Do we need a burner?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:54 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Seeker
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1343
    Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:21 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Fox0r
    * NET News Scoop *
    * NET News Scoop *
     
    Posts: 1874
    Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:30 pm
    Location: Lynnwood, WA


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:56 pm
  • "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
    User avatar
    daketah
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 473
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:52 am


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:57 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1243
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm
  • 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.
    BillHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 355
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    SharkHawk
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3883
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    SmokinHawk
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 5608
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:29 am
    Location: Not Umatilla, Oregon


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:58 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10756
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    glasgow seahawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 330
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18498
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:59 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    FlyingGreg
    * Master Chief *
    * Master Chief *
     
    Posts: 7436
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: CVN-68


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm
  • 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...
    User avatar
    BlueThunder
    *Net Enemy Forum Guy*
     
    Posts: 2696
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:39 am
    Location: Arlington, Washington


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:00 pm
  • 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.
    BillHawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 355
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 4:12 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:02 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    glasgow seahawks
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 330
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:01 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm
  • 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???


    2013 Adopt-a-rookie: #humblethug
    2014 Adopt-a-rookie: Kevin Norwood
    User avatar
    razgriz737
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1525
    Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Seattle (From Spokane)


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18498
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:03 pm
  • 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.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3339
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:04 pm
  • 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
    User avatar
    hawksfansinceday1
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 10756
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:05 pm
  • 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.
    thegreeninyoureye
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:07 pm
  • 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
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2325
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm
  • 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
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2325
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm
  • 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!"
    User avatar
    purpleworld
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 380
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 am


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:09 pm
  • 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...
    User avatar
    hawker232
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 165
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:11 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    GeorgeKush
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 195
    Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:39 am
    Location: big black hawk


Re: Do we need a burner?
Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:15 pm
  • what about the Rocket Lockette?

    Im sure the Niners drop him
    Image
    User avatar
    NJSeaHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1741
    Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:42 am
    Location: New Joisey




It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:18 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online