Kam at LB?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:04 pm
  • The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1862
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:12 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

    Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule - Rod Woodson, Ronde Barber, Charles Woodson.... Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

    If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.


    There's only 8 safties in the HOF and 3 of them started out as corners. Ronde will likely be in ASAP too so that's 4 of 9. It's more common than you'd think...
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11305
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:25 pm
  • CANHawk wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:
    Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

    Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule - Rod Woodson, Ronde Barber, Charles Woodson.... Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

    If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.


    There's only 8 safties in the HOF and 3 of them started out as corners. Ronde will likely be in ASAP too so that's 4 of 9. It's more common than you'd think...


    I still think Lott is the exception, because those players played a lot longer at CB than Lott did. Like you said, they did it to extend their careers. Barber was never as good at Safety as he was at CB. Prime Time played at nickel for the Ravens, but that was at the end of his career and no one is going to say he was HOF worthy there. Both Woodson's switched teams. If Kam went somewhere else, i would be open to the discussion of switching him because he was a pro-bowler under our scheme.

    Kam is still pretty young. If he wanted to switch when he got older, thats a different discussion in my opinion. I think his best years at safety are still in front of him.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3190
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:28 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    He's on the field quite a lot as it is. Not complaining, but not sure you want to do too much more and not risk fatigue. Need to keep that in balance.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3190
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:29 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1576
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:31 pm
  • McGruff wrote:
    Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.


    JJ and Guy are young and need experience, but as the overall talent level grows on our team, the chances for the younger players to make a difference diminish. They're going to really need to show it on ST and sub-packages. It was easier for Kam to get on the field as a rookie to show what he can do when you look at the roster we had.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3190
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:33 pm
  • McGruff wrote:We do move Kam and others around situationally. That's not the question being asked, though, and if it is it is a dumb question considering we already do it.


    It's not a dumb question. It's a question that puts a person in a position where they have to measure trading a known value versus an unknown/lesser known value and it's an uncanny exercise in reasoning given our human nature to resist giving up anything. In this case, the known value is the perceived role and effect of Kam at SS and the unknown value is the result of changing that role to involve more play from the WLB or a WLB style position. You see it as not necessarily a dumb question but mainly a simplistic question because you're more familiar with what Kam does and the idea of moving him around is either nearly identical to what he's been doing well or it's just a subtle expansion on what he's been doing well. To you it's not radical in the slightest unless we're talking about a full-time position change, which I'd be cautious against as well.

    However, there are likely people on this forum that may not have that level of reasoning and having a seemingly simple question imposed like "Kam at LB?" hashed out in front of them with a degree of detail from a variety of people will help them expand upon their level of reasoning (if they allow it to). That or people are just going to roll their eyes and carry on about their business. Anyhow, *sigh* it's the off-season etc etc...
    Last edited by BirdsCommaAngry on Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 639
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:38 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    McGruff wrote:
    Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.


    JJ and Guy are young and need experience, but as the overall talent level grows on our team, the chances for the younger players to make a difference diminish. They're going to really need to show it on ST and sub-packages. It was easier for Kam to get on the field as a rookie to show what he can do when you look at the roster we had.


    The difference is Kam actually looked good when given opportunity. Guy in particular as looked like a gassy skunk in a trash heap.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1576
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:53 pm
  • The Seahawks have moved players before. Red Bryant moved from DT to DE. Several of the Seahawks players played different positions before settling into their current roles. Clemons was a LB. JR Sweezy was a DT in college. Irvin was a safety in high school and early on at college. Evan Moore was a WR. Richard Sherman was a WR. Golden Tate was a RB in high school. Our pro-bowl fullback was a Heisman nominated QB in college... etc.

    Now, I get that none of those players were pro-bowlers at their positions before being moved (although Clemons (in Oakland) was close). But I think a lot of the snark in this thread regarding Chancellor's options reflects not only ignorance of this regime's philosophy and values (always looking to get better at every position, valuing players that can play multiple positions, etc), but that mindset also displays an ironic closemindedness, the exact opposite of the kind of thinking that put the Seahawks on the map in the first place.

    Of course, people like to cite the JS quote about not moving pro-bowlers, while forgetting that he said that during the peak of lying season. I thought he was bullshitting then to cover his ass (like any GM would), and to his credit he may as well have admitted as much after the draft when he confessed that safety Mark Barron was a top target at #12.

    As far as Chancellor himself, the status quo is acceptable, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought there wasn't room for optimizing. Chancellor the "8 in the box enforcer" is a badass. Chancellor the deep safety coverage helper, not so much. Seattle likes to show different looks on defense and sometimes that means Earl and Kam switch jobs for a play. In a true Tampa 2 defense, the safeties are supposed to be interchangeable. Remember when Sherman got "burned" by Roddy White in the playoffs for a long TD? That wasn't on Sherman, that was on Chancellor for having limited ability as a coverage helper. He basically has the coverage ability of a fast linebacker.

    Chancellor is already a very good linebacker who lines up at safety. If Seattle felt they could find another safety that was interchangeable with Earl Thomas (as Mark Barron was), then that player is a high priority (Jeron Johnson isn't that guy, lol). Then the question of what to do with Chancellor comes up. He'd make an outstanding outside linebacker, and would be a huge upgrade over Jeron Johnson as the big nickle safety.

    That doesn't mean that Chancellor's move is imminent. It just means that it's one of the options that's on the table if the right situation arises (like Mark Barron last year). Whatever our coach does, it will be to make this defense even better. I suspect we'll see the team draft a LB instead of another safety simply because good linebackers are far more common than Earl Thomas type safeties. In the case of Barron, they were preparing for a scenario where they'd have access to a very rare type of player, and in that scenario moving Chancellor was a no brainer. I'm not really expecting that scenario to come up again any time soon.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10909
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:10 am
  • ^Word to Big Bird.

    Chancellor is already a very good linebacker who lines up at safety. If Seattle felt they could find another safety that was interchangeable with Earl Thomas (as Mark Barron was), then that player is a high priority (Jeron Johnson isn't that guy, lol). Then the question of what to do with Chancellor comes up. He'd make an outstanding outside linebacker, and would be a huge upgrade over Jeron Johnson as the big nickle safety.


    This right here is why I was so bummed that Mark Legree didn't pan out. 2 ball hawks over the top with Kam and Bobby as nickel LB's would be all kinds of bad ass.
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11305
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:30 am
  • McGruff wrote:
    skater18000 wrote:
    jlwaters1 wrote:dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


    Winston Guy.


    Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

    Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


    Guy sucked? Let's see you try to cover Tony Gonzalez in your first start!!! We had him cover man to man with Roddy White and Julio Jones also and he was really close... How many 3rd Safeties in this league can cover any of those any of those 3 guys? :34853_doh:
    Week 1 of the preseason vs. The Tennessee Titans, I said the Seahawks were winning the superbowl...

    "Oh and by the way, Go Hawks!!!" Russel Wilson
    User avatar
    skater18000
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 504
    Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:14 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:24 am
  • ^I don't recall really seeing Guy in coverage much against ATL. Seemed every time he was on the field they were sending him on a blitz. Guy spent a LOT of time in the backfield IIRC.
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11305
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Previous


It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:55 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information