Doug Baldwin Is GoingTo Beast 2014

[JMR]

Tell you the truth,

Except that you then just went on to spout off personal bias not supported by facts.

It's not personal bias, it's a pretty well drawn out fact that Baldwin has been more productive his entire career.

I guess in your drawing of the facts you are excluding the 2013 season?

 

[RiverDog]

Does anyone remember that play Baldwin made against the cowboys in 2011 that was actually unfairly ruled an interception? He leaped way into the air over the defender and made an awesome catch. I will make a .gif of it later.

He makes so many, tell me this.... how can we pay this generation's Largent and everyone else? Dude is nails.

I like Baldwin a lot, but saying he's this generation's Largent is going way over the top and borders on a lack of appreciation for the skills of a HOF receiver.

 

[Seanhawk]

Does anyone remember that play Baldwin made against the cowboys in 2011 that was actually unfairly ruled an interception? He leaped way into the air over the defender and made an awesome catch. I will make a .gif of it later.

He makes so many, tell me this.... how can we pay this generation's Largent and everyone else? Dude is nails.

I like Baldwin a lot, but saying he's this generation's Largent is going way over the top and borders on a lack of appreciation for the skills of a HOF receiver.

Yeah, I had to read that 3 times just to make sure I read it right. I love Doug, but WTF?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

 

[tom sawyer]

Every receiver tries to be "Largent-like", one day someone might actually get close close enough to be...


naaaaaaaaaah!

 

[RiverDog]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

OK, I can handle that, and I do agree that Baldwin possesses many of the types of fundamental WR skills that Largent mastered and parlayed into a HOF career, ie hands, route running, and footwork.

If you haven't already noticed, I get a little defensive when the discussion turns to Largent.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

OK, I can handle that, and I do agree that Baldwin possesses many of the types of fundamental WR skills that Largent mastered and parlayed into a HOF career, ie hands, route running, and footwork.

If you haven't already noticed, I get a little defensive when the discussion turns to Largent.

You aren't the only one. Largent is our best WR ever (if Percy has a long healthy run with us he might be in the discussion) but it will take some doing. Point is I was talking about his fundamental skills not body of work.

 

[RolandDeschain]

It's not personal bias, it's a pretty well drawn out fact that Baldwin has been more productive his entire career.

I guess if you ignore yards after the catch, catch rate percentage, forcing missed tackles, and touchdowns...Then, yes. You're correct. Baldwin has more total yards over the past three seasons than Tate, but only by 16 yards. They are virtually identical in that.

I love Baldwin, but pretending he smokes Tate is just...Whatever, lol.

 

[suppaball]

Does anyone remember that play Baldwin made against the cowboys in 2011 that was actually unfairly ruled an interception? He leaped way into the air over the defender and made an awesome catch. I will make a .gif of it later.

He makes so many, tell me this.... how can we pay this generation's Largent and everyone else? Dude is nails.

We will find a way to keep dougie fresh, if he was not in the teams future plans they wouldn't have put a 2nd round tender on him. I do foresee Mr. Baldwin in seattles future.

Ditto. A guy like him brings a lot more to the locker room than talent alone.

Not to mention Dougie seems to want to be a Seahawk so that will help us in a long term deal. I have a feeling that as long as he gets a long term deal that pays him fairly like around the 3-4 mil a year range with big incentives(sp) he will stay a Seahawk.

 

[King Dog]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

OK, I can handle that, and I do agree that Baldwin possesses many of the types of fundamental WR skills that Largent mastered and parlayed into a HOF career, ie hands, route running, and footwork.

If you haven't already noticed, I get a little defensive when the discussion turns to Largent.

You aren't the only one. Largent is our best WR ever (if Percy has a long healthy run with us he might be in the discussion) but it will take some doing. Point is I was talking about his fundamental skills not body of work.

Percy could never be a better "receiver" than Largent.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

OK, I can handle that, and I do agree that Baldwin possesses many of the types of fundamental WR skills that Largent mastered and parlayed into a HOF career, ie hands, route running, and footwork.

If you haven't already noticed, I get a little defensive when the discussion turns to Largent.

You aren't the only one. Largent is our best WR ever (if Percy has a long healthy run with us he might be in the discussion) but it will take some doing. Point is I was talking about his fundamental skills not body of work.

Percy could never be a better "receiver" than Largent.

Never is quite an absolute. Not likely is a far more sensible word choice. Unless you know the future to 100% certainty?

 

[King Dog]

Should have said Largent-like not just Largent because they have similar qualities. I was using that as a rough comparison not as a fact to point out I think he's likely out of our price range next year unless we suddenly change our priorities about the WR position group.

OK, I can handle that, and I do agree that Baldwin possesses many of the types of fundamental WR skills that Largent mastered and parlayed into a HOF career, ie hands, route running, and footwork.

If you haven't already noticed, I get a little defensive when the discussion turns to Largent.

You aren't the only one. Largent is our best WR ever (if Percy has a long healthy run with us he might be in the discussion) but it will take some doing. Point is I was talking about his fundamental skills not body of work.

Percy could never be a better "receiver" than Largent.

Never is quite an absolute. Not likely is a far more sensible word choice. Unless you know the future to 100% certainty?[/quote]

I'll stick with "never." I do like Percy though. I can't wait for the season to get rolling.

 

[chris98251]

Length of Career and cast of characters is and what will tell, Largent and Rice both had long careers and QB's that could get them and would get them the ball.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Baldwin (UDFA) vs Tate (2nd Round Pick)

Year 1:
DB '11: 1S/16G, 51 C, 788 Y, 15.5 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '10: 0S/11G, 21 C, 227, 10.8 YPC, 0 TDs

Year 2:
DB '12: 4S/14G, 29 C, 366Y, 12.6 YPC, 3 TDs
GT '11: 5S/16G, 35 C, 382Y, 10.9 YPC, 3 TDs

Year 3:
DB '13: 9S/16G, 50C, 778Y, 15.6 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '12: 15G/15S, 45C, 688Y, 15.3 YPC, 7 TDs

Baldwin's been better and Tate probably could not play inside and does what Baldwin does. And last year Baldwin proved he can make plays and be productive on the outside.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Lol, you're not even comparing the same seasons against each other, and you ignored Tate's 2013 season altogether. Fine work there, Pandion. Say, you're not a D.C. lobbyist by day, are you?

Let's get Pandion a new moniker: "I ignore inconvenient years to list favorable statistics that favor my homeboys". Rolls off the tongue nicely, don't you think?

Next up: I'm going to compare Russell Wilson and Steve Young, featuring all of Russell's years but only showing Steve Young's 49ers years where he had less than 100 passing attempts for the entire year. (There are four such years.)

I don't know how it's gonna work, but I'm pretty sure the final step is:

Profit!!

 

[IBleedBlueAndGreen]

Lol, you're not even comparing the same seasons against each other, and you ignored Tate's 2013 season altogether. Fine work there, Pandion. Say, you're not a D.C. lobbyist by day, are you?

Let's get Pandion a new moniker: "I ignore inconvenient years to list favorable statistics that favor my homeboys". Rolls off the tongue nicely, don't you think?

Next up: I'm going to compare Russell Wilson and Steve Young, featuring all of Russell's years but only showing Steve Young's 49ers years where he had less than 100 passing attempts for the entire year. (There are four such years.)

I don't know how it's gonna work, but I'm pretty sure the final step is:

Profit!!

So looks like you missed the part where he was comparing Baldwin's stats in his first three years vs Tate's stats in his first three years. He "ignored" the 2013 season for Tate because it was his fourth year in the league and Baldwin has only played three years. Math is hard eh Roland? (If you're going to tear somebody's post apart at least get your facts straight before doing so) :roll:

 

[RolandDeschain]

I missed nothing. My point is it's a biased and lame "comparison".

If the year doesn't matter, then let's just do the same thing for other Seahawks receivers. Next up, Steve Largent.

Just to be clear, I am not hating on Doug. I love him. Throwdown knows I do, and knows part of the reason why. He was certainly the more NFL-ready receiver compared to Tate. They are, however, quite different as far as receivers go, and ignoring the best year of one is just misleading.

 

[hawknation2014]

Year 1:
SL: '76: 13S/14G, 54C, 705Y, 13.1 YPC, 4 TDs
DB '11: 1S/16G, 51C, 788Y, 15.5 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '10: 0S/11G, 21C, 227Y, 10.8 YPC, 0 TDs

Year 2:
SL: '77: 14S/14G, 33C, 643Y, 19.5 YPC, 10 TDs
DB '12: 4S/14G, 29C, 366Y, 12.6 YPC, 3 TDs
GT '11: 5S/16G, 35C, 382Y, 10.9 YPC, 3 TDs

Year 3:
SL: '78: 16S/16G, 71C, 1,168Y, 16.5 YPC, 8 TDs
DB '13: 9S/16G, 50C, 778Y, 15.6 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '12: 15S/15G, 45C, 688Y, 15.3 YPC, 7 TDs

Year 4:
SL: '79: 16S/16G, 66C, 1,237Y, 18.7 YPC, 9 TDs
DB '14: TBD
GT '13: 16G/13S, 64C, 898Y, 14.0 YPC, 5 TDs

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You and me both. How about we shelf the Percy question until he's no longer a Seahawk, fair?

 

[Throwdown]

Year 1:
SL: '76: 13S/14G, 54C, 705Y, 13.1 YPC, 4 TDs
DB '11: 1S/16G, 51C, 788Y, 15.5 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '10: 0S/11G, 21C, 227Y, 10.8 YPC, 0 TDs

Year 2:
SL: '77: 14S/14G, 33C, 643Y, 19.5 YPC, 10 TDs
DB '12: 4S/14G, 29C, 366Y, 12.6 YPC, 3 TDs
GT '11: 5S/16G, 35C, 382Y, 10.9 YPC, 3 TDs

Year 3:
SL: '78: 16S/16G, 71C, 1,168Y, 16.5 YPC, 8 TDs
DB '13: 9S/16G, 50C, 778Y, 15.6 YPC, 4 TDs
GT '12: 15G/15S, 45C, 688Y, 15.3 YPC, 7 TDs

Not to sound blasphemous, but what in the hell does Steve Largent got to do with any of this? No one said either of these guys are the next Largent.