I don't understand the people who bag on a raw, unpolished Bruce Irvin for his efforts last year as a rookie.
Is it not enough to lead your rookie class in sacks?
Is it not enough to rank among the best pass-rushers in the NFL in terms of pressures per snap?
In comparison, I've seen many people discredit or punish Irvin for being streaky, yet idolize Chris Clemons.
Clemons, a 9 year vet in 2012, played almost twice amount of snaps than Irvin, had 31 tackles and 11.5 Sacks.
6.5 of those sacks came in just two games vs GB, @ Buf. He didn't post a sack in 8 games.
Irvin, a rookie in 2012, who played about half the snaps than Clemons, had 17 tackles and 8 sacks.
6 of those sacks came in three games vs GB, @ CAR, vs NYJ. Yeah, he didn't post a sack total in 10 games compared to Clemon's 8.
But again you have to considernot only did Clemons play almost twice as much as Irvin did but Clemon's was a grizzled 9 year veteran and Irvin was a raw, unpolished rookie.
As for 2013, and Irvin's future... its very bright... he's becoming well-rounded in terms of what he should be doing as a LBer but above anything else his athleticism allows him to be dynamite in pass coverage plus he's still an unfinished product still learning to play the position on the fly through injury and suspension.
Irvin is one of those rare LBers that is able to go toe to toe with any receiver that gets put on him even the dreaded slot WR-LBer mismatch that tends to happen from time to time. He won't always be successful, but he isn't going to be burnt toast either.
Whether this position change is to broaden his horizons in becoming a more complete LEO for the future or if the Seahawks envision him to hold fort as a unique SAM backer with a rare blend of elite speed/athleticism, size/length, and quality strength. He has value... and he definately isn't as bad as people have him out to be past or present.
