What we do not need

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:33 pm
  • A starting LEO.

    Sure, Clem is injured and recovering from major knee surgery, but we've got this guy we spent a first round pick on as a pass rusher who, oh yeah, led all rookies in sacks this year.

    Sure he didn't get any sacks in his one start . . . Playing without Clemons or Jones and with an injured Bryant and Mebane . . . Very few pass rushers can do it on their own.

    Irvin will be fine at LEO. What we need a complimentary pieces to make his job easier until Clemons returns, and you don't spend 5 million or a first round pick on a complimentary temporary piece. So we can scratch Freeney, Osi, Spencer, Dummerville, Avril, etc.off the list. OT only can we not afford them, we don't need them, and they won't want to come to a team offering a temporary role player position.

    What we need is a starting DT who can crush or penetrate the pocket, and a rotational LDE who can put pressure from the other side.

    We don't need a LEO.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:38 pm
  • McGruff, did we need a LEO for the game at Atlanta? Irvin wasn't fine in that one. In fact, he got RickRolled by a running back who just got cut from his team.

    When Irvin is an every down player, he will be a LEO.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:40 pm
  • :roll: :?:

    I disagree completely. Irvin is not suited for LEO, at least not yet. LEO isn't just pass rushing, it's holding the point of attack and playing the run as well - which Clemons does well. Irvin gets moved out of the play way too easily to fill that role.

    He is still a situational pass rush specialist. We can't force him into the role of LEO because we need it.

    We definitely need a LEO. The need for a pass rushing DT is mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by FlyingGreg on Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    @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: 7534
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: CVN-68


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:41 pm
  • Yep, Irvin looked pretty bad as an every down guy against Atlanta, but I'm not ready to write him off yet. I remember being 100% positive that Unger would never have the strength to anchor and block in the NFL and he proved me wrong. I'm holding out hope Irvin can do the same.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2867
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:42 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:McGruff, did we need a LEO for the game at Atlanta? Irvin wasn't fine in that one. In fact, he got RickRolled by a running back who just got cut from his team.

    When Irvin is an every down player, he will be a LEO.


    Irvin played fine in the Atlanta game. the problem was we had NO ONE else on the line who could rush the passer.

    Early in the season when our pass rush was clicking we had Clemons, Irvinand Jones working together. When Jones went down the pass rush dipped because three pass rushers are better than two. When Clemons went down it collapsed because two pass rushers are better than one.

    Irvin needs help, not replacing. No one on the market is an upgrade over what Irvin brings . . . But upgrading 3tech and rotating Red out is an imperative.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:43 pm
  • Irvin doesn't have the size for the run defense
    Treefiddy
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 284
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:32 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:43 pm
  • Treefiddy wrote:Irvin doesn't have the size for the run defense


    Lets see where he comes in after an offseason before we say that . . .
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:45 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:McGruff, did we need a LEO for the game at Atlanta? Irvin wasn't fine in that one. In fact, he got RickRolled by a running back who just got cut from his team.

    When Irvin is an every down player, he will be a LEO.


    You mean that playoff game where a rookie was covering for a Veteran who has started every game this year on a week's notice at a new position? Clearly there is no way he could improve. Rookies never improve with experience. It's a fact. Show me one example of a player getting better at a position as he plays more games at that position.

    Cut Irvin now. Eat his salary. It's worth it in the long run.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:47 pm
  • Treefiddy wrote:Irvin doesn't have the size for the run defense


    Clemons weighs 9 more lbs than Irvin.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:47 pm
  • Holy shit folks, Irvin was a ROOKIE. Do you get it that rookie D-Lineman aren't all that?

    We have larger needs than a LEO.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:50 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:Holy shit folks, Irvin was a ROOKIE. Do you get it that rookie D-Lineman aren't all that?

    We have larger needs than a LEO.


    Exactly my point. All this talk about Freeney, Osi, etc. when we've got a guy who is younger, improving, and who we drafted specifically for this reason.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:55 pm
  • McGruff wrote:
    Exactly my point. All this talk about Freeney, Osi, etc. when we've got a guy who is younger, improving, and who we drafted specifically for this reason.


    If anything, we need to bring in those guys for Irvin's role as a situational pass rusher before Clem got hurt.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:55 pm
  • Let's all just agree that the pass rush needs significant improvement. That could come from an edge rusher, DT, LEO, pass rushing Will, scheme adjustment, more aggressive play calling by Quinn, whatever.

    The front office and coaches know what we need.
    @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: 7534
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: CVN-68


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:58 pm
  • From the game wrapup at PProFootballFocus.com
    Missing Clemons

    There might not be a more important player to the Seahawks defense than Chris Clemons. We drew attention to that during the week and wondered where the pressure would come now that he was out of the line-up. The answer, unfortunately for Seattle, is that it didn’t come from anywhere. Bruce Irvin (-4.1) was ineffective as a full-time player, leading the Seattle D-line rotation with 47 snaps (tied with Brandon Mebane for the most), but produced only one hurry, and was visibly hesitant and slower off the ball when he had to diagnose the play first.

    Combined the Seahawks could only pressure Matt Ryan on ten snaps, and only knocked him down once, with none of the defensive linemen accounting for more than three pressures in total. While Irvin might be an impressive rush-specialist, this game showed he has a long way to go if they ever want him to be an every down defensive end. If they don’t, then they need to find cover for Chris Clemons going forward.


    The irony of McGruff's OP? He says both that Irvin was the only one providing pass rush and that we don't need another pass rusher. SMH
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:58 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    McGruff wrote:
    Exactly my point. All this talk about Freeney, Osi, etc. when we've got a guy who is younger, improving, and who we drafted specifically for this reason.


    If anything, we need to bring in those guys for Irvin's role as a situational pass rusher before Clem got hurt.


    But are any of those guys going to want to play the role of temporary situational pass rusher, and are we willing to pay for that?
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:00 pm
  • I'd like to think that Irvin will develop skills to become a more complete DE, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope that it will be happen this season. I would really like to see Freeney here to help out for a year or two while also giving Irvin an up close and personal look at a whole tonne of pass rushing moves.
    User avatar
    Hawkspur
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1286
    Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:12 pm


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:01 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:From the game wrapup at PProFootballFocus.com
    Missing Clemons

    There might not be a more important player to the Seahawks defense than Chris Clemons. We drew attention to that during the week and wondered where the pressure would come now that he was out of the line-up. The answer, unfortunately for Seattle, is that it didn’t come from anywhere. Bruce Irvin (-4.1) was ineffective as a full-time player, leading the Seattle D-line rotation with 47 snaps (tied with Brandon Mebane for the most), but produced only one hurry, and was visibly hesitant and slower off the ball when he had to diagnose the play first.

    Combined the Seahawks could only pressure Matt Ryan on ten snaps, and only knocked him down once, with none of the defensive linemen accounting for more than three pressures in total. While Irvin might be an impressive rush-specialist, this game showed he has a long way to go if they ever want him to be an every down defensive end. If they don’t, then they need to find cover for Chris Clemons going forward.


    The irony of McGruff's OP? He says both that Irvin was the only one providing pass rush and that we don't need another pass rusher. SMH


    No, that's not what I said. I said we need two other pass rushers . . . But not from the LEO position. That is taken care of with a guy who was our top draft pick and rookie sack leader . . . We need pass rushing from places other than LEO. Lets focus our energies there.

    I would argue that what the Atlanta game showed is that one pass rusher isn't enough. In fact the whole season showed that.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:04 pm
  • I think you are both right. We need a backup LEO, but we don't need a starting LEO. Clem will recover.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1463
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:05 pm
  • David Hsu stated it best on twitter a couple of days ago.

    Last year we brought in Irvin and Jones to help improve the Pass rush. Now obviously we can agree Clemons>Irvin by quite a bit right now. We lost Clem and Jones.

    We have to upgrade the pass rush. It's just as important as it was last year. We need at least one new LEO that's capable of holding his own. Maybe Irvin can start but we still need one. Clemons needed another Leo behind him and he's far more proven then Irvin.

    Best case for me is adding a 1 year FA, draft a speed DE, draft a DT/maybe FA. We need to infuse talent.
    User avatar
    JKent82
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3009
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:18 pm
  • I really don't want to see us draft the same position 2 years in a row with more obvious needs glaring us in the face.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:20 pm
  • I agree with the OP. a penetrating pass rushing 3-tech is priority numero uno. Whether that's achieved by bringing in a FA, trading for a vet, or drafting one early in the draft, I neither know nor care. I just know it's a priority because the entire personality of our defense changed when we lost Jason Jones. And that sucks.

    The only way we need to even start thinking about getting a starting Leo is if the Clem we get back in September is significantly less than the Clem we had back in December. What we DO need though is adequate depth at Leo (or to figure out a means to better mobilize what we've got because Irvin and Scruggs are good football players). That being said though, I think Irvin will figure it out. In that Atlanta game, he looked like he was trying extra hard not to screw up. That's a recipe for mediocrity when you play DE like Bruce does. He needs to be able to play balls out with only one objective (kill the guy with the ball), and I think Gus (and his doppleganger Todd Wash) had him thinking about too many things. I think Dan Quinn is going to work wonders with Bruce Irvin, and the whole D-line.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11436
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:50 pm
  • Hey, I agree we need a pass rushing 3 tech badly. When I say we need another LEO, I am not saying a first round pick. But good pass rush 3 techs are damn rare, and if a impactful LEO player is there, grab him. In fact, I would lay odds that we are way more likely to go DE than DT in the first round.

    This defense begins, and damn near ends with the ability to stop the run. And as long as Pete is here, that will be the case. Irvin might get better against the run, but any of you hanging his struggles with the run on being a rookie are basing your hopes for next year on something you can't prove, namely the fact that he will get better. Just like anybody thinking Quinn will be an improvement on Bradley is basing their hopes on something they can't prove.

    Irvin has never in his life played a read and react position. Clemons was a linebacker in college. There is not a doubt in my mind that for that reason, and many more, Irvin is not, and will not be ready to simply replace Clemons adequately next year.

    Not getting another LEO would be a betrayal of comPete.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11264
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:53 pm
  • Agree we need another LEO . . . But cannot fathom that we are drafting one early or signing one big.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
  • I agree with the OP on this. The lack of pressure from anywhere else demonstrsted the need for help in the middle, something that we lacked all season long. You can't take the Atlanta game as a definition of Irvins abilities. According to Brock, Pete said Bruce hit the rookie wall, and that's to be expected after 17 games. Irvin had never before in his life been exposed to that much playing time our that kind of environment. Looking back at that game, I wonder how Bruce would have fared had the rest of the d line gotten pressure. Imaho, w need Kawaan Short, but I would be hard pressed to pass on Corey Lemonier were he available :-)
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8723
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:31 pm
  • I'm glad someone finally posted this. It was mind boggling seeing so many posts about needing to draft or bring in a big name FA for the LEO position. DO we want to always have guys coming in that could fit that role and give Irvin some competition? Yeah. But that's not something you throw a 1st or 2nd round pick out for. I agree with the others that a good 3-tech would go a long ways for this defense and it would help the other guys be more productive because the QB can't just step forward to avoid their rush on the ends every time.

    It just seems people have already given up on Irvin which is hilarious. He was the best rookie pass rusher last year. He's going to get stronger and better. Clemons was known as a very poor run stopper years into his career before being coached up.

    I absolutely hate the myth that Irvin is too small too. Irvin is freaking 9 pounds less than Clemons. That's it. 9 Pounds. If 9 Pounds is the difference between ideal and being too small then just give him a couple big mac meals lol. Nah but seriously, he'll gain more than 9 pounds this off-season. He's got the frame to carry plenty more weight if they want him to. So Irvin is to small to play the leo every down = Myth!
    DJrmb
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:38 pm
  • What makes people believe that Clemons will be back? He tore his knee in January, there's no way a 31 year old is coming back from that to be productive piece this year. Rarely happens.

    We need to bring in whoever can relieve that pressure off from Irvin so he can continue to learn - but we still need to fix the pass rush with or without a new LEO.
    ______________________
    User avatar
    tomahawk
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2465
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am
    Location: Skagit, WA


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:55 pm
  • tomahawk wrote:What makes people believe that Clemons will be back? He tore his knee in January, there's no way a 31 year old is coming back from that to be productive piece this year. Rarely happens.

    We need to bring in whoever can relieve that pressure off from Irvin so he can continue to learn - but we still need to fix the pass rush with or without a new LEO.

    Huh? There's many players that come back from ACL tears. Especially recently, doctors and medical knowledge have gotten to such that most players come back fine and usually stronger because of all the rehab.

    Just a few Notable players to come back and do fine after an ACL tear:
    Juliane Peterson (edit: oops sorry his was an Achilles tear)
    Jamaal Charles
    Adrian Peterson
    Jamal Lewis
    Edgerrine James
    Terry Allen
    Casey Hampton (3 ACL reconstructions)

    As a matter of fact it's harder to find guys that can't or don't come back from ACL injuries. Clem will be fine. We might not get him back right away and if we don't, why not see what a fresh Irvin can do in a full time Leo role early in the season?
    Last edited by DJrmb on Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    DJrmb
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:58 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:I really don't want to see us draft the same position 2 years in a row with more obvious needs glaring us in the face.


    DE is the teams #1 need IMO. Lack of depth at LEO just ended our season. I think we'll go DT in round 1 though just because you almost have to take one that early this year to get a difference maker. You could probably wait til rounds 2-4 for a backup LEO and be fine. And by backup I really mean "future starter."

    Seattle clearly wants at least 2 outside pass rushers (DE) full time. Even if Irvin is a LEO, you'd still need to replace Irvin when he moves over to cover Clemons' departure. So either way, we need a defensive end. Better to be proactive about finding that guy especially when our current LEO turns 32 this year and is coming off an ACL. I'd even argue that we need 3 LEOs at all times just to avoid another Atlanta situation.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:05 pm
  • McGruff wrote:Agree we need another LEO . . . But cannot fathom that we are drafting one early or signing one big.


    I don't think we'll see anything in FA. As far as the draft goes, I think Seattle would have to strongly consider LEO in round one if Jarvis Jones or Bjoern Werner are there. I'd be completely fine with them going LEO in round 2 for someone like Lemonier. I know Clemons was a UDFA, but the longer you wait, the lower the odds that you'll get a difference maker. And Seattle doesn't need a career backup- they need to swing for the fences here and hope to find a long term starter in future seasons. And I'm sure they will view this situation exactly like that.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:11 pm
  • Clemons wasn't the run defender he is now early in his career either.

    Atlanta is a terrible excuse to lay the blame on Irvin, it was a DL wide failure due to injury. There's little a rookie 3rd down specialist in his first start matching up against a good left tackle could do, obviously he wasn't going to turn into Michael Strahan.

    He needs time to develop into a starter, that's all. You underestimate our coaching staff if you don't think they can polish BI into Clem's role. He needs some serious upgrades or the other players to step up to succeed either way.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:20 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:Hey, I agree we need a pass rushing 3 tech badly. When I say we need another LEO, I am not saying a first round pick. But good pass rush 3 techs are damn rare, and if a impactful LEO player is there, grab him. In fact, I would lay odds that we are way more likely to go DE than DT in the first round.

    This defense begins, and damn near ends with the ability to stop the run. And as long as Pete is here, that will be the case. Irvin might get better against the run, but any of you hanging his struggles with the run on being a rookie are basing your hopes for next year on something you can't prove, namely the fact that he will get better. Just like anybody thinking Quinn will be an improvement on Bradley is basing their hopes on something they can't prove.

    Irvin has never in his life played a read and react position. Clemons was a linebacker in college. There is not a doubt in my mind that for that reason, and many more, Irvin is not, and will not be ready to simply replace Clemons adequately next year.

    Not getting another LEO would be a betrayal of comPete.


    I'm not trying to argue that Irvin was not a liability against the run against Atlanta (because he clearly was) but I'm wondering if an upgrade at Will LB might help to compensate for Irvin's shortcoming in that area. If we had a real heady, athletic "Derrick Brooks type*" of Will over there taking out the trash, it would let Irvin play more of a "ballistic missile" "ears pinned back" style of head hunting DE than the read and react type they seemingly wanted him to play last year.

    If a DE is the very best player available where we pick in the draft, then I won't be upset if JS pulls the trigger. He knows best and nobody has ever complained about having too many capable pass rushers in the stable. However, I'd almost rather see us trade it for a mid rounder + a high pick next year or take a slight reach on a 3-tech who could possibly address our biggest need. Outside of that DT, I don't see us in need of a big talent injection anywhere else on the roster.


    *I say that like Derrick Brookses just grow on trees...
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11436
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:30 pm
  • Tebow.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:35 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:Tebow.


    This
    "Pete Carroll brings in great elves...and they make the best presents."
    User avatar
    SacHawk2.0
    .NOT a Moderator
     
    Posts: 10396
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:51 pm
    Location: With a white girl


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:03 pm
  • FlyingGreg wrote::roll: :?:

    I disagree completely. Irvin is not suited for LEO, at least not yet. LEO isn't just pass rushing, it's holding the point of attack and playing the run as well - which Clemons does well. Irvin gets moved out of the play way too easily to fill that role.

    He is still a situational pass rush specialist. We can't force him into the role of LEO because we need it.

    We definitely need a LEO. The need for a pass rushing DT is mutually exclusive.


    I completely agree with this assessment. I certainly will not rule out the possibility that Irvin will improve, but Irvin did not look like an every down DE in that Atlanta game at all. He was terrible. However, as a pass rush specialist, he has shown that he can absolutely excel. I really would not have a problem if that is all the Irvin ever becomes, but I really think we need another starting caliber LEO for next season.
    User avatar
    Missing_Clink
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2494
    Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:33 pm
  • SacHawk2.0 wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Tebow.


    This


    Not this. never this...
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11436
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: What we do not need
Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:37 pm
  • kearly wrote:
    McGruff wrote:Agree we need another LEO . . . But cannot fathom that we are drafting one early or signing one big.


    I don't think we'll see anything in FA. As far as the draft goes, I think Seattle would have to strongly consider LEO in round one if Jarvis Jones or Bjoern Werner are there. I'd be completely fine with them going LEO in round 2 for someone like Lemonier. I know Clemons was a UDFA, but the longer you wait, the lower the odds that you'll get a difference maker. And Seattle doesn't need a career backup- they need to swing for the fences here and hope to find a long term starter in future seasons. And I'm sure they will view this situation exactly like that.


    Pretty sure they a confident their long term starter is already on the roster . . . Irvin .
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:36 am
  • Irvin has MILES to go before he starts for a good defense. You can't sit back and diagnose a play in the NFL. If you were to time each play he played that wasn't a third-and-long from the time the ball was snapped until the time he reacted to what was happening in front of him, he would be on the short list of longest times by any DE in the NFL.

    Even if you pencil him in as a productive every down player, you still have a huge need. Considering this team has very few holes that need to be addressed, their lack of consistent pass rush last year, and the insane importance of a pass rush in the modern NFL, yes, they need to spend some major resources on the position if they want to maintain their momentum defensively or possibly take a step forward.
    "So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1499
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:55 am
  • We don't need losses. Those are bad. Especially in the playoffs. We tried that last year and it didn't work.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:09 am
  • Largent80 wrote:Holy shit folks, We have larger needs than a LEO.

    I really don't want to see us draft the same position 2 years in a row with more obvious needs glaring us in the face.






    Saying it again doesn't make any less INCORRECT.
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:36 am
  • bestfightstory wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Holy shit folks, We have larger needs than a LEO.

    I really don't want to see us draft the same position 2 years in a row with more obvious needs glaring us in the face.






    Saying it again doesn't make any less INCORRECT.


    You are just jealous that I beat you to it.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:43 am
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:We don't need losses. Those are bad. Especially in the playoffs. We tried that last year and it didn't work.


    It's pretty hard to argue with this kind of logic.

    Thank you Mr. Theisman.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11436
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:49 am
  • I'm sorry but this post just seems entirely predicated on a single stat without any thought into the actual player or scheme. Im so sick of hearing about how he lead rooies in some stat completely devoid of context like it means much. Irvin would get destroyed as the starter at LEO.
    TJH
    *NET #1 Sherman Fan*
     
    Posts: 646
    Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 pm


Re: What we do not need
Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:59 am
  • Pass rush, pass rush, pass rush. On defense, that is the most important part of the game. You can never have enough pass rushers.
    User avatar
    FargoHawk
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
    *BRONZE SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 794
    Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:02 am


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:02 am
  • McGruff wrote:Pretty sure they a confident their long term starter is already on the roster . . . Irvin .


    And who replaces Irvin when he replaces Clemons? Who's our depth? Some guy who's name sounds like Chupacabra?

    That Chupacabra signing might have been the most desperate in Seahawks franchise history btw. The guy hadn't played in the NFL in three years, and hadn't played at any level in two years. And he was well over 30. And he was never any good. And of course, he had zero impact in that Atlanta game. I'm not even sure if he played.

    I think Pete still has nightmares about it. He won't let that happen in 2013.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:30 am
  • kearly wrote:
    McGruff wrote:Pretty sure they a confident their long term starter is already on the roster . . . Irvin .


    And who replaces Irvin when he replaces Clemons? Who's our depth? Some guy who's name sounds like Chupacabra?

    That Chupacabra signing might have been the most desperate in Seahawks franchise history btw. The guy hadn't played in the NFL in three years, and hadn't played at any level in two years. And he was well over 30. And he was never any good. And of course, he had zero impact in that Atlanta game. I'm not even sure if he played.

    I think Pete still has nightmares about it. He won't let that happen in 2013.


    Totally agree . . . But do you spend 7 million on a Freeney/Osi free agent or a 1st round drafting for depth/occasional role player when you already have your long term starter on the roster.

    I say no. I Say you sign a second tier free agent and/or mid round draft pick.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:22 pm
  • i don't think we need to replace bruce irvin but we need to find a strong side defensive end in the justin tuck kind of mold. to improve the athleticism throughout the defensive line to help play against the spread offense and read-option. kind of like the giants d line of a few years ago
    Lynch Mob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:30 am


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:56 pm
  • I think a lot of you guys are right on both sides. We do need players that can challenge for the LEO spot and step in when need be. You prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. What if Irvin get's hurt this year in preseason? Then what do we do if we haven't brought in more Leo's?

    However Leo is such an in-between sort of position that it's hard to carry multiple because you are wasting roster spots on guys that usually can't be plugged in elsewhere. It seems like a lot of guys that are good for the Leo are guys that failed as DE's or LB's. Like Clemons who was lost in the league (too small for DE and too big for LB) until coming here to play our hybrid position.

    I think the correct way to satisfy both is to try and find guys that can be more than just a Leo. We shouldn't be targeting guys in the draft to just fit the Leo position but we should be targeting guys that we think could handle other positions full time (OLB, Normal DE) but also challenge or fill in at Leo if/when needed.
    DJrmb
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:20 pm
  • If we sign the Chupacabra, Mexicans will support us and look what that did to Romney.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24268
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:31 pm
  • Scottemojo wrote:From the game wrapup at PProFootballFocus.com
    Missing Clemons

    There might not be a more important player to the Seahawks defense than Chris Clemons. We drew attention to that during the week and wondered where the pressure would come now that he was out of the line-up. The answer, unfortunately for Seattle, is that it didn’t come from anywhere. Bruce Irvin (-4.1) was ineffective as a full-time player, leading the Seattle D-line rotation with 47 snaps (tied with Brandon Mebane for the most), but produced only one hurry, and was visibly hesitant and slower off the ball when he had to diagnose the play first.

    Combined the Seahawks could only pressure Matt Ryan on ten snaps, and only knocked him down once, with none of the defensive linemen accounting for more than three pressures in total. While Irvin might be an impressive rush-specialist, this game showed he has a long way to go if they ever want him to be an every down defensive end. If they don’t, then they need to find cover for Chris Clemons going forward.


    The irony of McGruff's OP? He says both that Irvin was the only one providing pass rush and that we don't need another pass rusher. SMH

    Yeah, it's just too bad that Clemmons didn't have any sacks to prove his worth :34853_doh:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3645
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: What we do not need
Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:49 pm
  • McGruff wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    McGruff wrote:Pretty sure they a confident their long term starter is already on the roster . . . Irvin .


    And who replaces Irvin when he replaces Clemons? Who's our depth? Some guy who's name sounds like Chupacabra?

    That Chupacabra signing might have been the most desperate in Seahawks franchise history btw. The guy hadn't played in the NFL in three years, and hadn't played at any level in two years. And he was well over 30. And he was never any good. And of course, he had zero impact in that Atlanta game. I'm not even sure if he played.

    I think Pete still has nightmares about it. He won't let that happen in 2013.


    Totally agree . . . But do you spend 7 million on a Freeney/Osi free agent or a 1st round drafting for depth/occasional role player when you already have your long term starter on the roster.

    I say no. I Say you sign a second tier free agent and/or mid round draft pick.


    Look at it like this..it takes BOTH Justin Smith, AND Alden Smith to get the job done right, and by themselves, each are Pro Bowlers.
    I love Irvin, BUT, he ain't going to get it done all by his lonesome, it's going to take an upgrade on the D-Line if we want to see him reach his potential sooner, rather than later, and I trust that Pete Carroll and John Schneider already have plans to address this in either FA's or the Draft.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3645
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Next


It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:06 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information