| Author |
Message |
|
Seeker
|
Post subject: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:54 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:21 pm Posts: 529
|
|
We didn't look that bad at WR today. our style is different. I feel like Rice is more of a hybrid possession/#1 than a pure number 1 but i am very happy with his production this year especially considering he wasn't 100%. but still i wonder what this team would look like next with a BURNER wr on the squad. with russell's arm.....
i hate to use him as an example so soon but seahawks + a julio?
this team would be 19 - 0
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Fox0r
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:30 pm Posts: 1850 Location: Lynnwood, WA
|
Seeker wrote: We didn't look that bad at WR today. our style is different. I feel like Rice is more of a hybrid possession/#1 than a pure number 1 but i am very happy with his production this year especially considering he wasn't 100%. but still i wonder what this team would look like next with a BURNER wr on the squad. with russell's arm.....
i hate to use him as an example so soon but seahawks + a julio?
this team would be 19 - 0 A burner WR wouldn't stop Matt Ryan from going 50 yards in 2 plays.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
daketah
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:52 am Posts: 167
|
|
"We all we got, we all we need."
What we need is growth. Today was a big step in that area.
Upgrades at a couple positions will just be icing on the cake.
_________________ Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. :: Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
brimsalabim
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:57 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am Posts: 120
|
|
I'm not sure if we need a burner or a frizby catching dog. It would be awful nice to see what this offense could do with megatron though.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
BillHawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm Posts: 188
|
|
I thought about this too. It would be a high draft pick though and there aren't many guys out there this year.
We've tried guys like Butler and Lockette but they still don't get any separation. I think the offense would benefit greatly from someone like Mike Wallace (no, I'm not suggesting we get him - just an example). I think Pete is always looking for that guy but like I said, it's hard to get that kind of player without investing a lot.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SharkHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm |
|
| * NET Alumni * |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am Posts: 3414
|
|
Tavon Austin. Things would be much different.
_________________  R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten 1/12/39 - 8/7/08
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
SmokinHawk
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm |
|
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am Posts: 4726 Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon
|
Fox0r wrote: Seeker wrote: We didn't look that bad at WR today. our style is different. I feel like Rice is more of a hybrid possession/#1 than a pure number 1 but i am very happy with his production this year especially considering he wasn't 100%. but still i wonder what this team would look like next with a BURNER wr on the squad. with russell's arm.....
i hate to use him as an example so soon but seahawks + a julio?
this team would be 19 - 0 A burner WR wouldn't stop Matt Ryan from going 50 yards in 2 plays. Awesome story, bro. How about posting on topic next time?
_________________ Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro
He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
hawksfansinceday1
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am Posts: 6315 Location: Vancouver, WA
|
|
I think so cuz it would leave the other guys single covered much more often and open up the ground game more as well. Plus we saw what this offense looks like with more involvement by Zach/TEs the last 2 games too. Better pass pro and field awareness by Russ means a lot more of that as well. Unfortunately, burners don't grow on trees but it IS supposed to be a deep WR class this draft so here's hoping......
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
glasgow seahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm Posts: 325
|
|
The biggest need is pass rush...DT/DE whatever way they go it nees to be in getting pressure to the opposing QB. WR is a posiiton you can fil in any of the rounds of the draft, plus a lot of FA's too.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JSeahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm |
|
| * NET Moderator * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm Posts: 15419 Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
|
SharkHawk wrote: Tavon Austin. Things would be much different. De'Anthony Thomas... if we can wait a year or two. But yea, I do think we could use somebody who's a threat to score every time he touches the ball. I dont think its our biggest need, but definatly a need.
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
FlyingGreg
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am Posts: 5661 Location: Oak Harbor, WA
|
|
Offense is not the problem.
We need defenders that can make a play when we need it...see: Detroit, Miami, today.
Alas, I think we need a young stud WR - not necessarily a burner.
_________________ @SeahawkGregYEAH, WE HAVE A DUDE NAMED CHRISTINE...DEAL WITH IT!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
BlueThunder
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm |
|
| *Net Enemy Forum Guy* |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:39 am Posts: 1566 Location: Arlington, Washington
|
|
Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season?
_________________  Seahawks 2012: Just the preview of things to come!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
BillHawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm |
|
| NET Rookie |
 |
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm Posts: 188
|
FlyingGreg wrote: Offense is not the problem.
We need defenders that can make a play when we need it...see: Detroit, Miami, today.
Alas, I think we need a young stud WR - not necessarily a burner. Right. It's definitely an issue with the offense but the Hawks have more pressing needs up front on D. It would help out the offense a lot but the net gain would probably be less than taking a solid lineman.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
glasgow seahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:02 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm Posts: 325
|
BlueThunder wrote: Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season? 3 I know who are big names are Welker, Bowe and Greg Jennings
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
razgriz737
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm Posts: 665 Location: Seattle (From Spokane)
|
BlueThunder wrote: Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season? Only one I can think of off the top of my head is Wes Welker.
_________________ "It wasn't just a dimb coincidence lik you probably tgought. They tested what makes you a fat slov and those colors won just like Emerald is telling you what happens be t...... next!" -- jamsomatic
My 2013 adopt-a-rookie: #humblethug
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
JSeahawks
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm |
|
| * NET Moderator * |
 |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm Posts: 15419 Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
|
glasgow seahawks wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season? 3 I know who are big names are Welker, Bowe and Greg Jennings I believe Mike Wallace from Pittsburgh is a FA as well. And he would definatly be a burner.
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hawks46
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm Posts: 1680
|
|
A burner wouldn't have changed things today. Atlanta was playing a Cover 2 shell today; it's specifically designed to keep WRs in front of the secondary and not give up the big play. Having a guy vertically stretch the field into the teeth of the defense wouldn't have changed anything.
The way you beat that is what we did a bit in the 1st half, hit the TE. A running game would've made the safeties creep up, and then get hit over the top with the PA pass. The lack of a run game hurt us more than missing an elite WR, although it would be nice to see Tate and Rice win some one on one matchups against better than average CBs.
What we need is at least one more dominating OG. Sweezy isn't there yet (might not ever be dominating) and Moffitt just doesn't look like he takes it seriously enough.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
hawksfansinceday1
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:04 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
 |
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am Posts: 6315 Location: Vancouver, WA
|
glasgow seahawks wrote: BlueThunder wrote: Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season? 3 I know who are big names are Welker, Bowe and Greg Jennings Isn't Mike Wallace also? Regardless, if we're going to make a huge FA signing I'm with kearly that it needs to be a pass rusher.
_________________ 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
thegreeninyoureye
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:05 pm |
|
| NET Starter |
 |
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 pm Posts: 343
|
JSeahawks wrote: SharkHawk wrote: Tavon Austin. Things would be much different. But yea, I do think we could use somebody who's a threat to score every time he touches the ball. I dont think its our biggest need, but definatly a need. It is one of the missing links on offense. Somebody that keeps d coordinators up at night. Markus Wheaton from oregon st would be nice. Dude makes fast people look slow.
_________________ The office of Thomas and Chancellor specializing in Defense.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
themunn
|
Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner? Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:07 pm |
|
| NET Veteran |
 |
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm Posts: 1110
|
|
Man I still rage that we didn't take Josh Gordon, even though it would have cost us a 2013 1st in the end, even if he hadn't started this year I think a supplemental draft pick is worth the pick below it essentially because you're getting the player a year early (so although we'd lose a 1st round pick in 2013, he'd be in the system for a year so you're getting added value there).
800 yards from a shortened season working with Brandon Weeden and the Browns. Care to imagine how he'd have done with us? Still, can't rage about the past.
Sidney Rice simply doesn't have the breakaway speed necessary to be a true number 1 wideout, I mean you don't NEED that speed as Fitzgerald has proven time and time again. However, Rice isn't Fitzgerald and few players are, so we need someone that can just blaze past cornerbacks and not rely on poor coverage to make plays
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Users browsing this forum: AKSeahawker, Cartire, CFraychineaud, Chrome_Seahawk, Dismas, Google [Bot], HawkAroundTheClock, HawkFan72, lkjhpoiu, LusciousJames, PlinytheCenter, RynoHawk, slipwax, Stoned Cold, volsunghawk and 102 guests |
| |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
 |