More Wide Receiver Fodder

Phil N D'Blan©® · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

Bears cut Muhsin Muhammad, looks like a cap thing and he may have 1 or 2
more decent seasons is his tank..

--
Let's Win One for the Skipper!©

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

Kevin LaBerge · Joined: 14 Oct 2007 Posts: 23

"Phil N D'Blan©®" wrote in message $1@news.nucleus.com...
> Bears cut Muhsin Muhammad, looks like a cap thing and he may have 1 or 2
> more decent seasons is his tank..
>
> --
> Let's Win One for the Skipper!©

We don't need any frickin' WR's.

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

Kevin LaBerge wrote:
>
>
> "Phil N D'Blan©®" wrote in message
> $1@news.nucleus.com...
>> Bears cut Muhsin Muhammad, looks like a cap thing and he may have 1 or
>> 2 more decent seasons is his tank..
>>
>> --
>> Let's Win One for the Skipper!©
>
> We don't need any frickin' WR's.

We do if we want to challenge for the Superbowl next season. Since when
is one good yet inconsistent WR (Burleson) and one 36 y old, plus a raft
of untesteds good enough to win a Superbowl?

Stephen

seahawk · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 1

Stephen Trapani wrote:
> Kevin LaBerge wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Phil N D'Blan©®" wrote in message
>> $1@news.nucleus.com...
>>> Bears cut Muhsin Muhammad, looks like a cap thing and he may have 1
>>> or 2 more decent seasons is his tank..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Let's Win One for the Skipper!©
>>
>> We don't need any frickin' WR's.
>
> We do if we want to challenge for the Superbowl next season. Since
> when is one good yet inconsistent WR (Burleson) and one 36 y old,
> plus a raft of untesteds good enough to win a Superbowl?
>
> Stephen

When the "so called" untested's are actually damn good receivers that the
coaches who see them in practice every day know they can count on to
perform. If you don't see the team going for a big time receiver there's a
reason for that and it's not that they've decided to fold the tent. The
coaching staff knows where they're at receiver wise and I think the lack of
interest in a receiver says it all. We're still deep at reciever without
Branch or Hackett.

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

Melvin · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 24

On Feb 18, 9:38 pm, "seahawk" wrote:

> > We do if we want to challenge for the Superbowl next season. Since
> > when is one good yet inconsistent WR (Burleson) and one 36 y old,
> > plus a raft of untesteds good enough to win a Superbowl?
>
> > Stephen
>
> When the "so called" untested's are actually damn good receivers that the
> coaches who see them in practice every day know they can count on to
> perform. If you don't see the team going for a big time receiver there's a
> reason for that and it's not that they've decided to fold the tent. The
> coaching staff knows where they're at receiver wise and I think the lack of
> interest in a receiver says it all. We're still deep at reciever without
> Branch or Hackett.

Two points about the guys on the bench:

1. All they have is "potential." We've seen many WRs with "potential"
who never pan out. Looking good in practice and actually make plays on
Sundays are two different things.

2. With so little playing time, they'll be virtual rookies next year.
Few WRs do well in their rookie years. None of them is going to be a
starter. Obomanu could potentially be a No. 3. But I wouldn't want to
see him as a No. 1 or 2. If Branch wasn't hurt, then I'd say we can
relax. But without him, we need to either keep Hackett or sign a
veteran WR.

Melvin

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

seahawk wrote:
> Stephen Trapani wrote:
>> Kevin LaBerge wrote:
>>>
>>> "Phil N D'Blan©®" wrote in message
>>> $1@news.nucleus.com...
>>>> Bears cut Muhsin Muhammad, looks like a cap thing and he may have 1
>>>> or 2 more decent seasons is his tank..
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Let's Win One for the Skipper!©
>>> We don't need any frickin' WR's.
>> We do if we want to challenge for the Superbowl next season. Since
>> when is one good yet inconsistent WR (Burleson) and one 36 y old,
>> plus a raft of untesteds good enough to win a Superbowl?
>>
>> Stephen
>
> When the "so called" untested's are actually damn good receivers that the
> coaches who see them in practice every day know they can count on to
> perform.

What makes you think they know this?

> If you don't see the team going for a big time receiver there's a
> reason for that and it's not that they've decided to fold the tent. The
> coaching staff knows where they're at receiver wise and I think the lack of
> interest in a receiver says it all. We're still deep at reciever without
> Branch or Hackett.

Nonsense. The Seahawks WR weren't dominating last season by any means.
Now subtract two of the best. At the very most, with a great deal of
luck the current batch is adequate. Deep? Not even close. If Burleson
gets hurt or Engram declines, huge problems. And what makes you think
there is a lack of interest in receiver by Seahawk staff?

Stephen

Phil N D'Blan©® · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

"seahawk" wrote in message @corp.supernews.com...

(Stuff Deleted)

Did you read about this great TE/RB/WR/K/OT/QB/LS that has just entered the
draft?

Glen Dorsey.. really, would I kid you?

He is reportedly the best TE/RB/WR/K/OT/QB/LS since Jimmy Kennedy...

Warren Louthan · Joined: 10 Oct 2007 Posts: 16

"Phil N D'Blan©®" wrote in message @news.nucleus.com...
>
> "seahawk" wrote in message
> @corp.supernews.com...
>
> (Stuff Deleted)
>
> Did you read about this great TE/RB/WR/K/OT/QB/LS that has just entered
> the draft?
>
> Glen Dorsey.. really, would I kid you?
>
> He is reportedly the best TE/RB/WR/K/OT/QB/LS since Jimmy Kennedy...
>
>
>

I heard the Vikings offered him a contract with a clause stating if he plays
the majority of his games outside the state of Minnesota he will be
compensated with a salary of equal or greater value than that of the gross
national product of China, Great Britain, Germany, India and Argentina
combined plus receive his weight in domesticly brewed beer, but they
absolutely drew the line with the imported stuff.

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

seahawk wrote:
> "Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

>> These draft analysts haven't spoken with the Seahawks. If they have
>> the Seahawks haven't said which positions they are looking at and not
>> looking at. The draft analysts know little more than you and I about
>> the Seahawks, if anything. More often than not, they totally miss the
>> Seahawks main emphasis in the draft.
>
> By virtue of the fact that they do talk with the Seahawks and people
> directly associated with them, they do have a little more inside
> information than you or I do sitting out here in "read the newspaper"
> land. Probably not much I agree but some. Of course it also depends on
> the source. If they're basically covering the Seahawks mainly, you could
> assume they would be more circumspect with their facts than someone who
> is just filling the space under the heading Seahawks with some verbiage.
> I recognize that fact.

If you notice, most of them, if they are circumspect, clearly indicate
their guesses as just that, guesses. They don't say things like "The
Seahawks will not be drafting any WRs in the higher rounds." It's more
like "I don't expect the Seahawks to draft any WRs in the higher rounds."

>>> While none of those sources is really considered to be a real
>>> pipeline of information, they do cover what little information leaks
>>> out of the Seahawks organization and while some of the writers and
>>> analysts speculating on our needs really do have their heads up their
>>> ass, some guys like Clayton, Millen, and Huard tend to be useful
>>> sources most of the time.
>>
>> Useful sources maybe, pipeline? Not really.
>
> Isn't that what I just said? Quote: "While none of those sources is
> really considered to be a real pipeline of information" Unquote.
>
>>
>>> I just don't hear squat about a WR so I'm assuming either it's a huge
>>> secret or they genuinely do regard their receiving corps as being in
>>> good shape as Haskell says they do.
>>
>> Again, where has Haskell said this? Did he say it after Branch was
>> hurt and knowing Hackett might be gone?
>
> The last interview I heard was after the GB game but I'm not sure when
> he was talking about the receivers. It could have been before Branch got
> hurt. He was generalizing with Millen IIRC on the younger receivers like
> Obomanu, Taylor (who he's really high on) and Payne (who he says might
> have the best hands of all the receivers).

He said he liked them, not that he was counting on them this upcoming
season to step into starting roles, which they will have to do if the
Seahawks don't pick up a starter.

BTW, usually if a prospect can step into a starting role, he gets a
bunch of playing time. So when Payne is said to have great hands, yet he
isn't getting much playing time it's because of what they are not
saying, like that he is terrible at running routes and getting open. So
they are working with him and trying to improve his weaknesses. They
don't know yet if he will succeed.

>>> I can believe they will draft a WR somewhere in rounds 4 through 7 or
>>> if they find a value guy that was a cap causality that they think
>>> could make the team, they might go for it but to spend a high draft
>>> pick or valuable free agent money they desperately need to sign their
>>> own guys and find free agents to continue to fix the running game, I
>>> just don't see it.
>>
>> They may have already fixed the running game signing Wahle.
>
> I don't believe that for a second and if you do you weren't paying much
> attention to what was going on out on the field as well as the comments
> coaches made and doing some reading between the lines. Spencer isn't
> making very good line adjustment calls and is frequently out of
> position.

Spencer had two bad shoulders. Basically hell for a lineman. He could be
healed by next season. Maybe the rest finally clicks. Very very doubtful
that the Seahawks are looking to replace him at this point. The only
place I've seen that guess is in this newsgroup. Have you seen it
anywhere else?

> Sims just flat didn't perform well nor did Gray (for different
> reasons). Sims and Spencer didn't make good adjustments to the defense
> at the snap of the ball which was partly Spencer's fault and in Sims
> case may be a lack of good footwork. Gray is just too old to keep up as
> a starter. Moving Sims to the other side of the line just moves the
> problem over there too.

Not necessarily. Sometimes they have guys shuffled around because it's
the best patch they can get. Put in the one missing piece, guys move
back around and everything works much better. Not sure if that's the
case here, but it sure could be.

> All in all, replacing one of the three isn't
> going to make much difference if we don't at least improve one of the
> other two positions. They really need to get another guard unless Wrotto
> can show us something and there is some rumors that he just might do
> that.

Figure that, and no center replacement and they are set now, potentially.

> They really need to get an experienced center back in there that
> can make good line adjustment calls just prior to the snap. Tobeck's
> injury and subsequent retirement hurt us as much as Hutch leaving did if
> not more because of what he did for our offensive alignments. Wahle will
> solve about 25% of the problem with the other 75% coming from the RG,
> Center, and RB position upgrades. Add a TE and maybe you've done enough
> to get us back on a championship track. If you stop working on the
> offense now and proclaim everything fixed, you might as well skip the
> season and get ready for the Mora era because we're not going anywhere.

Don't stop. Fix whatever line problems are left if any. Upgrade the TE
and WRs. Maybe snag a sleeper RB.

>>> You also have to remember that the TE they're looking for is going to
>>> be first of all a good receiver if I know Holmgren. That will help
>>> the passing game immensely right there and help mitigate any lack of
>>> depth at the WR position until Branch returns. I think they will
>>> probably try and re-sign Hackett now that Branch is essentially out
>>> for another year until he's back at full strength where without that
>>> injury, they might have not gone after Hack so vigorously. If they
>>> don't find that TE they want, they might be more inclined to look for
>>> another larger sized receiver but Obomanu is closer to Hackett in
>>> size than the other smaller receivers.
>>
>> Could be, but remember, now that he's a UFA it takes two to tango, and
>> some players are dead set on testing the market. If they are, only a
>> crazy high contract will stop them.
>
> We'll see. I'm sure other teams also noted that he didn't play too much
> for us last season because of injury. Face it, he's not really a proven
> commodity yet.

I'm sure he'll get some high offers. He's proven himself against some
great corners as I'm sure any of the Pro scouts can see on film. The
question is, just how good does he think he is? He can probably get high
#2WR money from plenty of teams, but not #1.

>>> Ultimately, you can get a good feel for how the coaches really feel
>>> about their receivers by what happens on draft day and after free
>>> agency starts. I will concede that if they really go after someone in
>>> free agency or draft a receiver other than a TE in the first three
>>> rounds, they're not so comfortable as I thought they were with the
>>> receivers but you pretty much have to concede the reverse. If they
>>> ignore receivers in the high rounds of the draft and free agency,
>>> they must be feeling ok with what they have. Agreed?
>>
>> Agreed, except that I would modify it. If they are looking at getting
>> a WR in free agency, it probably won't be a high priced one, it will
>> be another Engram type acquisition, a bargain starter who could step
>> up or heal or re-energize and be a number one or number two.
>
> As I said, if they find a value guy, they might very well go for a
> receiver to provide some competition in camp and depth if he can make
> the team. Also, as I pointed out, if they can't find a TE that will
> satisfy them as a big time receiver, they might be more inclined to try
> and find a bigger receiver particularly if they lost Hackett and only
> had Obomanu as a bigger and taller receiver.

> I think we're really closer to agreement than you want to let on.
> Neither of us expect them to spend a high round choice or a lot of money
> on a receiver but both of can see them going for a cap causality that
> has some life left as a sort of stop gap measure to bind us over till we
> get Branch back healthy.

Agreed on the cap casualty, but I could easily see them grabbing a WR
who falls in round 1.

> I think we both can agree that if they did find
> a TE that was considered to be a good receiver, they wouldn't need to
> look as hard at finding another WR.

Yes.

> We both see Hackett as a pivot point
> on deciding whether they need to put a higher priority on acquiring a
> new receiver. If they lose Hackett, with Branch being out, they can be
> considered to be light on experience even if the coaches like the
> younger unproven guys.

Right, light on experience and very very likely to be light on talent
too, barring a great deal of luck with everyone panning out.

Stephen

Santolina chamaecyparissu · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

On Feb 20, 4:48 am, "seahawk" wrote:

> > What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced or
> > high draft pick WR?
>
> If they are, they're keeping it a big secret while pretty openly discussing
> positions like Guard, TE, RB, CB, and DT. Draft analysts that have spoken
> with the Seahawks have come away and written about these positions as being
> the ones they feel the team is looking at. It's also reflected in the mock
> drafts. I've seen all of the above referenced positions shown as our first
> round pick except Guard.

Thank god. I haven't exhaustively read all the pundits, coaches, and
fans, but the in little I have read there hasn't been a single word
about the needs on the defensive side of the ball, which are probably
even greater than on the offensive side. I'm a little reassured that
you say they are at least considering CB and DT. To the above I would
add a real MLB, moving Tatupu to the outside (anybody in the 'Hawk
brain trust reading this?), and a DE with a little size and attitude.
TE is a need but would be moved to the end of this list.

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:48 am, "seahawk" wrote:
>
>>> What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced or
>>> high draft pick WR?
>> If they are, they're keeping it a big secret while pretty openly discussing
>> positions like Guard, TE, RB, CB, and DT. Draft analysts that have spoken
>> with the Seahawks have come away and written about these positions as being
>> the ones they feel the team is looking at. It's also reflected in the mock
>> drafts. I've seen all of the above referenced positions shown as our first
>> round pick except Guard.
>
> Thank god. I haven't exhaustively read all the pundits, coaches, and
> fans, but the in little I have read there hasn't been a single word
> about the needs on the defensive side of the ball, which are probably
> even greater than on the offensive side. I'm a little reassured that
> you say they are at least considering CB and DT. To the above I would
> add a real MLB, moving Tatupu to the outside (anybody in the 'Hawk
> brain trust reading this?), and a DE with a little size and attitude.
> TE is a need but would be moved to the end of this list.
>

Haha, MLB ahead of TE. If anyone in the Seahawk brain trust were reading
this they'd be laughing their heads off.

Stephen

Santolina chamaecyparissu · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

On Feb 20, 2:09 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 4:48 am, "seahawk" wrote:
>
> >>> What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced or
> >>> high draft pick WR?
> >> If they are, they're keeping it a big secret while pretty openly discussing
> >> positions like Guard, TE, RB, CB, and DT. Draft analysts that have spoken
> >> with the Seahawks have come away and written about these positions as being
> >> the ones they feel the team is looking at. It's also reflected in the mock
> >> drafts. I've seen all of the above referenced positions shown as our first
> >> round pick except Guard.
>
> > Thank god. I haven't exhaustively read all the pundits, coaches, and
> > fans, but the in little I have read there hasn't been a single word
> > about the needs on the defensive side of the ball, which are probably
> > even greater than on the offensive side. I'm a little reassured that
> > you say they are at least considering CB and DT. To the above I would
> > add a real MLB, moving Tatupu to the outside (anybody in the 'Hawk
> > brain trust reading this?), and a DE with a little size and attitude.
> > TE is a need but would be moved to the end of this list.
>
> Haha, MLB ahead of TE. If anyone in the Seahawk brain trust were reading
> this they'd be laughing their heads off.
>

What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced
or
high draft pick MLB?

Stephen Trapani · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 46

Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2:09 pm, Stephen Trapani wrote:
>> Santolina chamaecyparissus wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 4:48 am, "seahawk" wrote:
>>>>> What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced or
>>>>> high draft pick WR?
>>>> If they are, they're keeping it a big secret while pretty openly discussing
>>>> positions like Guard, TE, RB, CB, and DT. Draft analysts that have spoken
>>>> with the Seahawks have come away and written about these positions as being
>>>> the ones they feel the team is looking at. It's also reflected in the mock
>>>> drafts. I've seen all of the above referenced positions shown as our first
>>>> round pick except Guard.
>>> Thank god. I haven't exhaustively read all the pundits, coaches, and
>>> fans, but the in little I have read there hasn't been a single word
>>> about the needs on the defensive side of the ball, which are probably
>>> even greater than on the offensive side. I'm a little reassured that
>>> you say they are at least considering CB and DT. To the above I would
>>> add a real MLB, moving Tatupu to the outside (anybody in the 'Hawk
>>> brain trust reading this?), and a DE with a little size and attitude.
>>> TE is a need but would be moved to the end of this list.
>> Haha, MLB ahead of TE. If anyone in the Seahawk brain trust were reading
>> this they'd be laughing their heads off.
>>
>
> What makes *you* think the coaches aren't looking for a high priced
> or
> high draft pick MLB?

Plain old reasoning. When you've got plenty of holes to fill, a position
with a perennial pro-bowler is not a hole. It would be stupid to mess
with Tatupu and move him.

Stephen

Tim Douglass · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 21

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:44:12 -0800 (PST), Santolina chamaecyparissus
wrote:

>Thank god. I haven't exhaustively read all the pundits, coaches, and
>fans, but the in little I have read there hasn't been a single word
>about the needs on the defensive side of the ball, which are probably
>even greater than on the offensive side. I'm a little reassured that
>you say they are at least considering CB and DT. To the above I would
>add a real MLB, moving Tatupu to the outside (anybody in the 'Hawk
>brain trust reading this?), and a DE with a little size and attitude.
>TE is a need but would be moved to the end of this list.

Let's see, we have one of the top MLBs in the league and essentially
no TE, so we are going to go looking for a MLB, CB and DT and ignore
the *real* holes on the team? Sorry, I don't think there is a chance
of that. Our D was pretty good this year, with our major issue being
speed over size. I would postulate that having either of our starting
DTs back in the lineup (or replacing them) would put our defense into
the top 5.

Offensively, on the other hand, we have a number of issues. We need
real help at LG, RG and TE. There are also concerns about RB and maybe
even C and RT. Beyond that our WR corps is young and untested. Given
all that I really can't see any point in devoting much effort to the
defensive side of the ball. About the only thing I could see happening
is if a really hot CB or DT prospect fell to us in the draft or one of
those solid vets that Ruskell likes to re-tread showed up. Otherwise I
expect most of our efforts this offseason to be focused on the
offense.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

You know, there's a rule in sports, "Don't do anything great if you can't handle the congratulations."
-- John Madden in "The Replacements"

Tim Douglass · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 21

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:36:26 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

>seahawk wrote:

>> I don't believe that for a second and if you do you weren't paying much
>> attention to what was going on out on the field as well as the comments
>> coaches made and doing some reading between the lines. Spencer isn't
>> making very good line adjustment calls and is frequently out of
>> position.
>
>Spencer had two bad shoulders. Basically hell for a lineman. He could be
>healed by next season. Maybe the rest finally clicks. Very very doubtful
>that the Seahawks are looking to replace him at this point. The only
>place I've seen that guess is in this newsgroup. Have you seen it
>anywhere else?

I kind of have to agree with Stephen here. Spencer had some issues
both with health and with experience. The experience things should be
better this next season, so they don't worry me too much. On the other
hand, shoulder issues for a center are pretty serious. I still don't
expect any change there, Spencer is working his way up from adequate
to good. It does, however, take some time to get there for most guys.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Winning is a great deodorant."
-John Madden

Greatest Wide Receiver!? Hello, all. I am writing a screenplay, and although I know not a whole lot about football, it's essential that I include a character who is a high school student, destined to become a terrific college football player. I need two things: 1. I need one c

Spread em wide again the TE sets aren't working

The greatest receiver in the history of the NFL picks the Gi On ESPN's NFL live Jerry Rice when asked to predict a winner in the Super Bowl said he had to go with the NFC team. That of course is the GIANTS.

TO 49ers receiver still hopes to be a free agent > Tuesday, March 9, 2004 > > > Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The NFL players' union asked an > arbitrator Tuesday to make Terrell Owens a free agent, claiming the > San Francisco 49ers didn't have the rights to trade the wide receiver > to the Balti

Brown is back: Popular receiver hits bingo with new deal fro Brown is back: Popular receiver hits bingo with new deal from Pats By Michael Felger Sunday, May 22, 2005 It turns out the effusive praise wasn't just empty words, and the nameplate above the locker stall wasn't for show. Troy Brown [news] is returning to