Throwback Poll: Was Shaun Alexander Soft?

[Nunya]

Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

Gotta love the people that try to re-write history to fit their own false reality.

Zorn did not cut Alexander because he thought he was soft. He cut him because he had 4 RBs on his roster and the other 3 were getting healthy. This made Alexander expendable. He was cut in order to free up a roster spot for someone to help their defense....which was struggling at the time.

the statement about Zorn's feelings on Alexander are straight from his mouth, not conjecture. but i guess in this universe the feeling that Shaun wouldnt hit a hole or practice hard somehow didnt factor into him being cut?? lol. And Ladell Betts beat him out?? Please. They could have brought him back and the thought at the time among the media here in the mid-atlantic was that they would. But they didnt. because why bring back a guy you were taking a flier on in the first place when nobody else wanted him and who has a reputation for not running hard, practicing hard. DC media even talked about him not being teh same kind of back if he didnt have great blocking. And he wasnt. which is why he was let go in DC and Seattle.

Look. Shaun benefited from a generationally good o-line. He dint run hard, hit the hole hard (unless he was in sight of the goal-line, or actively grind out yards that werent easily there. And he was gifted a ton of yards when all that was required was speed and the ability to make a cut and get upfield. When that gift was no longer there, he was no longer the same back. He'd just signed a fat contract, was now in a position where running was no longer as easy as it once was becauise the line wasnt as good, and his performance declined. His coaches saw it and he was cut. After he was cut, the other teams in the league saw it and let him sit. And when the reskins signed him, they saw the same thing and cut him in favor of Portis and Betts.

This isnt some revisionist history. Its what happened. Its who he was.

1. Zorn never said SA was soft....either directly or indirectly. However, he did imply that SA was lazy.....which he was late in his career (and maybe some throughout his career). IMO, soft and lazy are 2 different things.
2. By even bringing up Zorn and his comments, it seems like some people want to define SA's career based on who he was in 2008. SA received a serious wrist injury in week 1 of 2007. This injury not only affected him physically, but mentally as well. His career ended in the first week of 2007 when he became a shadow of his former self.
3. The only reason the Redskins signed SA to begin with was because of an injury to Betts. Betts was a rising star that was often hurt. When he was healthy, he was a decent RB. Unfortunately, he was seldom healthy and it ended his career. Everybody expected SA to be released once Betts got healthy....and he was.

 

[Own The West]

I couldn't stand him. He only ran hard around the goal line. His MVP was like Testaverde's Heisman, a product of the team around him.

He put up good numbers, but I've always wondered what we would have been like with an Emmitt Smith, Marshal Faulk, or even a Corey Dillion behind that line.

 

[TypeSly]

I had no idea (before this week) that there was so much hate for Shaun Alexander amongst the Seattle fanbase. So for me, these threads have been rather shocking and enlightening at the same time.

I guess because I was pretty young around that time, that I didn't delve so much on how he got his yards. I just remember him being my hero, that one of our players was a superstar and a league leader, year in and year out.

 

[chris98251]

Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

 

[hawkfan68]

Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

Shaun is no Alvin Kamara as a receiver out of the backfield but to claim he had hands of stone is a huge stretch. He caught 68% of the passes thrown to him in his overall career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlexSh00.htm.

Which is similar to Terrell Davis who caught 66% of his targets through his career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htm

 

[balakoth]

This argument is utterly ridiculous

If we had a RB scoring 28 tds in a year.. no one would be talking about THIS...

Alexander ran JUST as effectively over the right as he did the left.

This is an old ass, tired argument... and has only been accomplished very few times; that coming over the years of some VERY VERY VERY good Olines.

You guys must be gD bored

 

[doughboy63]

Softest seahawk ever. Did he produce? Sure. He was a product of an amazing offensive line. he rarely got touched in his MVP year. He had great speed and vision, but was as soft as a down blanket. Anytime a defender got near, he made a business decision to fall over. Especially, the years after the superbowl.

 

[chris98251]

Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

Shaun is no Alvin Kamara as a receiver out of the backfield but to claim he had hands of stone is a huge stretch. He caught 68% of the passes thrown to him in his overall career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlexSh00.htm.

Which is similar to Terrell Davis who caught 66% of his targets through his career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htm

Yes Matt had to almost underhand toss the ball to him.

Would not pass block, would not go into the flat because he didn't want to get hit, how many screens do you remember?

3rd and Long Matt Strong.

 

[hawkfan68]

Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

Shaun is no Alvin Kamara as a receiver out of the backfield but to claim he had hands of stone is a huge stretch. He caught 68% of the passes thrown to him in his overall career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlexSh00.htm.

Which is similar to Terrell Davis who caught 66% of his targets through his career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htm

Yes Matt had to almost underhand toss the ball to him.

Would not pass block, would not go into the flat because he didn't want to get hit, how many screens do you remember?

3rd and Long Matt Strong.

Disagree. SA had 59 total receptions in 2002. That was good enough to be #3 on the team behind Koren Robinson and DJack. He had more receptions than Bobby Engram, who ended up with 50 that season. Mack Strong only had 22 receps. SA was not a bad receiver. Holmy isn't the type of coach who would keep calling plays to target SA if he wasn't producing.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/2002.htm

Who cares if he wasn't a good blocker, there are plenty of rbs in HOF that couldn't block either.

 

[BlueThunder]

That awesome O-line would have turned a few RB's that were considered mediocre over their careers into Hall Of Famers. Thought it then, and still think it now. Shaun used to fall down to avoid hits instead of fighting for that extra yard. I hated that. Can you imagine Lynch behind that line? OMG! So IMO, he was very good, but the O-line made him great.

 

[Milehighhawk]

The density of the posts in this thread is enough to have its own moon in orbit. SA is probably top 5 all time in terms of running with vision. And no you can’t make a reasonable argument other backs would have done the same behind the same o-line. Any vitriol toward him isn’t based on the objective evaluation of his stats which are arguably better than lynches over a shorter time, but rather based on personality or his religious beliefs. That is just sad and why hawk fans are often seen as passive aggressive and disloyal.

 

[BlueThunder]

The density of the posts in this thread is enough to have its own moon in orbit. SA is probably top 5 all time in terms of running with vision. And no you can’t make a reasonable argument other backs would have done the same behind the same o-line. Any vitriol toward him isn’t based on the objective evaluation of his stats which are arguably better than lynches over a shorter time, but rather based on personality or his religious beliefs. That is just sad and why hawk fans are often seen as passive aggressive and disloyal.

What??? What do personality, or especially religion have to do with anything here? Maybe I should have read the entire thread, but my opinion is based 100% on the way he played when he played here. I loved the guy because he was a Seahawk, but Lynch would have DESTROYED Alexanders stats had he been our RB at the time. There is just no feasible argument against that. Shauns or Marshawns beliefs should have no place in this thread. It's about opinions, and my opinion is that Marshawn would have blown away Shaun's stats had he been in his place. I know a lot of people these days don't care much about those. Or facts.

 

[RolandDeschain]

It's absolutely amazing, the blinders people put on their eyes without even realizing it.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

The density of the posts in this thread is enough to have its own moon in orbit. SA is probably top 5 all time in terms of running with vision. And no you can’t make a reasonable argument other backs would have done the same behind the same o-line. Any vitriol toward him isn’t based on the objective evaluation of his stats which are arguably better than lynches over a shorter time, but rather based on personality or his religious beliefs. That is just sad and why hawk fans are often seen as passive aggressive and disloyal.

What??? What do personality, or especially religion have to do with anything here? Maybe I should have read the entire thread, but my opinion is based 100% on the way he played when he played here. I loved the guy because he was a Seahawk, but Lynch would have DESTROYED Alexanders stats had he been our RB at the time. There is just no feasible argument against that. Shauns or Marshawns beliefs should have no place in this thread. It's about opinions, and my opinion is that Marshawn would have blown away Shaun's stats had he been in his place. I know a lot of people these days don't care much about those. Or facts.

You’re definitely entitled your opinion, only problem is you have no way of backing up or proving it. While I could see Lynch racking up HOF yards with that line it has zero to do with SA’s accomplishments. I never witnessed Lynch stringing together 9 straight 100 yard games...I did see him not get on the bus for a playoff game. All your claims are opinion so don’t get mad if people don’t agree.

 

[chris98251]

The density of the posts in this thread is enough to have its own moon in orbit. SA is probably top 5 all time in terms of running with vision. And no you can’t make a reasonable argument other backs would have done the same behind the same o-line. Any vitriol toward him isn’t based on the objective evaluation of his stats which are arguably better than lynches over a shorter time, but rather based on personality or his religious beliefs. That is just sad and why hawk fans are often seen as passive aggressive and disloyal.

Trying to find the post that said we hate him because he was a man or religious belief'.

Roland can you help me I must be missing something in everyone's writing, You are the expert.

Density, hmmm been watching Back to the Future too much I think.

George McFly: Lorraine, my density has brought me to you.

 

[Hockey Guy]

The density of the posts in this thread is enough to have its own moon in orbit. SA is probably top 5 all time in terms of running with vision. And no you can’t make a reasonable argument other backs would have done the same behind the same o-line. Any vitriol toward him isn’t based on the objective evaluation of his stats which are arguably better than lynches over a shorter time, but rather based on personality or his religious beliefs. That is just sad and why hawk fans are often seen as passive aggressive and disloyal.

Trying to find the post that said we hate him because he was a man or religious belief'.

Roland can you help me I must be missing something in everyone's writing, You are the expert.

Density, hmmm been watching Back to the Future too much I think.

George McFly: Lorraine, my density has brought me to you.

His religious beliefs was brought up in the Carlos Dunlap thread, when I asked why SA was hated, so it's definitely out there.

 

[jammerhawk]

Yes he was soft, Lynch, Doornink, Watters, John L Williams, Curt Warner, all much more physical, Shaun was so soft he would not pass block and had to be taken out of the line up. None of the others were, so that makes him a one dimensional back as well since he was rarely in a game for a passing situation.

It was why as a 1st rounder he could not take the position from Ricky Watters also, he was soft and continually in Holmgren's dog house.

Holmgren drafted him hoping for Watters 2.0 or a Roger Craig 2.0. He got a Franco Harris clone, run out of bounds and go down. The reason Rocky Blier was so popular was because he got the tough yards and was physical as well. Franco was on a multiple Super Bowl teams and had a long career granted. But nobody talks about him in regards to all-time greats either really unless your in Pittsburgh, still I think they more fondly think of Bettis.

This above is total right.

Alexander didn’t like blocking wasn’t good At it when he did, and picked his spots when he ran hard. He always ran hard near the goal line b/c he loved the stats. He was to me not a genuine team player and kvetched about not getting his touches and having the team take away ‘his’ rushing title when he was beaten out by the Jets RB. My wife still complains that when the Hawks first went to the SB after winning the game he alone ran around with the game ball instead of celebrating with the rest of the team.

He picked his spots, and many here observed correctly he was simply not a tough player.

He nevertheless had moments of seriously exceptional play, but to me is not a HOF player, even if he won the the league MVP award once.

 

[Appyhawk]

Want a dozer, draft a dozer. Then we'll hear the gripes about how it ain't worth a darn in formula 1.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

Can anyone name a RB current or former that wouldn’t have been pissed about losing the rushing title by 1 yard when your team had a chance to give you the carries you need to win.

“ONE YARD”

 

[keasley45]

Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

Gotta love the people that try to re-write history to fit their own false reality.

Zorn did not cut Alexander because he thought he was soft. He cut him because he had 4 RBs on his roster and the other 3 were getting healthy. This made Alexander expendable. He was cut in order to free up a roster spot for someone to help their defense....which was struggling at the time.

the statement about Zorn's feelings on Alexander are straight from his mouth, not conjecture. but i guess in this universe the feeling that Shaun wouldnt hit a hole or practice hard somehow didnt factor into him being cut?? lol. And Ladell Betts beat him out?? Please. They could have brought him back and the thought at the time among the media here in the mid-atlantic was that they would. But they didnt. because why bring back a guy you were taking a flier on in the first place when nobody else wanted him and who has a reputation for not running hard, practicing hard. DC media even talked about him not being teh same kind of back if he didnt have great blocking. And he wasnt. which is why he was let go in DC and Seattle.

Look. Shaun benefited from a generationally good o-line. He dint run hard, hit the hole hard (unless he was in sight of the goal-line, or actively grind out yards that werent easily there. And he was gifted a ton of yards when all that was required was speed and the ability to make a cut and get upfield. When that gift was no longer there, he was no longer the same back. He'd just signed a fat contract, was now in a position where running was no longer as easy as it once was becauise the line wasnt as good, and his performance declined. His coaches saw it and he was cut. After he was cut, the other teams in the league saw it and let him sit. And when the reskins signed him, they saw the same thing and cut him in favor of Portis and Betts.

This isnt some revisionist history. Its what happened. Its who he was.

1. Zorn never said SA was soft....either directly or indirectly. However, he did imply that SA was lazy.....which he was late in his career (and maybe some throughout his career). IMO, soft and lazy are 2 different things.
2. By even bringing up Zorn and his comments, it seems like some people want to define SA's career based on who he was in 2008. SA received a serious wrist injury in week 1 of 2007. This injury not only affected him physically, but mentally as well. His career ended in the first week of 2007 when he became a shadow of his former self.
3. The only reason the Redskins signed SA to begin with was because of an injury to Betts. Betts was a rising star that was often hurt. When he was healthy, he was a decent RB. Unfortunately, he was seldom healthy and it ended his career. Everybody expected SA to be released once Betts got healthy....and he was.

1. to what would you attribute zorn's comment about SA rather getting someone else to run the ball if the hole wasnt there? That, in your eyes is laziness, not softness? So he was too lazy to fight through a defender that was plugging up a hole, but tough enough to do it. OK

2. Zorn was commenting on Alexander while he was with him. That would include Seattle and i think he mentions Seattle.

And ok, so the 'not soft' Alexander's career (and high output) is cut short by a wrist injury? That thats the reason he went from 5.1 YPC behind one of the best o-Lines in football and all pro FB, to sub 3.5 without them? i could get it if we were talking a hip injury, compound fractured leg, torn up knee that drove his decline, but come on. Backs come back from far worse injuries than an ailing wrist. He became a shadow of his former self because he lost all the help in front of him that he had prior. No one is trying to define who he was in 2008. But you are arguing that his career ended with a wrist injury..?...


3. Exactly my point. The RB that some here hail as HOF worthy was only offered a contract after he was cut by Seattle to fill a roster spot temporarily? Two years removed from an MVP season, with the only wear and tear on his body being a fractured foot, which healed, and a wrist? Half the argument about the dude in favor of his running style was that he avoided hits, and that was ok because it prolongs longevity. So he didnt take a ton of hits, but then the primary reason for his decline was that he was just beat up and couldnt do it anymore... with his most significant injury being wrist??

Yet his own coach was critical of how he ran, and another coach was critical of both his unwillingness to grind rough yards if the hole wasnt there AND his work ethic, but somehow when we are trying to determine whether he was a product of his offense or individually talented to the point of garnering HOF credentials, none of that matters. Only the stats. and the crippling wrist injury that robbed him of his career.

And also lets all forget the fact that his decline came immediately following him signing a massive contract...