . Saw a blurb about how Stewart is passing
his senior year for the Draft, but he'll be gone most likely by the time
the Hawks pick, too bad, he can do all that you listed up there.

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 13, 7:42 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
> dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 2:37 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:

safety's responsibilities usually are>

> > Russell is not above average. He had 60 tackles, 1 sack and 1 pick.
> > Nothing above average about that whatsoever, compared to all the
> > starting free safeties in the league. Good lord, Babineaux was in on
> > more tackles than Russell was.
>
> Err, what makes you think the schemes the Seahawks play call for him to
> be trying to make lots of tackles. See above. You're judging him on his
> total tackles? God, I'm glad Seahawk management doesn't use that method.

How are you judging him exactly? By what the announcers say? By what
you can't see 90% of the time (your own theory) on TV? Any particular
reason you think he's "good", if he's only got a fair amount of
tackles and one interception? You like the color underwear he wears?
He spends his off-season hunting and fishing? I mean, if we can't
accurately judge how good he is, which is what you've insisted, then
how would YOU know that he's any better than average? His stats
aren't great, he didn't make a huge number of big plays, so what is it
exactly?

> > What Russell did that was mostly
> > positive for us is that he and Grant helped cut down on all the deep
> > balls that killed us last year. That was good; the rest of his
> > performance is not really noteworthy in the slightest.
>
> This is simply another case of a fan overreaching because they don't
> know what they don't know. If you don't know his responsibilites and
> can't see most of his play, you have no idea how well he's playing, and
> neither does the bozo you were quoting.

Oh, he's a "bozo" because he re-watches game video and attempts to
break down what happened, articulately breaks presents the team's
strengths and weaknesses every week, and actually shows a working
knowledge of the sport beyond "gee, we just don't know anything."
Okay, got it. Still, no offense, but I'll probably side with his
analysis over yours. Try reading his stuff sometime without the green-
and-blue-colored glasses or the predisposition of "he's just a fan, he
can't be right" and you might learn something.

Of course, you're sure that Darrell Jackson is "open all the time"
even though we can't see him on camera 90% of the time, so, not sure
how much more great football knowledge you can cram into that brain of
yours.

> > Neither Alexander or Morris is above average at this time.
>
> Morris is an above average backup RB. Hard to say about Alexander atm.

I wasn't talking about a backup RB, I was talking about a starter. We
need a new starting RB.

> > Babineaux is certainly not above average.
>
> He is one of the best utility DBs in the league. Way above average for
> what he does.

Huh? What does he "do"? He's a nickelback and he CAN'T COVER. He's
overmatched against just about every #3 WR out there. Or is
recovering the occasional fumble or intercepting one pass a year on a
badly-thrown ball "what he does"?

He's not above average, much less "way above". He's an okay backup
safety -- average at best, really. He's a below-average CB. If we
want to keep him as a backup safety, fine, but we need to either
develop (Josh Wilson?) or draft/sign another CB for the nickel slot,
because Babineaux cannot cover.

> > Kelly Jennings is no better than average at the moment, but at least
> > (like Tapp) he's young and can maybe improve.
>
> I think he is above average, just slightly.

Ohhhh, very very slightly, better than 50.001% of the other starting
corners out there. He is the 32nd-best starter out of 64 total in the
NFL. He's okay then.

> > What you're essentially saying is "all of our starters are above
> > average except for the offensive line". That's absurd.
>
> Why don't you just quote what I said?

Because I didn't really understand what you just said. I was quoting
what I *thought* you said in a way that makes more sense to the
average reader.

But what you wrote was:

> >> except OL, pretty
> >> much every position on your list (like Russell) has slightly above
> >> average players already on the team.

See, I don't know what that means. Every position already has
slightly above average players already on the team? Huh?

If that means "at least one of our cornerbacks, one of our safeties,
one of our defensive ends, etc etc. is above average," then sure.
Kerney is above average at DE, Tapp is not. Trufant is above average
at CB, Jennings is not. So... what? That means we can't upgrade at
the positions that aren't?

Or does that mean "every single player that we already have at the
positions you listed, excepting the offensive line, is above
average"? If that's the case, sorry, no. That's wrong. As I've
pointed out, Tapp, Jennings, Alexander, Pollard, Russell (not to
mention some of the OL) are all starters, and they're not above
average. Sorry, but not every player in our starting lineup is above-
average NFL caliber... if they were we'd be in the NFC Championship
game right now.

So depending on the interpretation, either what you said is obvious
and didn't need to be said, or it's wrong. Not sure which, and at
this point I don't really care. As always, discussing anything with
you is akin to beating one's head against a wall, so I'll rejoin the
rest of the folks who wisely disregard whatever it is you have to say.

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 13, 3:11 pm, Squidly wrote:
> On Jan 13, 1:49 pm, dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Throwing this out there to facilitate discussion.
>
> [Snip great wall of text]
>
> > That's what comes to mind right now. Y'all's welcome to agree,
> > disagree or otherwise chime in.
>
> My wishlist in order of priority top to bottom.:
>
> 2 Guards. One proven free agent, the other
> a draftee to groom.

Sounds good.

> Running Back. Pass catching skills and a fan friendly running
> style a must.

Pass-catching skills, sure.

> I'm pro moving away from Shaun immediately.
> I'm not going to boo or attempt to re-write history.

No reason to. He was a great RB for us. He did great things for us.
The most successful RB we've ever had. And now it's time to move on.
Those two concepts really can go together, without a need to boo or
name-call.

> I think
> his performance this year was at least as much to do with
> injury and awful blocking, but it's time to move on.

Awful blocking, certainly. Injury, yeah, maybe, but as I've said over
and over and over this year, if the injury was truly affecting him
that much, he shouldn't have suited up. Morris averaged almost a yard
more per carry. There was never any reason to waste all those carries
on a guy that wasn't 100%. Committing the running game to Morris
might have gotten us another win or two (not that it would have made a
fundamental difference in the end, though... we probably still would
have had to play at Green Bay).

> 2 TEs. One pass catching stud. The other a youngster to groom.

> A couple of young DT prospects. Doesn't matter where we
> get them.

I'd love to get another good DT in, but a lot hinges on Tubbs coming
back.

If he doesn't, we definitely need another DT.

If he does, a rotation of Tubbs, Mebane and Bernard is a very nice
unit to have, and DT moves down the priority list.

> A tackle prospect. Maybe get lucky.

We'll need a new RT to start if Locklear leaves.

> I could live with another DE prospect I guess. Nothing else
> on D really concerns me all that much. Unlike Santolina,
> I like Jennings and think he progressed well.

He did. He showed some skills, and I agree, he wasn't as bad as
Santolina always makes him up to be. He could (should) be on his way
up.

> I also like
> both of our safeties just fine.

They were better than last year's group. That said, I think Grant was
better than Russell. I'd love to have a faster free safety with
better ball instincts.

dinoscop · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 20

On Jan 13, 3:29 pm, "seahawk" wrote:

> Another thing about DE is that Kearney isn't going to be a long term
> solution either so getting some good young blood at DE makes real sense. We
> need to find a young Kearney type that will be with us for a number of
> years.

Absolutely agree, but it's tough finding *talented* young guys like
that. If it was easier, we would have found one already... Smile

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

dinoscop@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 13, 7:42 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
>> dinos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 2:37 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
>
> > safety's responsibilities usually are>
>
>>> Russell is not above average. He had 60 tackles, 1 sack and 1 pick.
>>> Nothing above average about that whatsoever, compared to all the
>>> starting free safeties in the league. Good lord, Babineaux was in on
>>> more tackles than Russell was.
>> Err, what makes you think the schemes the Seahawks play call for him to
>> be trying to make lots of tackles. See above. You're judging him on his
>> total tackles? God, I'm glad Seahawk management doesn't use that method.
>
> How are you judging him exactly? By what the announcers say? By what
> you can't see 90% of the time (your own theory) on TV? Any particular
> reason you think he's "good", if he's only got a fair amount of
> tackles and one interception? You like the color underwear he wears?

I'm not judging him, you are, based upon what some fan told you from
what he's seen on TV broadcasts. I know enough about football to know
that can't be done with safeties, probably more than any position on the
field. I've read enough of this fan's analysis to know he's talking out
his ass. I can't really tell you at all how good Russell played. The
method I use for something like this is to listen carefully to quotes
from the players and coaches, try to decipher the coach-speak and so
forth and go with that. When I see something like that, if I do, I'll
post it.

> He spends his off-season hunting and fishing? I mean, if we can't
> accurately judge how good he is, which is what you've insisted, then
> how would YOU know that he's any better than average? His stats
> aren't great, he didn't make a huge number of big plays, so what is it
> exactly?
>
>>> What Russell did that was mostly
>>> positive for us is that he and Grant helped cut down on all the deep
>>> balls that killed us last year. That was good; the rest of his
>>> performance is not really noteworthy in the slightest.
>> This is simply another case of a fan overreaching because they don't
>> know what they don't know. If you don't know his responsibilites and
>> can't see most of his play, you have no idea how well he's playing, and
>> neither does the bozo you were quoting.
>
> Oh, he's a "bozo" because he re-watches game video and attempts to
> break down what happened, articulately breaks presents the team's
> strengths and weaknesses every week, and actually shows a working
> knowledge of the sport beyond "gee, we just don't know anything."
> Okay, got it. Still, no offense, but I'll probably side with his
> analysis over yours. Try reading his stuff sometime without the green-
> and-blue-colored glasses or the predisposition of "he's just a fan, he
> can't be right" and you might learn something.

I did. He makes the same mistake many fans make who want to know more
about what's going on than they can.

> Of course, you're sure that Darrell Jackson is "open all the time"
> even though we can't see him on camera 90% of the time, so, not sure
> how much more great football knowledge you can cram into that brain of
> yours.

>>> Neither Alexander or Morris is above average at this time.
>> Morris is an above average backup RB. Hard to say about Alexander atm.
>
> I wasn't talking about a backup RB, I was talking about a starter. We
> need a new starting RB.
>
>>> Babineaux is certainly not above average.
>> He is one of the best utility DBs in the league. Way above average for
>> what he does.
>
> Huh? What does he "do"? He's a nickelback and he CAN'T COVER. He's
> overmatched against just about every #3 WR out there. Or is
> recovering the occasional fumble or intercepting one pass a year on a
> badly-thrown ball "what he does"?

He's not a nickel-back, he's a utility DB, meaning he fills in at all
the DB positions. This is relatively rare and explains why the Seahawks
have kept him. He's a better safety than corner, but since the Seahawks
had problems at corner lately, that's where he's been playing.

> He's not above average, much less "way above". He's an okay backup
> safety -- average at best, really. He's a below-average CB. If we
> want to keep him as a backup safety, fine, but we need to either
> develop (Josh Wilson?) or draft/sign another CB for the nickel slot,
> because Babineaux cannot cover.

He's probably the best utility DB in the NFL. That puts him way above
average. If you compare him to safeties, he's average at best. Corners,
below average, probably, but to players who can do both adequately? He's
way above average.

>>> Kelly Jennings is no better than average at the moment, but at least
>>> (like Tapp) he's young and can maybe improve.
>> I think he is above average, just slightly.
>
> Ohhhh, very very slightly, better than 50.001% of the other starting
> corners out there. He is the 32nd-best starter out of 64 total in the
> NFL. He's okay then.

Okay, that's about right. He's developing though, like you said, and
could easily get better.

>>> What you're essentially saying is "all of our starters are above
>>> average except for the offensive line". That's absurd.
>> Why don't you just quote what I said?
>
> Because I didn't really understand what you just said. I was quoting
> what I *thought* you said in a way that makes more sense to the
> average reader.
>
> But what you wrote was:
>
>> >> except OL, pretty
>> >> much every position on your list (like Russell) has slightly above
>> >> average players already on the team.
>
> See, I don't know what that means. Every position already has
> slightly above average players already on the team? Huh?
>
> If that means "at least one of our cornerbacks, one of our safeties,
> one of our defensive ends, etc etc. is above average," then sure.
> Kerney is above average at DE, Tapp is not. Trufant is above average
> at CB, Jennings is not. So... what? That means we can't upgrade at
> the positions that aren't?

Well, if you go back to my original reply, you'll see that my main point
is that I agreed that upgrades could be made at the positions you
suggested, but improving at all of them is unrealistic because you
listed too many. Just a quibble, really, I don't know what you're making
such a big deal about.

> Or does that mean "every single player that we already have at the
> positions you listed, excepting the offensive line, is above
> average"? If that's the case, sorry, no. That's wrong. As I've
> pointed out, Tapp, Jennings, Alexander, Pollard, Russell (not to
> mention some of the OL) are all starters, and they're not above
> average. Sorry, but not every player in our starting lineup is above-
> average NFL caliber... if they were we'd be in the NFC Championship
> game right now.

I was referring only to the positions you mentioned.

> So depending on the interpretation, either what you said is obvious
> and didn't need to be said, or it's wrong. Not sure which, and at
> this point I don't really care. As always, discussing anything with
> you is akin to beating one's head against a wall, so I'll rejoin the
> rest of the folks who wisely disregard whatever it is you have to say.

You mean the folks with their hands over their eyes so they can avoid
truths they want to avoid?

Stephen

Top Metro Areas or Regions for CJFL expansion Note * This List takes into account the following circumstances of the CJFL; - The PFC has prevously granted Lethbridge Lightning a franchise for the 2008 season and the OFC has granted franchises for the Hamilton Hurricanes and Toronto Jr.Argonauts for

2008 The 2008 schedule is out Home: Baltimore, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Houston, Indianapolis, Dallas, N.Y. Giants, Denver Away: Baltimore, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Philadelphia, Washington, Buffalo

2008 Pro Bowl Not one player from the Saints was named to the Pro Bowl. Hell, it's nothing more than a popularity contest. !!GEAUX SAINTS

2008 Draft The Saints really need to go after a CB in the first round. I like Mike Jenkins from South Florida. !!GEAUX SAINTS

AQB NFL Ratings (10 January 2008) The AQB NFL ratings have been updated to 10 January 2008. Little change in the latest NFL ratings following the Wildcard weekend. The Steelers fell one place to 15th after their 29-31 home loss to the sixth-ranked Jaguars, while the Seahawks moved up thre