Browner also cost us a game in 2011 with the same sort of vulnerability he often displays. KEEP READING. YOU'RE ALREADY CHECKING OUT, ASSUMING WHAT THE REST OF MY POST WILL LOOK LIKE, AND PLANNING YOUR OWN. STICK WITH ME. I'M STILL TALKING.
I guess I'm not often one to appeal to intangibles. I'll grant that our physicality has made a distinct difference in the way certain teams hold up against us, but that's only part of the picture. Consider that the defense pivots on Earl Thomas, a much smaller guy who will never dominate big receivers like Browner can. It's a reminder that it takes a lot of skill sets to complete a defense. Browner has his uses, has a knack for turnovers, and certainly holds nothing back when he plays for us. But he's not a shutdown corner - lacks fluidity, lacks trustworthiness on deeper plays, and as others have pointed out, his play style is a penalty magnet. He did get better in 2012.
I think some people have the idea that Thurmond has never played a regular season down for Seattle. He's played in 22 games in three seasons. Frustrated sarcasm over his frequent injuries are bound to cloud people's view of him, but he HAS flashed tremendous talent - of the shutdown variety - in his limited time on the field. And it's not like he was a Ruskell leftover. He was drafted and faithfully retained by the same administration, with the same coverage vision, that scrounged up Browner and made him a Pro Bowler.
All I'm saying is, the RCB spot should still be considered open to competition. That's not a knock on Browner in this case; it's a compliment to Thurmond. It's a good problem to have, really.
