Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:54 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 1343
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

_________________
We are the 2014 Superbowl champions and it can never, ever be taken away.
Greatest defense in NFL history.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm 
* NET News Scoop *
* NET News Scoop *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:30 pm
Posts: 1872
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:52 am
Posts: 473
"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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:57 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am
Posts: 1055
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Posts: 351
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am
Posts: 3883
Tavon Austin. Things would be much different.

_________________
Image
R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
1/12/39 - 8/7/08


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm 
*PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
*PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
Posts: 5583
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10185
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......

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 330
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
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.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
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.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm 
*Net Enemy Forum Guy*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:39 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Arlington, Washington
Any big free agent WR's coming up this off season?

_________________
Image

A Blue Buzz-Saw has emerged from the Pacific Northwest. Prepare, NFL.

SEAHAWKS, 2014. Coming soon...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm
Posts: 351
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:02 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 330
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Online

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1400
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.

_________________
Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:
Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm 
* NET Moderator *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
Posts: 18457
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.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Posts: 3181
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:04 pm 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
Posts: 10185
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.

_________________
From the white sands
To the canyon lands
To the redwood stands
To the barren lands

Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:05 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 350
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.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:07 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 2266
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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 2266
Hawks46 wrote:
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.


Well two things, it could either create even MORE space in that intermediate gap if you have a guy flat out running towards the end-zone, second, if they catch the ball in that middle area and make one guy miss they can take it to the house. Right now I feel that even though Tate and Rice can catch the ball in the middle of the field and make a guy miss and/or break a tackle, they're still going to get caught before they break off a huge run


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 am
Posts: 380
Another weapon would be awesome....i'd like to see us package picks to get 4 or 5 guys we REALLY want....this team is young as is so lets get 'quality' rather than 'quantity'....

_________________
"I didn't do anything...i just headbutted him!"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm
Posts: 165
If we want a true burner, I think we would take a shot at Wallace. Dude is FAST.

But I see us approaching a true pass rusher. Maybe getting Randy Starks from Miami to stuff the run and provide some more pressure.

_________________
How many 49ers fans does it take to change a light bulb?

None, they will all show and talk about how good the old one was...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:11 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 194
Location: big black hawk
hawker232 wrote:
If we want a true burner, I think we would take a shot at Wallace. Dude is FAST.

But I see us approaching a true pass rusher. Maybe getting Randy Starks from Miami to stuff the run and provide some more pressure.

yep mike wallace is one of the fastest receivers out there.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Do we need a burner?
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:15 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:42 am
Posts: 1738
Location: New Joisey
what about the Rocket Lockette?

Im sure the Niners drop him

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.