Delano Hill is not good enough to be a starter

[hawknation2018]

He's a good wrap-up tackler (not a hard tackler, by any means) and has decent straight-line speed, which should make him a good special teams player.

If the front office plans on relying on him as a starter, then I think we will be in some trouble.

 

[QuahHawk]

I think Earl could play SS well. I also think Shead could be an option at Saftey as well. Although I don't think Sheads instincts are close to Earl or Kam.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Smellyman]

Who doesn't ever get beat?

Deion Sanders got beat too.

 

[chris98251]

I agree with the posters who say it's too early. I'm with HB in that I really don't want us to re sign McDougald. He's done really well for us and has earned an extension that I don't think we should pick up. We've seen what he has to offer: he's a solid to good player.

That's not what this team needs. We need elite talent at as many positions as we can. If there's one thing Pete has shown he can do, it's develop elite DB talent. Let's develop the guy we took pretty early relative to most DBs we take.

McDougald is like top 5 in run support as a SS, he has descent coverage skills, knows our defense. Can play FS as well.

Yeah because he's not Kam or Kenny Easley he is a scrub and should not be signed............................

McDougald was a starter for Tampa, Hill has not had a chance yet, being in competition with two proven NFL starters can do that to any rookie.

 

[DJ_CJ]

I find it hard to see us not resigning McDougal... proved it on the field and shouldn't break the bank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nwHawk]

Sound familiar... Those crazy coaches didn't bring back Milloy and are planning to start some 2nd year 5th round nobody named Kam Chancellor?

How did that turn out? Relax, we just don't know.

 

[SoCalSeahawk]

I find it hard to see us not resigning McDougal... proved it on the field and shouldn't break the bank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would be surprised if we did not resign McDougald as well. He is a solid player, very good in the box and seemed at least averge in cover skills. Plus, he has a season of experience in our system now. Nothing wrong with a McDougald/Thomas Safety duo. The D can still be dominant with McDougald at SS.

 

[King Dog]

I don't hate the idea of Eric Reid signing here.

 

[mikeak]

So before knowing if a player comes back from injury, before we know if a player re-signs, before Free Agency and before the draft is when we start panicking about a guy we have on the roster that may or may not be good enough to be a starter??........

Interesting approach

 

[Seanhawk]

So you've provided proof of one play? From college? Well done. I'm sold.

 

[Gio]

I didn't see this guy on the field. Let's see how he does before we judge him. College highlights means nothing to me. That guy has a chance to become our starter SS (if Kam is unable) and I'm pretty sure he'll play at his 100% , so let's see what he can give to our organization.

 

[Fade]

There are definite concerns in coverage so I can see where the OP is coming from, but I still need to see more to make an absolute statement this strong.

Let's see how he plays in the next batch of pre-season games. Good DBs make a leap in yr 2, meh players stay the same.
I'm on the fence for now. You could be right though.

 

[olyfan63]

Earl is one of the best free safeties in the NFL (arguably one of the best of all time) and you want him to change positions?
Where do people come up with these ideas.

Earl is too small to effectively play SS in our scheme. We'd lose him to injury in two stingers flat. Er, two seconds.
And faster than TRULY needed for our SS. He's the perfect FS for our scheme. Switching Earl to SS? Ridiculous.
Haven't seen Earl toss aside quite as many O-Linemen as Kam has.

 

[jmahon316]

I actually am holding out hope for Hill, Thompson, and Tyson respectively because of just how good the Seahawks molds the defensive side of the ball. Also admittedly I'm saving your quote for if Hill turns out to be one hell of a player (which I just might be too optimistic about) for my very first signature on these forums. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong but I don't think it'll end up that way.

 

[chris98251]

I actually am holding out hope for Hill, Thompson, and Tyson respectively because of just how good the Seahawks molds the defensive side of the ball. Also admittedly I'm saving your quote for if Hill turns out to be one hell of a player (which I just might be too optimistic about) for my very first signature on these forums. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong but I don't think it'll end up that way.

Would have to look but I thought two of the three were conversion projects, Tyson to CB was one and Hill to SS the other, he needed to bulk up and get some tutelage.

 

[jmahon316]

I actually am holding out hope for Hill, Thompson, and Tyson respectively because of just how good the Seahawks molds the defensive side of the ball. Also admittedly I'm saving your quote for if Hill turns out to be one hell of a player (which I just might be too optimistic about) for my very first signature on these forums. I'll eat crow if I'm wrong but I don't think it'll end up that way.

Would have to look but I thought two of the three were conversion projects, Tyson to CB was one and Hill to SS the other, he needed to bulk up and get some tutelage.

Yeah, and I get that but even so -- I'd be willing to bet that 2 out of the 3 IF NOT all 3 will be starters either this season or next tops -- and anyone can quote me on that.

 

[adeltaY]

I agree with the posters who say it's too early. I'm with HB in that I really don't want us to re sign McDougald. He's done really well for us and has earned an extension that I don't think we should pick up. We've seen what he has to offer: he's a solid to good player.

That's not what this team needs. We need elite talent at as many positions as we can. If there's one thing Pete has shown he can do, it's develop elite DB talent. Let's develop the guy we took pretty early relative to most DBs we take.

McDougald is like top 5 in run support as a SS, he has descent coverage skills, knows our defense. Can play FS as well.

Yeah because he's not Kam or Kenny Easley he is a scrub and should not be signed............................

McDougald was a starter for Tampa, Hill has not had a chance yet, being in competition with two proven NFL starters can do that to any rookie.

Never said he was a scrub, that's a strawman through and through and you know it.

I have nothing against Bradley and am very glad we signed him, especially for such little cash. He's earned a big payday of 6M+ APY and we shouldn't pay him that. Conversely, I'm okay with signing Maxie back, but only if we pay him no more than 3M APY. The three year/8M deal floated by a FG author sounds great to me. There's no way we can get BMac back for that cheap and frankly he deserves more.

I'm saying that since we picked Delano in the third round, let's roll with the younger and cheaper option and trust in our coaching staff's ability to develop him rather than paying a mid-level player a decent amount of money. I'd much prefer letting McDougald walk if that saved money towards signing a proven all-pro like Andrew Norwell or extending a young player with elite potential in Frank Clark.

 

[chris98251]

I agree with the posters who say it's too early. I'm with HB in that I really don't want us to re sign McDougald. He's done really well for us and has earned an extension that I don't think we should pick up. We've seen what he has to offer: he's a solid to good player.

That's not what this team needs. We need elite talent at as many positions as we can. If there's one thing Pete has shown he can do, it's develop elite DB talent. Let's develop the guy we took pretty early relative to most DBs we take.

McDougald is like top 5 in run support as a SS, he has descent coverage skills, knows our defense. Can play FS as well.

Yeah because he's not Kam or Kenny Easley he is a scrub and should not be signed............................

McDougald was a starter for Tampa, Hill has not had a chance yet, being in competition with two proven NFL starters can do that to any rookie.

Never said he was a scrub, that's a strawman through and through and you know it.

I have nothing against Bradley and am very glad we signed him, especially for such little cash. He's earned a big payday of 6M+ APY and we shouldn't pay him that. Conversely, I'm okay with signing Maxie back, but only if we pay him no more than 3M APY. The three year/8M deal floated by a FG author sounds great to me. There's no way we can get BMac back for that cheap and frankly he deserves more.

I'm saying that since we picked Delano in the third round, let's roll with the younger and cheaper option and trust in our coaching staff's ability to develop him rather than paying a mid-level player a decent amount of money. I'd much prefer letting McDougald walk if that saved money towards signing a proven all-pro like Andrew Norwell or extending a young player with elite potential in Frank Clark.

Don't sign Mcdougald but keep Thomas and Sherman as well as Wilson, it would be cheaper and we have Boykin and the rest of that draft class, after all we can just coach them up, also don't need Norwell, we just coach up what we have and then were in great shape Cap wise.

These arguments can go back and forth all day if dealing with absolutes, not attempting to get into a pissing contest, but McDougald is pretty young and will be cheap relatively speaking compared to Kam and is not that much of a drop off stat wise, leadership and game changing hits yes.

 

[adeltaY]

Ugh more strawmans. Have we had great success coaching up DBs? Yes. Have we done the same with OL? No. Thus, signing Norwell makes more sense because he is a proven player at a position we suck at developing, whereas letting Delano develop at a position Carroll has shown he can work wonders with is reasonable. We also currently don't have a OL prospect waiting in the wings. Maybe Rees? I guess he could be a good guard but it doesn't look promising thusfar.

Bringing up Sherman, Thomas, and Wilson is ridiculous. The former two are all pros and Wilson is our franchise QB. None are FAs this year. Sherm you can make an argument for cutting due to cap savings and the injury concern. I've even said that cutting him to sign Norwell makes sense.

Can you see how the way you've presented my points comes across as disingenuous argumentation? I guess we are done here either way.

 

[chris98251]

Ugh more strawmans. Have we had great success coaching up DBs? Yes. Have we done the same with OL? No. Thus, signing Norwell makes more sense because he is a proven player at a position we suck at developing, whereas letting Delano develop at a position Carroll has shown he can work wonders with is reasonable. We also currently don't have a OL prospect waiting in the wings. Maybe Rees? I guess he could be a good guard but it doesn't look promising thusfar.

Bringing up Sherman, Thomas, and Wilson is ridiculous. The former two are all pros and Wilson is our franchise QB. None are FAs this year. Sherm you can make an argument for cutting due to cap savings and the injury concern. I've even said that cutting him to sign Norwell makes sense.

Can you see how the way you've presented my points comes across as disingenuous argumentation? I guess we are done here either way.

For christs sake, your bringing up cheap and conserving cap space but want to sign a big money player in Norwell who's scouting notes are these.

Despite his decorated college career, Norwell was considered a borderline NFL prospect because of lingering questions about his athleticism.

We have plenty of those.

Ifedi, Germain G/T
Roos, Jordan G
Pocic, Ethan G/T
Odhiambo, Rees G/T

Additionally we just spent 8 million on a player that we could consider a bust FA in Joekel, I am of the mind they will go into bargain bin again. As of today and Cable being here still the Norwell type of player isn't a player type we go after.

Our problem is we draft guys and try to make them Tackles when they are Guards, that and the system we use being antiquated due to rule changes.