And statistics, of course..

_________________
~ The Stache'

If you were to use hindsight with last year's DE draft picks, Chandler Jones came out as the "best available player" with where we picked. Full time DE, twice as many tackles, and only three less sacks.

Howard and Guy don't do a whole lot for me. IMO they're going to struggle to be anything other than subs on this defense.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.

No, I am saying that judging players by a single number on a stat column doesn't work. This really should not be that hard to understand.

Oh OK, so you watched every single snap from the players you listed rookie years in order to correctly judge them being better than Irvin? Gotcha...

_________________
Team Hansen

That's why the league keeps stats, so people can form opinions based on performance.

You don't have to be an expert to see that Irvin struggled during large stretches of certain games, and stretches of the season. Only time will tell whether Irvin was the correct pick last year. But if you're ONLY looking at 2012, then there are other rookie DE's that had a better year than Irvin.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.

to pick WHO, exactly? there's ample evidence to suggest that the player they wanted (Bruce Irvin) would have been picked at 16, which means they traded back exactly as far as they could, without losing out

3 less sacks and twice as many tackles... in way more attempts
you know that chandler jones was an every-down player? in fact he played more snaps this season than all but 3 players for the pats. so in three times as many attempts he had only 2x as many tackles and 3 less sacks

This is getting lost in the seeming quest to be correct by the same damn characters who always have to be right.

I'd just let 'em cook, bro.

_________________

Official Tharold Simon Fan Club Member

Don't take this the wrong way, please.

If you can't follow or havent followed this conversation from its start, please do not jump in midstream. Nothing personal, but believe me-you have asked a question of a quote that was directed at a specific person in a specific conversation within a room full of people talking at the same time (that would be a metaphor for this thread).

There is context to the above quote. And your question is not relevant to the argument I was having with that guy.


This whole thread, in fact, is a classic .NET scenario.

A poll is posted.
Less than 3% have an opinion and choose the option that is seen as extreme.
Lynch mobs and goon squads descend upon the thread and assume the worst of everyone's views.
I can't even follow it anymore, myself, and I have been here from the beginning.

My vote was for option #2, btw, if it matters. It's my opinion. It's an opinion. An opinion.

_________________
"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk

I voted for find someone better in the draft.... here is why.
I noticed alot of plays for whatever reason he would drop back 2 feet and stand still.. while the play continued around him. I'm not sure why he did that. and If i get bored i will create a video of what i'm referring too, which happend a few times... To me a player needs to be 100% Drive all the time..

I may change my mind next year, but as of right now, i think we should look for someone better. we may or may not find that person.
he does have speed but no pass rush skills, we knew he was not coached.... so he is basicly in year 1 period.... he will be better next year....i hope. i dont think he was a bad pick... but that wasn't the question ;

_________________
--/*Seattle Seahawks*\--

You say all these things like it's a bad thing. Irvin doesn't have as many attempts because he wasn't good enough to play every down (as was fully evident by the Falcon game).

What we gave up in Jones is an every down lineman vs. a part time pass rush specialist. Carroll and Schneider risked Irvin's potential vs a sure thing solid DE in Chandler.

Like I said, only time will tell whether their risk pays off. But as of 1/18/2013 at 1:04PM IMO Chandler > Irvin.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.

Well, in his defense (and at the risk of being labeled a lynch mob) we don't know what the play call was. It is common for DE's to drop into a really shallow zone coverage. That's how Red Bryant got his 2 picks last year.

_________________
Papaki douchebag love turtle long time

When the Thunder play the Grizzlies, I'll be cheering for a tornado.

Oh it's pretty damn easy to take a post like that the wrong way. You've clearly followed the thread to note that I've quoted you and made a response to a series of posts you've made. So ok let then, since your condescending tone has really pissed me off let me quote the context of every single post you've made in this thread (that I was the first to reply to and have obviously just "jumped in to" and show you exactly how I lead myself to the post I eventually settled on (by quoting a post 3 pages into the thread which I obviously just picked at random, right?)

Now just in case you struggle to follow the following string of quotes, these are all things YOU have said, I've had to delete a few embedded quotes to allow this to be posted, but they're still your words and your points.



Hey hey! I have no problems here, Wagner (another "reach" according to draft "experts") performed well above what is expected of a second round pick, but of course, Wagner isn't a defensive end, so we wouldn't have filled the need that we had by picking him in the first round... and regardless we got him in the second round, I don't understand the logic here, we wanted a pass rusher... we picked a pass rusher, and he gathered more sacks than any other rookie this season.



Hey hey! another great point! "Only 3 people have disagreed with me so far, that means the rest of you are obviously morons!"



OF COURSE that's what you think, but then my train of thought here is, "what is the other option here? Trading back, definitely an option, but you risk losing out on the pick you want to make, if there's reasonable assumption to make that the player you want (Bruce Irvin) will be available later, then of course you trade back... if there is a team that wants to trade with you. We all know (of course) that we wanted to trade back from our spot in 2011 instead of picking James Carpenter there, but no team wanted to trade with us! How do you trade back if nobody wants to trade up? Of course that's a moot point in the end because the player we wanted was Bruce Irvin, and there's good reason to believe that he wouldn't be available if we traded back, as many suggested that with the very next pick, the Jets would have taken him! Now that's all fine and dandy, but maybe there's a better defensive end we could have taken anyway? Well you haven't addressed that point, in fact, what you've suggested in this very post - with the suggestion "your assumpting is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs", essentially saying that you don't think that's the correct comparison to make. That implies that you don't think there WAS a better defensive end available (that's interesting, considering he was the first DE off the board, essentially making him the best DE in the draft).

Still, on to the next post:



This was in response to the above post saying that they didn't feel comfortable trading back without losing out on a player they rated very highly (which of course, has appeared entirely correct with the suggestion the Jets were gearing up to take Irvin with the very next pick). You haven't offered any sort of analytical value with this post either, so it's an easy post to ignore, it's essentially another post saying "I didn't like the selection". Why? Why didn't you like this selection, you're criticising their decision but you have made no argument to suggest why you believe it's a poor decision.



Great point. Next.



Well done again! We should have used our first and second round picks on those two and hoped for what we could manage with the third round pick instead of aiming for those two later. I don't understand this point, Russell Wilson was worthy of the third overall pick, but if you can get him with the 75th, why would you waste that pick on him? Your argument is slowly falling to pieces here (because obviously it was solid from the very start)



Once again another attack on the poster rather than the post, I swiftly ignored this one because it was totally irrelevant to the point being made, it certainly appeared by this point that you were losing grasp of the discussion (argument) you were trying to have



This takes me all the way back to the first post I made in response to you - you can only trade back if someone wants to trade up, and of course, it's only worth trading back if you think you can get a better value for talent. For the 15th pick what do you expect? you can trade down to the lower reaches of the 1st round and pick up a low 3rd round pick in addition, that gets us chandler jones (a player with less impact with more opportunity to MAKE impact) and who else? another depth player likely to make little impact, say for example we traded with NE and took Jones with their pick (and they took Irvin, a possible scenario), who taken in the third round do you think we really missed out on that would have improved our team?

Who does he replace as an every-down lineman? Is there a single rookie in the entire draft that would displace our starting front four? I don't think that's the case, we have a pretty complete team and filling it with specialists who do what they do well is fine by me. If we spent a first round pick on a running back who only returns the ball from kickoffs... but does that better than most in the league he's not an every down running back, but he's doing the job he was drafted to do as well as can be expected

_________________
Papaki douchebag love turtle long time

When the Thunder play the Grizzlies, I'll be cheering for a tornado.

Hahahaha!

Was it something I said?

_________________
"Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk

Are you telling me it wouldn't have been nice to have Fletcher Cox (40 tackles, four sacks) or Michael Brockers (39 tackles, four sacks) next to Mebane in the middle caving in the pocket on a full time basis........rather than a project that might never pan out?

I love Bruce, he's got some serious heart and I hope he turns into a great NFL DE. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a reach with the #15 pick. ANY top 15 pick should be a bona fide starter, not a part timer......and so far he's only a part timer.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.

Hey, for something entirely different, why don't you guys all go find a cement wall, and all of you pound your faces into it.

The winner, wins the Irvin Argument.

The rest of us will just watch Bruce get better with time.

Aldon Smith was a part timer his first year, too. He's seemed to develop pretty well.

_________________


Okay, so maybe that pass rush is still an issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

It's not all about sacks. Take a look at QB hits / hurries


1 99-J.Watt HST
43
2 91-C.Wake MIA
29
3 91-D.Morgan TEN
22
4 91-C.Clemons SEA
20
5 69-J.Allen MIN
20
6 76-G.Hardy CAR
20
7 51-B.Irvin SEA
19
8 91-C.Long SL
19
9 93-M.Johnson CIN
19
10 97-E.Griffen MIN
18