Who's stoked to watch Paul Richardson this season?

[Popeyejones]

He fell in the draft due to his inability to stay healthy in college, and that hasn't changed yet. The wear and tear of injuries (even once healthy again) can also build up over time, which might start to become a concern for him.

Nice fluid player in college, and definitely seems like he's invested in improving, though.

TBH tho, over those last five weeks of the season two years ago when he did play I didn't see in him what was getting some Hawks fans so excited. He looked decent enough, but not really like he was bringing anything that the rest of unit wasn't. Projected out across a whole year that "hot streak" of his would have resulted in about 560 receiving yards and 3 TDs over the whole season. Not always fair to just look at stats for young WRs, but I didn't see in him anything that I thought could make him really special moving forward (like say Tyler Lockett; the stats don't matter. He jumps off the screen at you).

I think the dream scenario for the Hawks is that he's able to stay healthy this year and contribute enough to justify letting Baldwin walk, and I think he's got a chance to do that (although I probably wouldn't put money on it at this point).

In our offense, the way it was being called then, 560 and 3 TDs is like 900 yards and 6 TDs in other NFL offenses. THus the excitement.

For years, some of us have said that Doug Baldwin would be better than Wes Welker in a Tom Brady offense. Last year, we got a glimpse of how good he could be. Point is, we have had to project WR talent in Seattle's offense for some time. Golden Tate showed that to be true as well.

I put in the note about Lockett because I figured this response was coming.

Re: Tate, I've been long on record as having seen the same thing in him that I see in Lockett from before the Hawks let him walk (a guy with the ability to explode in production in an offense that passed more).

Richardson could do it, but as I said above, in addition to not really doing much numerically I didn't get the sense from Richardson's five game stretch of quasi-effectiveness that there was much else going on (at least in that stretch). Again though, I could be wrong, and I'm just explaining what I saw over a stretch from over a year ago.

As for Brady, every NFL fan who likes a WR on their team who doesn't put up big stats says that their guy would put up big numbers if he was with Brady and the Pats. It's a NFL fan cliche that's said about 30-40 guys every year. I don't think it really means anything.

 

[Basis4day]

I'm optimistic for him. WR need time to develop and he did flash at times late his rookie season before having a serious knee injury. Tate never got going until year 3.

Hes going to have is opportunities. Baldwin was playing like the best WR in the game the second half of last season and teams are aware of Lockett.

He's not making serious money so it's fine being patient.

 

[vin.couve12]

I don't really think that Richardson is going to be the one to replace Baldwin, but I do think that Baldwin is probably going to get a very large contract even if he only has 5-6 TDs this year. If, on the off chance that Richardson can stay healthy and continue to get stronger, he could be more important than we think. I still think that Kasen Williams is going to be a player that really earns RW's trust given his ability to get a contested ball. Lockett is likely the real replacement and even potential improvement for what will likely be the loss of Baldwin.

Richardson is really at a crossroads right now though. He's really a WR only and if he doesn't still out he could actually be cut strictly because he can't offer you anything on ST at all. You wouldn't put him at gunner and you don't try to put him in as a returner over Lockett. Richardson needs a pretty consistent, healthy camp here.

 

[vin.couve12]

A player like this could make things real interesting. He spend last year on our PS and has the body type to hold up on ST. Not doubt we'll get more of these UDFA guys this year too. AND they'll be real hungry for a job...willing to do just about anything.

[youtube]4MmuODli3Xg[/youtube]

Goodley has a bit of a Tate mold. Former RB with explosiveness.

 

[vin.couve12]

Baldwin, Doug - Played more slot last year. Showed up bigtime
Kearse, Jermaine - Not going anywhere
Lockett, Tyler - Versatile playmaker
Williams, Kasen - Great overall athleticism and body control. Wins with the ball in the air. Played ST late last year.
Smith, Kevin - Nice overall player, but a career STer who can give you some snaps here and there. Nuts and bolts player who plays like a junkyard dog. Big improvement over Bryan Walters.
Richardson, Paul - 2nd round pick. Doesn't play ST. Health issues and lacks strength. True Burner.

Current Challengers who haven't made the gameday roster:

Foxx, Deshon
Fuller, Jeff
Goodley, Antwan - Burner with elite acceleration. Jets are a bit like Harvin. Former RB.
McNeil, Douglas - Coaches were high on him in the past. Tried him at CB. Will do anything to stay alive.
Slavin, Tyler

The others I don't know too much about other than a tape on Fuller where he looks like he's filling that bigger high point kind of WR a la Matthews. I don't think he'll challege Williams, but it's possible. The problem is, well....for all of these guys, is that there will likely be 3-4 more added. Maybe more while subtracting some of the current ones.

I don't believe for a second that the 2nd round pick investment matters. Big offseason for him, IMO. I will say that I have my doubts given the history of very skinny NFL players, but hey...it'd be great if he could.

Reminds me of Todd Pinkston right down to the second round pick. Coaches sometimes get drunk with speed.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

I believe he will outperform Tyler Lockett this year.

No way.

Tyler Lockett is way better than Paul Richardson.

Lockett gains separation, is a better route runner, and can set up defenders a lot better than Richardson can.

Lockett is clutch. Richardson isn't.

Lockett will see multiple Pro-Bowl nods.

Believe it.

 

[King Dog]

Damn. I don't have All Pro expectations for him. Some of you are going crazy. I don't think he will live up to his draft pick, but who cares.... It happens....We're past that. I'm excited to see how he can contribute as a #4 or possibly more this year.

 

[vin.couve12]

Damn. I don't have All Pro expectations for him. Some of you are going crazy. I don't think he will live up to his draft pick, but who cares.... It happens....We're past that. I'm excited to see how he can contribute as a #4 or possibly more this year.

I know it sounds crazy, particularly because of the 2nd round investment. Supposed to be isn't necessarily what is though. Personally, I've never really liked the pick and thought it was a reach in the Todd Pinkston mold. They're extremely similar, albeit Richardson having a little more quick twitch to his game.

Maybe I'm wrong though. I would actually like to be wrong, really. The problem is the only way I see him sticking is if Baldwin, Lockett, or Kearse get dinged up and even then he's still guaranteed nothing.We need good ST play. We've seen it every year where a WR gets cut in favor of a really good ST player because that's a necessity to the Hawks as it should be...as disappointing as that is sometimes.

Do wee keep 6 WRs? Do we keep 5? There have been times where we've only carried 5. I think we've only started out with 5 once too.

 

[kearly]

I put in the note about Lockett because I figured this response was coming.

Re: Tate, I've been long on record as having seen the same thing in him that I see in Lockett from before the Hawks let him walk (a guy with the ability to explode in production in an offense that passed more).

Richardson could do it, but as I said above, in addition to not really doing much numerically I didn't get the sense from Richardson's five game stretch of quasi-effectiveness that there was much else going on (at least in that stretch). Again though, I could be wrong, and I'm just explaining what I saw over a stretch from over a year ago.

Seattle went spread heavy in 2015. Doug Baldwin immediately saw his numbers go through the roof.

Richardson runs the best slant on the team, and during that aforementioned 5 game stretch, he appeared to be Wilson's new favorite target, even over a healthy Doug Baldwin.

I was not a fan of the Richardson pick when it happened. If anything I am a little biased against the guy. But he has won me over for his innate fit in a Patriots style of offense, since now Seattle's offense is emulating many of those same qualities.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

I put in the note about Lockett because I figured this response was coming.

Re: Tate, I've been long on record as having seen the same thing in him that I see in Lockett from before the Hawks let him walk (a guy with the ability to explode in production in an offense that passed more).

Richardson could do it, but as I said above, in addition to not really doing much numerically I didn't get the sense from Richardson's five game stretch of quasi-effectiveness that there was much else going on (at least in that stretch). Again though, I could be wrong, and I'm just explaining what I saw over a stretch from over a year ago.

Seattle went spread heavy in 2015. Doug Baldwin immediately saw his numbers go through the roof.

Richardson runs the best slant on the team, and during that aforementioned 5 game stretch, he appeared to be Wilson's new favorite target, even over a healthy Doug Baldwin.

I was not a fan of the Richardson pick when it happened. If anything I am a little biased against the guy. But he has won me over for his innate fit in a Patriots style of offense, since now Seattle's offense is emulating many of those same qualities.

He has potential but he has to stay healthy and contribute. So far he just hasn't and he has at least 3 WR's in front of him .

 

[vin.couve12]

I respectfully have to disagree. I've seen time and again where teams have success, in the superbowl or otherwise, and get impatient and enamored with some face paced high flying, highly entertaining type of football and fall back to earth.

Time and time again.

You cannot maintain a culture of toughness and grit in a spread offense that passes the ball more than it runs. It can't be done. Even right down the OL, they cannot be more practiced in pass protection in live games than in run blocking given that pass blocking is passive in its very nature. Balance has to be maintained and promoted for continued success or longevity.

I see where many of you are going with this passing game and believe me, you don't want what you're asking for. It never ends well.There will never be anything easy in the NFL. It will always be a grind and you will always need grinders to stay on top. There's a reason why Chip has never won anything more than a Rose Bowl, for instance. And he never will so long as he preaches patty cake high flying football.

Sorry if I sound like an arse again. Had a few beers...

 

[vin.couve12]

Apologies for that post. It's a sore subject really. It happens basically every time. I remember this conversation back to the West Coast offense. Once defenses figured it out, it was just another offense. You might be able to create something somewhat fresh, but it's short lived. The only real way to give yourself a half second advantage in the NFL is good mixture in your playcalling between run and pass to get them to take "negative steps."

And maybe I'm going too far in assuming that's what is meant. I don't know, but I do know that I don't want to see us constantly in pro-pass formations. Spacing is better for for the pass catchers, yes, but it's also better for the DL. That's not to say that we should always be in the I either, but there are just a ton of ways where you can't stray too far from center. Not in just football either, for that matter (should take my own friggin advice).

Anyway the whole point was that Richardson is going to need to grind and show his value right now or there could be jeopardy. It would be cool if he pulls it off. It would mean that he's become a weapon.

 

[McGruff]

Just a question since I don't follow the college game from a schematic or team focused perspective like I do the NFL. I love to scout college players, but I don't sit down on Saturdays and watch game after game.

Does spread offense necessarily mean pass heavy? I seem to recall Oregon running the ball often and effectively out of the spread formation, and they are the most common point of reference for the spread. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I seem to recall them having a pretty damn good running game.

 

[McGruff]

Answering my own question . . . Over the last 10 years Oregon ran the ball 150 times more than they passed every single season.

Didn't it seem like the running game improved as well as the passing game when we went to more spread concepts?

 

[Scottemojo]

I respectfully have to disagree. I've seen time and again where teams have success, in the superbowl or otherwise, and get impatient and enamored with some face paced high flying, highly entertaining type of football and fall back to earth.

Time and time again.

You cannot maintain a culture of toughness and grit in a spread offense that passes the ball more than it runs. It can't be done. Even right down the OL, they cannot be more practiced in pass protection in live games than in run blocking given that pass blocking is passive in its very nature. Balance has to be maintained and promoted for continued success or longevity.

I see where many of you are going with this passing game and believe me, you don't want what you're asking for. It never ends well.There will never be anything easy in the NFL. It will always be a grind and you will always need grinders to stay on top. There's a reason why Chip has never won anything more than a Rose Bowl, for instance. And he never will so long as he preaches patty cake high flying football.

Sorry if I sound like an arse again. Had a few beers...

Yeah, our tough gritty style worked so well last year.

last year we tried to grind with no blocking tight end, and Rawls ran best from spread looks.

Philosophy only goes so far, then it comes down to the players you got. Using what we had to grind was...dumb. We used the first quarter of the playoff game to grind our way into 31-0 deficit.

I have not heard a single person preaching for a Chip Kelly style O. Or more passing than running. I just want the best use of resources, I want Baldwin, Lockett, Rawls, and Jimmy, with some Kearse, on the field at the same time. Line those guys up tight, and I don't care what the play is, you just gave the defense an edge. There is no choice but to spread them out.

Add Richardson to that mix, and Jimmy being at his best in the slot or wide, not off the tackle, and our best grinder OL, Sweezy, gone, and the facts are plain as hell. Doing what you propose is philisophical stupidity when the talents lie elsewhere.

I love hardnosed ball. But I have no problem with a spread attack featuring Small Paul, Lockett, Baldwin, Kearse, Rawls, and Jimmy. Spread em out, keep defenses that like to send extra heat after the QB obvious as hell, use our cheapest OL in the NFL to chop the hell out of the DL and create some lanes. That is the best use of the talent we have as it stands right now. If you want to argue, take it up with Pete and John, who let their grinders go so they could spend money on the QB and defense.

 

[sutz]

Answering my own question . . . Over the last 10 years Oregon ran the ball 150 times more than they passed every single season.

Didn't it seem like the running game improved as well as the passing game when we went to more spread concepts?

Like anything else, there are trade offs. You may lose the quantity of big guys at the point of attack , but the spread offense also forces the defense to spread out to cover it. That can open running lanes.

 

[vin.couve12]

I've heard all these arguments before as well going back to the Oilers. They never could get it done and neither has any real spread offense, including Marino with the Dolphins. They just don't win championships.

The lone exception I can think of was kind of a spread offense, but still largely based off of Faulk and their OL and that was the Greatest Show on Turf Rams. Warner and their receiving core were obviously huge, but it always started with Faulk.

Championship football is largely played very close to it's roots in terms of philosophy. That's just the way it is. You literally have to try to find exceptions. I think that's why Pete and Co. believe in grit and determination. It's tried and true.

 

[McGruff]

Is it not possible for a run.oriented spread offense to be tough as well? I'm honestly asking because I always thought the spread was a passing based offense, like the Oilers, Dolphins, etc. But there are examples, such as Oregon, of a spread offense that runs 60% of the time, and does it well.

Are the spread and toughness necessarily opposed to one another? Or might an innovative team with a gritty head coach whose not afraid of change be able to bring the two together?

I'm honestly asking if there is something about the spread that is by necessity finesse?

 

[vin.couve12]

Is it not possible for a run.oriented spread offense to be tough as well? I'm honestly asking because I always thought the spread was a passing based offense, like the Oilers, Dolphins, etc. But there are examples, such as Oregon, of a spread offense that runs 60% of the time, and does it well.

Are the spread and toughness necessarily opposed to one another? Or might an innovative team with a gritty head coach whose not afraid of change be able to bring the two together?

I'm honestly asking if there is something about the spread that is by necessity finesse?

I got into this one with Eagles fans as well. Chip utilizes a lot of misdirection in his spread approach where you don't know that a motioned "WR" isn't going to get the ball on a jet sweep or some pseudo bubble pass. It's predicated on getting your edge defenders to stay home and generally getting as many defenders as you can to take the negative steps I was talking about above. It's not necessarily revolutionary, but I don't think any one coach has really taken it to the extreme that Chip did or has. That said, I still don't think that type of offense lends to grit and toughness.

Anyway, as Eagles fans found out, this is not college football. Chip's offense was lightning in his first year in the NFL. Even got freekin Foles to tie an NFL record with 7 TDs. A year later, defenders around the league who played them said they had it figured out and their offense fizzled. There isn't anything in the NFL that lasts for very long. Hence the moniker Not For Long. At that point, the misdirection had little effect and defenses were no longer taking negative steps and even his run game fizzled. The NFL community catches up very, very quickly. There's too much film, too much study, too much time. A revolutionary idea won't be for very long. Not in the NFL anyway.

Why spread the formation out in the first place? Is it to be pass oriented or to be run oriented? It's not the latter because in order to do that you have to first set the foundation of the pass so that the defense follows suit and spreads out their front 7. You don't want to try to run the ball on a 4-3 or 3-4 base defense out of the spread....the QB might not even be able to hand the ball off in that case.

The problem is purpose or intent. In my mind formation matters to toughness, yes. Maybe someday some crazy coach proves it can be done, I don't know. That's not to say I'm opposed to the spread as a part of the offense. In my belief in balance, an offense should very well utilize a spread, but it's like one of those things where you say, "You can go there, but you can't stay." I'd say the same thing for an I formation as well. Being dynamic lends to balance, IMO. And....sometimes there's a need for more of one thing or another based on injury to personnel and what not too...

 

[McGruff]

Just os you know, i'm not interested in "getting into it" with you . . . I am really just curious if a gritty spread is even possible.

3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Enter pehawk . . .