so much condescension... sheeesh

I cant understand ANY of the criticism to the OP with the horrific name. Really. Its the offseason, he put some solid effort into adding something of substance.

Oh, yeah, and ITS THE OFFSEASON. For the offseason, its a good post.

I'm with Tical on this one. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong. I'm just saying that I agree that measurables mean very little in the NFL. If measurables were that important there wouldn't be any Russel Wilson's, Tom Brady's, Matt Hasselbeck's, Marquise Colston's, Shannon Sharpe's, Jerry Rice's, etc. Most of what makes a good football player is mental, and intangibles. You can have all the physical ability in the world, but if you don't have any instincts or know-how, or just plain skill, then you won't amount to much. I'm not saying that Irvin won't become a great player, in fact I'm expecting him to. But lets not crown him just yet.

Hey Pandion Haliaetus, your post and this thread had a lot of potential. I, for one appreciate the work you put in..... However, the self-righteous er....um... fans, got a hold of it and quickly devolved it into another berating, name-calling denigrating mish-mash of stupidity. At least Kearly and a few others chimed in to bring a few moments of sanity, for which I thank them.

So much is expected of Irvin over Clemons because Irvin was a 1st round pick (not his fault, btw), and of course, we all know that 1st round picks have to be stars in this league from day 1 or they are busts. (Insert useless Mariners players comparisons here) Basically, if given time to work on his game, get stronger, develop some additional moves and master the scheme he is now playing in and I think Irvin will be exceptional. I also, as do you, have a high regard for Avril and believe he will do well as a Seahawk.

OreIdahawk wrote:I'm with Tical on this one. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong. I'm just saying that I agree that measurables mean very little in the NFL. If measurables were that important there wouldn't be any Russel Wilson's, Tom Brady's, Matt Hasselbeck's, Marquise Colston's, Shannon Sharpe's, Jerry Rice's, etc. Most of what makes a good football player is mental, and intangibles. You can have all the physical ability in the world, but if you don't have any instincts or know-how, or just plain skill, then you won't amount to much. I'm not saying that Irvin won't become a great player, in fact I'm expecting him to. But lets not crown him just yet.

Very true. Applies in all sports. Begs the question, why are the people in sports so obsessed with stats? The coaches, the media, the players... bah. If measurables were really the determining factor, Colin Kaepernick would be better than RW. Laughable

OreIdahawk wrote:I'm with Tical on this one. I'm not saying either of you are right or wrong. I'm just saying that I agree that measurables mean very little in the NFL. If measurables were that important there wouldn't be any Russel Wilson's, Tom Brady's, Matt Hasselbeck's, Marquise Colston's, Shannon Sharpe's, Jerry Rice's, etc. Most of what makes a good football player is mental, and intangibles. You can have all the physical ability in the world, but if you don't have any instincts or know-how, or just plain skill, then you won't amount to much. I'm not saying that Irvin won't become a great player, in fact I'm expecting him to. But lets not crown him just yet.

That's all well and dandy, and its your opinion, but Tical focused on my original post in the wrong way.

His argument was based on the premise that I was trying to argue that Bruce Irvin is a better player than Chris Clemons. Which I never said once.

I used athletic measure and testing as the starting point of comparison because one it’s hard and illogical to compare a 9 year veteran to a rookie.

My point, is that many view Clemons as a very athletic player in regards to our defense. Even Carroll's own personal view on LEO in his scheme is that position is "usually the most athletic player on the team".

I wasn't using the athletic comparison to devalue Clemons in any way, only that, Bruce Irvin is much more elite in the regard. You can coach up a player to broaden skillsets and technique, and with experience plus a great drive of self-improvement usually comes intangibles, instincts, and intelligence. Maybe not right away and especially not all at once but over time a player learns to polish and refine his game or he likely won’t keep his job.
But elite athleticism isn’t grown on trees, you know, it has value. Irvin has a rocky road ahead and plenty of hard work to put in before he becomes as complete of a player Clemons is… (Even though I think we overvalue or overrate Clemons a little bit especially coming off his 2012 season where 7 of is 11.5 sacks came in 2 games (GB, @BUF), meaning he had 4.5 sacks in his other 14 games. But at the end of the day the Seahawks were a much better team with Clemons than without, that part is incredibly true, even though Clemons has missed only 1 game in his Seahawks career due to injury, an injury that will likely impact his future play for imo at least for 8-10 games 2013, hopefully it will be much less, and he comes back to his 100% much faster)

The whole post in general was basically to show that Clemons came a long way before he had any consistent success. Again, in 5 active seasons in 6 years, Clemons had 50 tackles, 20 sacks. On average, 10 tackles, 4 sacks per season before coming to Seattle and thriving in the LEO role.

My argument for Irvin was that even though he is widely viewed as a raw and undeveloped prospect, he has already accomplished in his rookie season what it took Clemons 4 years to do.

Irvin’s 1st season: 16 tackles, 8 sacks
Clemon’s 4th season: 20 tackles, 8 sacks.

Again, I’m not saying Irvin > Clemons, only that both players were more or less pass-rushing projects upon league entry, and that in comparison Irvin is likely ahead in development compared to where Clemons was at as a rookie in 2003. Irvin gaining 400+ snaps or so of experience in his rookie season where Clemons saw none.

Not saying Irvin is better than Clemons, now, only that in 2-3 more years, in which I did state in the OP, that I could see Irvin developing into comparable LEO prospect in regards to Clemons. A complete player in about 4 years of development.

Again, because apparently I have to restate this many times before my point gets across the right way:
I used Clemons as a comparison to Irvin because Clemons when I looked at his career in retrospect, he didn’t have great, premier DE success right away… he was a journeyman seemingly one trick pony before Carroll came along and put Clemons in a great positional fit for his skillset along with Dan Quinn then Todd Wash coaching him up.

Its not my fault that Tical freaked out and solely focused only on one aspect of my argument partly perhaps mostly because of a disagreement in a different thread where I didn’t think Seattle and St. Louis would trade their top three players at TE for one singularity of Vernon Davis.

Also, to Tical, I won't apologize for having a different view and perspective on things. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Mine is a little bit on the optimistic and sure I like to provide a lot of statistically analysis and comparison.

But Maybe we can just push past the animosity we have built towards each other this past week and just be fans.

Because that is all I am, a passionate Seahawks fan, writing about Seahawks football, wasting time towards what should be a very exciting chapter of Seahawks football.

I don't intend for me to come across as an condescending know-it-all and I'll try to focus more on diminishing that tone in my writing in the future.

If we both are Seahawks fans, lets just be friends, we can debate, but we don't have to come off like we hate each other.

Good post OP, people need to calm down a bit. The Hawks did a great job this off-season picking up Avril and Bennett, now they're in no hurry to rush Clemons back. The biggest difference between Clemons and Irvin/Avril is run stopping ability, Clem is far better then the other 2. I also think Irvin adding the weight and another year under his belt could be better in that department. I look and Avril like i looked at Clem before he came here, great athlete that has under achieved a bit to this point. Something really excites me about Avril coming to this team, with this staff and the players around him. With Clem coming off a knee injury who knows how he's gonna come back, he could return to form or he might lose a step. Time will tell, i'm high on Avril, Clem and Irvin in any role they're playing in. They'll all play and play a lot, the DE position is one i don't worry about.

Most posters have heard me say many times that whenever I read a post that makes its point with stats I click off it immediately as its normally mostly bullshit.

Stats are great to throw around with friends at a bar or party but using stats to prove points about players are most always wrong because the person using them always slants them in their favor rather than be objective. Can't you just say who won the game and the score. Most of us could care less who caught how many whats for whatevers.

Also I find now a days that the people who relay and force others to read stats are mostly fantay players and that is the next most boring thing to read. Right after Mein Kampf and the Bible according to someone else.

(For Kip)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never once said anything even close to referencing that you implied Irvin was better than Clemons. Get your facts straight before you call me out.

There is no animosity, I don't take any of this personally, and I would hope you don't either.

Let us be brutally honest. Sound good? You have a man-crush on Irvin, and you think Clemons is overrated, and you wanted to reach for anything you could reach for to support feeling that way. That is all you have to say. You don't have to go around measuring arms and hands and shuttle drills.

Our front office loves stats and explosion numbers just like the OP, fortunately it isn't all they use to evaluate. So for those banging on PH, it isn't without merit to look at stats.

However, in watching Irvin, I have to assume one of two things: in his first year, the coaching staff wanted him to make an impact with his passing down speed rush so did not overload him with learning the subtleties of the position, or he just lacks instincts period. Irvin seems to me to never have much of a plan b if his initial effort does not pay off.

pehawk wrote:I cant understand ANY of the criticism to the OP with the horrific name. Really. Its the offseason, he put some solid effort into adding something of substance.

Oh, yeah, and ITS THE OFFSEASON. For the offseason, its a good post.

whats wrong with dudes name? pretty cool if you ask me.

The Radish wrote:Most posters have heard me say many times that whenever I read a post that makes its point with stats I click off it immediately as its normally mostly bullshit.

Stats are great to throw around with friends at a bar or party but using stats to prove points about players are most always wrong because the person using them always slants them in their favor rather than be objective. Can't you just say who won the game and the score. Most of us could care less who caught how many whats for whatevers.

Also I find now a days that the people who relay and force others to read stats are mostly fantay players and that is the next most boring thing to read. Right after Mein Kampf and the Bible according to someone else.

(For Kip)

I find the stats/subjective argument strange. Every team uses stats or moreover mathematical models to try to gain an edge competitively. Remember when teams figured out Rick Mirer could only throw right and used it to expose him? How often does a team throw right vs. left, how often do they run or pass in certain situations, best defensive schemes vs in the red zone, it just goes on and on.

Now I'm not saying without "context" stats can be misleading, like a Team averages 30 points a game. Context: Team had the easiest schedule, or other things like that. Math and mathematical models are critical to predicting future results. Though I would agree it takes an experts eye to provide context in analysis.

Just don't see why folks jump all over people for providing stats. If you are going to argue, argue the context, it would serve better towards stimulating discourse.

Not that the thread hasn't done just that, kearly provided an argument towards context against the OP.

Personally I enjoy these discussions with a foundation of facts.