PDA

View Full Version : Seattle's wide receiver trio



alexander_37
03-09-2009, 09:22 PM
Today on NFL network T.J Housh was on and he said he Branch and Burleson are the best in the league.

packerfan12
03-09-2009, 09:34 PM
It's very possible that they are the best in the league. They can beat you deep, across the middle, all three are great route runners, I like that trio.

Now something to watch for and I've noticed this before, if the Seahawks get Crabtree, they are stacked at receiver. I know they have some other needs but still, think about it, Crabtree, Housh, Burleson, and Branch, that's really good.

Back to the topic at hand however, I agree with Housh 100 percent. They have the exact right fit, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of numbers they put up together. Should be a good season for the Seahawks, barring they have as many injuries this season as they had last season.

FWBrodie
03-09-2009, 09:44 PM
It all depends on one Matthew Hasselbeck. When he's healthy, he has the skills to make receivers better than they really are. I think Crabtree, Housh, and Branch would be a perfect combination.

alexander_37
03-09-2009, 09:51 PM
I have to say Branch is amazing when healthy.

Thebudler
03-09-2009, 10:29 PM
I like the trio also, but I still feel they lack a big time play maker. They are three solid recievers, but I think if Crabtree was added he would be the playmaker they need and would set them over the top.

plastikman
03-09-2009, 10:53 PM
Today on NFL network T.J Housh was on and he said he Branch and Burleson are the best in the league.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Seahawks, but with that said . . . . . . what would you expect him to say? I mean he is on the team now, that is the standard answer, it's what they call being politically correct.

Magic12ball
03-09-2009, 11:01 PM
I like the trio also, but I still feel they lack a big time play maker. They are three solid recievers, but I think if Crabtree was added he would be the playmaker they need and would set them over the top.

I know how you feel, but I really think that Burleson and Branch make up for that. Branch is nothing but pure playmaker (when he manages to stay healthy), and Burleson is a threat every time he touches the ball.

I still wouldn't mind getting Crabtree and making it even better.

chad311k9
03-09-2009, 11:37 PM
come on, seriously guys?

we are paying Hawkmandzadeh what.....8 million per season if i heard right.
we are paying Branch 4 million+ I believe.
we are paying Burleson 4 million+ as well.
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

Let's be realistic for a minute. Crabtree has about 1% chance of happening since we got Hawkmon. It would be ludicrous to pay the WR core 20 million+ per season! Only way Crabtree happens is if we cut Burleson or Branch. I would prefer to cut Branch if we did. And this is all under the impression he falls to us. I could see the Lions, Rams, or the Chiefs taking Crabtree. All for different reasons.

Thebudler
03-10-2009, 12:00 AM
I agree it is a lot of money. But you said we shouldn't spend 20 million in WR's but do you know how much we have invested in LB's? In just the starting three we are paying about 18 million. I have said this about twelve times but you draft the best player available. If Crabtree is available and I believe he will be, the Hawks should draft him because he is the best player.

HawkClawz
03-10-2009, 12:21 AM
come on, seriously guys?

we are paying Hawkmandzadeh what.....8 million per season if i heard right.
we are paying Branch 4 million+ I believe.
we are paying Burleson 4 million+ as well.
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

Let's be realistic for a minute. Crabtree has about 1% chance of happening since we got Hawkmon. It would be ludicrous to pay the WR core 20 million+ per season! Only way Crabtree happens is if we cut Burleson or Branch. I would prefer to cut Branch if we did. And this is all under the impression he falls to us. I could see the Lions, Rams, or the Chiefs taking Crabtree. All for different reasons.
It's the economics of the NFL, players who play certain positions make more money than others and WR is one of them, I'm sure the teams know how to budget and ration their money per position, It's not about just the big names like Housh, Branch and Burleson, It's about all the no name useless receivers we have floating around, we're over-stacked at the position and not with talent, You've got Taylor, Bumpus, Payne, Kent, Obomanu, Shelton, Hass, McMullen, not to mention free agents like Robinson and Engram and the pick traded for Colbert, Why would you want to cut players who are good and keep around a bunch of nobodies who aren't helping the team at all, When I look at that list Housh, Branch and Burleson are the last ones I'd wanna not have on my team

clang7777
03-10-2009, 02:42 AM
First, i dont care about money for a few reasons. one, there is a good chance next year is uncapped which makes this topic of money @ WR or LB irrelevant. Secondly, regardless of if we take crabtree or another player @ 4, we are going to pay a hefty amount to them. So clearly, the money is going to be available for that...

Next, cut taylor, obamanu, payne, kent, OR let them play on the practice squad if they agree.

To get rid of branch as you posted Chad makes no sense in any facet what so ever. Money or On the field.

Also, if we do draft Crabtree, whats wrong with keeping Burleson as our #4 and our safety valve if one of the top 3 (crabtree, housh, branch) gets hurt? Burleson is head and shoulders (not dandruff) above anyone we could pick up later on if we once again suffered injuries.

1. Crabtree
2. Housh
3. Branch
4. Burleson
5. Bumpus

THATS, ideal.

RickyBobby
03-10-2009, 02:49 AM
word. Then Burleson is more free to return kicks if need be also. Not that we really need him to...forsett and wilson did pretty good

clang7777
03-10-2009, 02:51 AM
totally... id love to see burleson and wilson return kicks. also, i would put burleson @ PR just because he has better hands than wilson...

RickyBobby
03-10-2009, 03:05 AM
Damn, the more we talk about some of these scenarios, the more jazzed I am for our draft pick. Since joining this forum yesterday, I've decided that I really don't want us to draft an OT with #4 (unless that OT wants to go guard for a while, but why not go Duke/Unger/Mack Rnd 2?). That would be boring and would kill all these possibilities we speculate about.

Boozerguy47
03-10-2009, 04:12 AM
I still think Obamanu has the most potential out of our young wide-outs. I hope he makes the team and sees some time in games (and stays healthy).

Baller1
03-10-2009, 09:56 AM
I love the confidence from TJ. I don't think they are the best trio in the NFL, however, if all three can stay healthy, and Hasslebeck can too, then that could definitely change. I'm starting to feel better and better about TJ. He's confident, smart, and a great asset to the WR corps.

TheComeUp
03-10-2009, 02:48 PM
Alright guys not to be the spoiler or anything because i get just as gitty as the next when we talk about a Crab/Housh/Branch/Burleson WR core .. and i know we did just re - sign Ray Willis but is he really enough to keep Matt healthy I think we need to go OL who knows if Walt comes back strong I sure do hope he does.

Sluggo
03-10-2009, 04:22 PM
What would you all think of them bringing Hackett back? I'd love to see these six in Hawk blue on Sundays:

1 Housh
2 Branch
3 Burleson
4 Engram
5 Hackett
6 Obomanu

clang7777
03-10-2009, 04:40 PM
just curious, have you guys read any of the other threads lately? where we have debated the #4 pick, and more specifically, why to NOT take OT @ 4? I have no energy to re type and explain this once more..

Sluggo
03-10-2009, 04:45 PM
There you go clang I removed the part about the pick. I had no intention of re-starting that debate :D

Thebudler
03-10-2009, 05:07 PM
Personally I would have liked Hackett is we wouldn't have signed Housh, but since we have him and hopefully Crabtree, there is no need for Hackett,

Mariner_mojo
03-10-2009, 06:01 PM
come on, seriously guys?

we are paying Hawkmandzadeh what.....8 million per season if i heard right.
we are paying Branch 4 million+ I believe.
we are paying Burleson 4 million+ as well.
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

Let's be realistic for a minute. Crabtree has about 1% chance of happening since we got Hawkmon. It would be ludicrous to pay the WR core 20 million+ per season! Only way Crabtree happens is if we cut Burleson or Branch. I would prefer to cut Branch if we did. And this is all under the impression he falls to us. I could see the Lions, Rams, or the Chiefs taking Crabtree. All for different reasons.

The Lions would be idiots if they didnt take a QB or O lineman. I think the rams are for sure going to draft an O lineman after releasing Orlando Pace about an hour ago. I'm not sure about the chiefs

chad311k9
03-10-2009, 06:16 PM
First, i dont care about money for a few reasons. one, there is a good chance next year is uncapped which makes this topic of money @ WR or LB irrelevant. Secondly, regardless of if we take crabtree or another player @ 4, we are going to pay a hefty amount to them. So clearly, the money is going to be available for that...

Next, cut taylor, obamanu, payne, kent, OR let them play on the practice squad if they agree.

To get rid of branch as you posted Chad makes no sense in any facet what so ever. Money or On the field.

Also, if we do draft Crabtree, whats wrong with keeping Burleson as our #4 and our safety valve if one of the top 3 (crabtree, housh, branch) gets hurt? Burleson is head and shoulders (not dandruff) above anyone we could pick up later on if we once again suffered injuries.

1. Crabtree
2. Housh
3. Branch
4. Burleson
5. Bumpus

THATS, ideal.

your as senile as Al Davis if you think there won't be a salary cap next year.

chad311k9
03-10-2009, 06:18 PM
I still think Obamanu has the most potential out of our young wide-outs. I hope he makes the team and sees some time in games (and stays healthy).

couldn't agree more. i think he could become a solid #2 or #3 reciever.

chad311k9
03-10-2009, 06:24 PM
just curious, have you guys read any of the other threads lately? where we have debated the #4 pick, and more specifically, why to NOT take OT @ 4? I have no energy to re type and explain this once more..

not everyone agrees that OL is the wrong pick. get off your pedestal. just because it is your opinion, doesn't make it right or smart. Your a fan typing online your opinion, just the same as me and everyone else. my opinion is, draft Walt's replacement, and let him play guard until Walt retires.

Having 4 solid WR's doesn't mean jack if you can't give Hasslebeck time in the pocket. Which he will need more and more of as he ages, and as the opponents DB squads improve.

We got Housh, Branch, Burleson.......AND everyone (including me) has seemed to forget all about last year's offensive MVP on the team, JOHN CARLSON!

chad311k9
03-10-2009, 06:33 PM
The Lions would be idiots if they didnt take a QB or O lineman. I think the rams are for sure going to draft an O lineman after releasing Orlando Pace about an hour ago. I'm not sure about the chiefs

i know it would be crazy if the Lions did that. I just have this gut feeling they take Crabtree #1.

Reason I could see Rams taking Crabtree-If Holt did leave. Other than Holt, they have NO targets.

Reason I could see Chiefs or Lions taking Crabtree-Add a decent QB, and a couple decent lineman to those offenses, then pair Crabtree up with either Calvin Johnson or Dwayne Bowe, and you have yourself a potentially explosive offense.

Honestly, if I were GM of either the Lions, Rams, or Chiefs, I would take an offensive Lineman in the 1st round. But NFL teams are unpredictable, so I wouldn't put it past any of these teams to draft Crabtree.

Mariner_mojo
03-10-2009, 07:08 PM
not everyone agrees that OL is the wrong pick. get off your pedestal. just because it is your opinion, doesn't make it right or smart. Your a fan typing online your opinion, just the same as me and everyone else. my opinion is, draft Walt's replacement, and let him play guard until Walt retires.

Having 4 solid WR's doesn't mean jack if you can't give Hasslebeck time in the pocket. Which he will need more and more of as he ages, and as the opponents DB squads improve.

We got Housh, Branch, Burleson.......AND everyone (including me) has seemed to forget all about last year's offensive MVP on the team, JOHN CARLSON!

There is no way i forgot about my boy Carlson! Ha he was the main reason i stayed overly excited for every game. Kid's a stud

Crimson37
03-10-2009, 07:24 PM
If we need a play maker maybe we go after J Galloway bring back. He is still pretty fast. The M's JR back why not.

Mariner_mojo
03-10-2009, 07:31 PM
I heard he was in negotiation talks with the Pats. He's too expensive and we have Hawkmanzadeh.

Side note- Joey Galloway was my favorite player growing up and i cried when i found out he wasnt a Hawk anymore

clang7777
03-10-2009, 07:49 PM
Chad, you need to watch what you say. I have no idea who you think you are telling me to get off my pedestal? One minute you agree with everything i say, then next you call me out for how i get my information and what I write. You need to chill out, and realize what your saying before you type so bluntly and incorrectly.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-05-20-owners-labor-deal_N.htm

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d808736ba&template=with-video&confirm=true

Seems im not the only one who is "senile".. by the way, what an incorrect use of words.. if your going to try and start something, i suggest you take a look at the dictionary or the thesaurus..

clang7777
03-10-2009, 07:55 PM
not everyone agrees that OL is the wrong pick. get off your pedestal. just because it is your opinion, doesn't make it right or smart. Your a fan typing online your opinion, just the same as me and everyone else. my opinion is, draft Walt's replacement, and let him play guard until Walt retires.

Having 4 solid WR's doesn't mean jack if you can't give Hasslebeck time in the pocket. Which he will need more and more of as he ages, and as the opponents DB squads improve.

We got Housh, Branch, Burleson.......AND everyone (including me) has seemed to forget all about last year's offensive MVP on the team, JOHN CARLSON!

Why not go back a few pages and note that i said the best part about the House signing is the fact that it opens things up for branch and... CARLSON. So, no, not everyone has forgotten about him.

Secondly, I never said my opionion was right, of course I think its smart. I hope you think your opinions are smart too, otherwise they would be pointless wouldn;t they?

Finally, why draft a guy who has played Tackle his whole life, and force him into Guard when we can draft a natural guard and let him play his whole career there? not making too much sense to me. I know you are concerned with Walt's replacement/health etc. as am I, but i believe its still too premature.

Sofa_King_Legit
03-10-2009, 08:20 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm.....
WR Trio huh?
I like the sound of that. Crab would be a great addition to the squad. But here is the thing. Hasselbeck is old. Have you seen his hair lately?? Exactly my point. Although the West Coast Offense is suitable for Hasselbeck, it is just his time to take the back seat and be a mentor for the next SEA QB. Ok I am really just frustrated with Matt, he IS the starter and IS going to be holding the keys to the Seattle offense, I have faith, but if he can't get that engine started then I say we start looking for other QB options. Maybe Mike Vick?? Jk that would be a disaster. We love dogs up here in the Pacific Northwest, thats why they are called the UW Huskies.
So this only my 2nd post. Don't be a Hater or a Critic.
GAME TIME!
:drunk:

Anthony Flores
03-10-2009, 08:56 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmm.....
WR Trio huh?
I like the sound of that. Crab would be a great addition to the squad. But here is the thing. Hasselbeck is old. Have you seen his hair lately?? Exactly my point. Although the West Coast Offense is suitable for Hasselbeck, it is just his time to take the back seat and be a mentor for the next SEA QB. Ok I am really just frustrated with Matt, he IS the starter and IS going to be holding the keys to the Seattle offense, I have faith, but if he can't get that engine started then I say we start looking for other QB options. Maybe Mike Vick?? Jk that would be a disaster. We love dogs up here in the Pacific Northwest, thats why they are called the UW Huskies.
So this only my 2nd post. Don't be a Hater or a Critic.GAME TIME!
:drunk:

Too bad. Hasselbeck has been bald forever, since he was on the Packers, and what you just posted was a whole bunch of ideas and then contridicted yourself by posting the reason why your wrong.

Sofa_King_Legit
03-10-2009, 09:39 PM
No SH** he has been bald forever thats why it was a joke if you can read. Yeah I said he should take the back seat, but we aren't getting another QB anytime soon so I still have faith in Hasslebeck. Nice post Florres.
Make Reasonable Posts.
Enjoy Your Evening.
:drunk:

chad311k9
03-10-2009, 10:28 PM
I heard he was in negotiation talks with the Pats. He's too expensive and we have Hawkmanzadeh.

Side note- Joey Galloway was my favorite player growing up and i cried when i found out he wasnt a Hawk anymore

it's starting to catch on....... :clap:

i too also like Joey Galloway. I have about 50 of his rookie cards. he was a stud for us for a couple of years. We haven't had a legitimate deep threat since he left.

*ALL SEATTLE*
03-10-2009, 10:57 PM
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

This is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. It's like if the Yankees had the 1st overall pick, would you say it would be rediculous to spend a lot of $$ on a pitcher [Strasburg] even though they spend millions and millions of $$ on CC, Burnett, Wang, Pettitte, and Rivera?? My point is: When it comes to the draft, for what ever sport it is... you don't discriminate on the best overall athlete just because you already spend a lot of $$ on people who play that same position. BEST OVERALL PLAYER MUST BE DRAFTED. This means Crabs.

FWBrodie
03-10-2009, 11:02 PM
your as senile as Al Davis if you think there won't be a salary cap next year.

There is no salary cap next season soooo...

FWBrodie
03-10-2009, 11:08 PM
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

This is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. It's like if the Yankees had the 1st overall pick, would you say it would be rediculous to spend a lot of $$ on a pitcher [Strasburg] even though they spend millions and millions of $$ on CC, Burnett, Wang, Pettitte, and Rivera?? My point is: When it comes to the draft, for what ever sport it is... you don't discriminate on the best overall athlete just because you already spend a lot of $$ on people who play that same position. BEST OVERALL PLAYER MUST BE DRAFTED. This means Crabs.

Dude, I think this is the first time I've ever said this about something you've posted, but I agree.

clang7777
03-10-2009, 11:08 PM
thanks brodie, at least someone has a clear perspective on the NFL.

and also, "all seattle" thankyou for understanding that you DO take the BEST PLAYER AVIALBLE. not the safest choice, ESPECIALLY when you aren't going to have this oppurtunity again anytime soon.

FWBrodie
03-10-2009, 11:17 PM
i know it would be crazy if the Lions did that. I just have this gut feeling they take Crabtree #1.



There is ZERO chance that the Lions pick Michael Crabtree.

clang7777
03-10-2009, 11:20 PM
yeah, there batting .250 in taking WR's early. Hey, better than Richies average by 40 points or so.

1. Matt Stafford/Jason Smith
2. Jason Smith/Eugene Monroe- especially considering Pace was released.
3. Aaron Curry- this is the only other spot crabtree could go, just to please mr. cassel
4. Who knows.

chad311k9
03-11-2009, 12:25 AM
There is no salary cap next season soooo...

not gonna happen. not in a million years.

chad311k9
03-11-2009, 12:29 AM
and now you want to pay ANOTHER WR, ANOTHER 4 million+???

This is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. It's like if the Yankees had the 1st overall pick, would you say it would be rediculous to spend a lot of $$ on a pitcher [Strasburg] even though they spend millions and millions of $$ on CC, Burnett, Wang, Pettitte, and Rivera?? My point is: When it comes to the draft, for what ever sport it is... you don't discriminate on the best overall athlete just because you already spend a lot of $$ on people who play that same position. BEST OVERALL PLAYER MUST BE DRAFTED. This means Crabs.

the financial aspects of baseball is nothing like football. a NFL team has to pay 50+ players, and keep it under the limit. a MLB team can spend as much money as it can afford, on only 25 players. a terrible reference you just made.

we have enough high paid receivers already. the money allocated for the #4 pick should go to another position of need. i say we let our current WR core see if they can stay healthy and how successful they can be for a season, before we make any more additions/subtractions.

clang7777
03-11-2009, 01:48 AM
Crabtree is simply a cant miss talent. "1 in 5 year type talent". If he wasn't available, I wouldn't even THINK WR with ANY of our top picks. Hes something special, thats why a lot of us lobby so hard for him. True #1's like him dont come around very often, and truthfully, were not going to be in this drafting position again anytime soon, so its the right time to take advantage of it.

Sluggo
03-11-2009, 10:53 AM
I have to agree with Chad. It all starts on the line. The thing about WR's coming out of college is the pro's are so much faster and most WR's in college have never seen press coverage. If you want to take the best player available what about Curry? the guys an animal. So is it best offensive player, best defensive player or best player overall? If its best player overall I'd lean toward Curry but we are set at LB and have a ton of money already invested in that group. I think the same thing about the WR position, we're set for now and watching our line become more and more porous the past two years makes me want to definitely pick a OT with the #4.

Seattle Boy
03-11-2009, 01:04 PM
i don't think it really matters that we have a lot invested in our WR's. The bottom line is that Branch, Burleson, Engram, and even Obamanu were decimated by injuries last season, and Engram, Housh, and Branch are into their thirties (Branch is 29 actually). Crabs is 22 and he is arguably the best player in college football. If we can't resign Engram because of him, so be it. If we have to cut Burleson because of him, so be it. If we have to cut some of the younger players because of him, so be it. We need crabs!

Braves94
03-11-2009, 02:45 PM
Falcons are better

clang7777
03-11-2009, 06:22 PM
i got an idea, why dont we drop the draft debate for a minutes, a day, or week because we have beaten every angle over the head and its one person or group against another constantly. Not enough people are being level headed towards it, which is how it should be; instead people are trying to prove others wrong, including myself at times. truthfully, its just getting tiring.

1. I agree the game of football is won on both lines (see all the past super bowl winners)
2. I believe with our new scheme, and injuries, we need to allow the guys we have to see what they can do. If something happens to walt, which is worst case scenario, we have Ray Willis to fill in. I agree 110% we need some youth and more talent on the line, but truthfully, what position can you not agrue that at? basically every single one.
3. What it all comes down to me, is taking the best player available, and when you have the 4th pick, you make the most of it; because we hopefully will not have it again anytime soon.
4. Crabtree is the best player available. Curry is the best defensive player available, and is the "safer" pick than crabtree, BUT, guys like mike crabtree DO NOT come around very often and we are blessed to have the chance to take him. Possesion recievers, complimentary recievers are easy to find, not studs like him.
5. Linebackers like Curry aren't a dime a dozen, but they are MUCH MUCH easier to find than a true #1 wideout.
6. The OL depth in the draft is absurd. Its 4 rounds deep. How many potential number 1 wideouts are there? 1. Crabtree, Maclin, DHB maybe, Nicks maybe? too many maybes, and only one certain (crabtree).
7. If we didnt have the 37th pick, an early 3rd, and crabtree wasnt available, I would go OL in an instance. But because i feel there isnt that much dropoff from Monroe to Unger, to Mack, to Loadholt, to Beatty, to Duke, to kropog, to on and on and on, it just makes more sense to gamble on crabtree @ 4, and take the safe picks with early 2nd, and early 3rd to me.

Anthony Flores
03-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Falcons are better

Very insightful.

Mariner_mojo
03-12-2009, 02:14 AM
i got an idea, why dont we drop the draft debate for a minutes, a day, or week because we have beaten every angle over the head and its one person or group against another constantly. Not enough people are being level headed towards it, which is how it should be; instead people are trying to prove others wrong, including myself at times. truthfully, its just getting tiring.

1. I agree the game of football is won on both lines (see all the past super bowl winners)
2. I believe with our new scheme, and injuries, we need to allow the guys we have to see what they can do. If something happens to walt, which is worst case scenario, we have Ray Willis to fill in. I agree 110% we need some youth and more talent on the line, but truthfully, what position can you not agrue that at? basically every single one.
3. What it all comes down to me, is taking the best player available, and when you have the 4th pick, you make the most of it; because we hopefully will not have it again anytime soon.
4. Crabtree is the best player available. Curry is the best defensive player available, and is the "safer" pick than crabtree, BUT, guys like mike crabtree DO NOT come around very often and we are blessed to have the chance to take him. Possesion recievers, complimentary recievers are easy to find, not studs like him.
5. Linebackers like Curry aren't a dime a dozen, but they are MUCH MUCH easier to find than a true #1 wideout.
6. The OL depth in the draft is absurd. Its 4 rounds deep. How many potential number 1 wideouts are there? 1. Crabtree, Maclin, DHB maybe, Nicks maybe? too many maybes, and only one certain (crabtree).
7. If we didnt have the 37th pick, an early 3rd, and crabtree wasnt available, I would go OL in an instance. But because i feel there isnt that much dropoff from Monroe to Unger, to Mack, to Loadholt, to Beatty, to Duke, to kropog, to on and on and on, it just makes more sense to gamble on crabtree @ 4, and take the safe picks with early 2nd, and early 3rd to me.

Thats some good stuff Clang. I never personally broke it down that far and wow you've got some good logic there. I really dont see how anyone can argue against that. Look what we did with Lofa. Picked him up later in the 2nd round and look how he's doin haha. April 25th is judgement day

clang7777
03-12-2009, 02:18 AM
thanks mojo, nice to hear someone enjoyed my writing and thoughts. much love. its crazy how distant april 25th seemed, but really, its only 6 weeks or so away... cant wait!

Mariner_mojo
03-12-2009, 02:31 AM
yeah same. My heart starts racing just envisioning seeing our Seahawks on the clock with the 4th overall pick.

chad311k9
03-12-2009, 04:27 AM
Being a QB at heart, I am going to step into Matt Hasslebeck's shoes for this post.


"Hi everyone, Matt Hasslebeck here. In regards to the #4 pick, I would like us to draft an offensive lineman. If I can get a little more time in the pocket, even 1/2 a second, I am talented enough to get the ball to my talented receivers. Branch, Burleson, Housh, Obomanu, Carlson, hopefully Engram, are all good enough to get open consistently. We have a solid WR core, who if they live up to their expectations, will be the best in the league. And seriously, what are the odds they all get injured again?

Drafting an offensive lineman and improving the O-line in whole, also goes hand-in-hand with improving the running game. And well, we all know our RB core is a little lacking. Improving the OL, improves the running game, thus taking some of the pressure off me and wears opposing defenses down more, giving us more downs and time of possession. This all trickles down from having a better OL.

Improving the OL also makes it so I am less likely to get injured. We all know I am getting older and more fragile. I am still nursing my back injury. You guys don't want to see me injured again and watch the '09 season go down the drain do you? We want the #32 pick in the 2010 draft, AND WE'RE GONNA SCORE!" :laugh2:

Sluggo
03-12-2009, 10:07 AM
Go Chad! LOL... I mean Matt.

OL is the right choice. 1 Mora wants to move to a run first oriented offense and 2 the WCO doesn't depend on flashy super fast receivers. We need sure handed guys that can go over the middle and get some YAC. We have those already.

clang7777
03-12-2009, 04:00 PM
Go Chad! LOL... I mean Matt.

OL is the right choice. 1 Mora wants to move to a run first oriented offense and 2 the WCO doesn't depend on flashy super fast receivers. We need sure handed guys that can go over the middle and get some YAC. We have those already.

If the first part is referring to Crabtree, thats... pretty incorrect. That has to be who you are inferring considering we haven't debated anyone else but him. His game is built on his hands and exactly what your second point was, YAC. So.... Im not really following here...

Plus, if you want to keep bringing up the running game, are you really confident with Julius Jones/Tj Duckett as our premeire backs? Im not. If we go OL, we better pair that with a speed HB with some hands.

Sluggo
03-12-2009, 04:20 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the #4 pick. I can see your points I just don't think we NEED Crabtree. I'm totally with you on the running back situation I'm not happy in that department at all but we haven't really debated that and no RB's in the draft warrant a 1st round pick that high.

dswift
03-12-2009, 06:18 PM
Hell no. The seahawks need to go and sign DJ Hackett back. He gets hurt, but he gets yards.

HawkClawz
03-12-2009, 07:27 PM
i got an idea, why dont we drop the draft debate for a minutes, a day, or week because we have beaten every angle over the head and its one person or group against another constantly. Not enough people are being level headed towards it, which is how it should be; instead people are trying to prove others wrong, including myself at times. truthfully, its just getting tiring.

1. I agree the game of football is won on both lines (see all the past super bowl winners)
2. I believe with our new scheme, and injuries, we need to allow the guys we have to see what they can do. If something happens to walt, which is worst case scenario, we have Ray Willis to fill in. I agree 110% we need some youth and more talent on the line, but truthfully, what position can you not agrue that at? basically every single one.
3. What it all comes down to me, is taking the best player available, and when you have the 4th pick, you make the most of it; because we hopefully will not have it again anytime soon.
4. Crabtree is the best player available. Curry is the best defensive player available, and is the "safer" pick than crabtree, BUT, guys like mike crabtree DO NOT come around very often and we are blessed to have the chance to take him. Possesion recievers, complimentary recievers are easy to find, not studs like him.
5. Linebackers like Curry aren't a dime a dozen, but they are MUCH MUCH easier to find than a true #1 wideout.
6. The OL depth in the draft is absurd. Its 4 rounds deep. How many potential number 1 wideouts are there? 1. Crabtree, Maclin, DHB maybe, Nicks maybe? too many maybes, and only one certain (crabtree).
7. If we didnt have the 37th pick, an early 3rd, and crabtree wasnt available, I would go OL in an instance. But because i feel there isnt that much dropoff from Monroe to Unger, to Mack, to Loadholt, to Beatty, to Duke, to kropog, to on and on and on, it just makes more sense to gamble on crabtree @ 4, and take the safe picks with early 2nd, and early 3rd to me.

I agree, I don't think alot of people actually understand football below the surface, It's like everybody is talking about taking an OL with the 4th pick because they think they'll be incredible just because we picked 'em in the 1st round when they don't understand how stacked this draft is with them, They also seem to be under the misunderstanding that the higher the player is rated in mock drafts the better they're going to be in the NFL, They're really isn't much of a drop off between many of the OL in the draft and any number of them can turn out great in the NFL, also both the 2nd and 3rd picks overall are probably going to be for an OL, eliminating the top 2 ranked anyway, meanwhile Crabtree is light years ahead of most of the other WR's in this draft, the drop off is tremendous, We can take him then still take a good OL in the second round, and if we choose to trade him after we drafted him we'd get more because the value of a 1st round WR is greater than an OL, it really shouldn't be that hard to figure out

chad311k9
03-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Clang has 2 very good points I have to admit. The OL draft class is stacked, I agree. My counter to that, is I am the type of person who when I buy something, I buy the top rated product. When I bought a vacuum, I bought a Dyson. When I bought a motorcycle, I bought a Hayabusa. When I buy my dogs food, I buy them Iams. That's just my personality, and that's why I am dead set on drafting OL #4. That plus I feel everything in the NFL starts with the line of scrimmage.

On another note, I think Crabtree is ideal for a west coast offense. He has sure hands, runs good routes, and shouldn't have big ego being a rookie. He should be subserviant to his coaches. He doesn't have blazing speed, which doesn't hurt him in a WCO. Just look at Jerry Rice. I wouldn't be mad if we took him, because in all honesty, if we are still going to be a WCO, he would fit the bill perfectly. I just think we will be fine with the WRs we have for 2-3 years, and have a chance to go all the way with the team we have. Improving OL accomplishes two things that would dramatically improve our team........Giving our mediocre RBs bigger holes, and giving our aging QB more time in the pocket and "injury protection."

clang7777
03-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Hawkclawz, EXACTLY. This whole debate in my eye is over the dropoff between the two positions, the upside of one versus the other. If we were so simple to base the 4th pick on need, and need alone, we would take Bj Raji and thats a serious reach to me. Ultimately, it depends if Ruskell wants the logical, safe pick, or if he wants the BPA. If I had the 4th pick, I would make the most of it.

clang7777
03-12-2009, 07:53 PM
I wouldnt dare suggest taking a RB @ #4, i meant @ 37, or 3rd/4th round. There are guys that have hands out of the backfield, speed, and moves, something we seriously lack in our stable of... jones/duckett. If we dont address a backup RB via the Draft, we MUST give Forsett some touches. All he did was make the absolute best out of his oppurtunity that was given to him, and all it did, was get him cut!

clang7777
03-12-2009, 07:54 PM
chad, i think you and I both wouldnt be mad if Monroe/Crabtree was selected, we just have different preferences. Hopefully Ruskell doesn't go Stafford, or Raji. Those are about the only two choices I would be displeased with.

chad311k9
03-12-2009, 08:57 PM
chad, i think you and I both wouldnt be mad if Monroe/Crabtree was selected, we just have different preferences. Hopefully Ruskell doesn't go Stafford, or Raji. Those are about the only two choices I would be displeased with.

definitely not Stafford. We CAN win now. No need to think rebuilding. Raji wouldn't be so bad, but would be a reach. If we got a nice deal to trade down and get Raji, I wouldn't mind.

clang7777
03-12-2009, 10:13 PM
yeah, trading down and taking raji or jenkins is the only way to me to justify that. #4 is far too valuable for either of them. One of them will be left between 10-15, most likely Jenkins, but both would immediately see SIGNIFICANT playing time.

FWBrodie
03-12-2009, 10:26 PM
not gonna happen. not in a million years.

Wow, look it up moron.

FWBrodie
03-12-2009, 10:38 PM
Being a QB at heart, I am going to step into Matt Hasslebeck's shoes for this post.


"Hi everyone, Matt Hasslebeck here. In regards to the #4 pick, I would like us to draft an offensive lineman. If I can get a little more time in the pocket, even 1/2 a second, I am talented enough to get the ball to my talented receivers. Branch, Burleson, Housh, Obomanu, Carlson, hopefully Engram, are all good enough to get open consistently. We have a solid WR core, who if they live up to their expectations, will be the best in the league. And seriously, what are the odds they all get injured again?

Drafting an offensive lineman and improving the O-line in whole, also goes hand-in-hand with improving the running game. And well, we all know our RB core is a little lacking. Improving the OL, improves the running game, thus taking some of the pressure off me and wears opposing defenses down more, giving us more downs and time of possession. This all trickles down from having a better OL.

Improving the OL also makes it so I am less likely to get injured. We all know I am getting older and more fragile. I am still nursing my back injury. You guys don't want to see me injured again and watch the '09 season go down the drain do you? We want the #32 pick in the 2010 draft, AND WE'RE GONNA SCORE!" :laugh2:

Improve the line yeah, but not with the #4 pick... doesn't make sense.

A) The two best blockers on the team are tackles, if the Hawks drafted a tackle at #4 one of them (Locklear) rides the pine, which leaves the three worst blockers on the line in the game.

B) Rookies make mistakes, guaranteed. Even if Eugene Monroe is a better player than Lock athletically, Locklear would make up for that and possibly more with execution next season.

C) Eugene Monroe has limited upside. He's technically sound for his level, but that also means he has less room to improve in the easiest area to get better.

D) Beyond the upcoming season, the Hawks have neither a starting LG or a center under contract while they have three potential starters at tackle inked beyond this season in Jones, Locklear, and Willis.

clang7777
03-13-2009, 02:41 AM
Brodie, I couldn't agree with you more. Thats why its just too easy for me to say grab a true guard or center in the 2nd round that can get significant PT this year at his natural position, not force him into something hes not use to.

1. WR
2. C/G
3. FS/SS
4. RB

chad311k9
03-13-2009, 02:50 AM
Improve the line yeah, but not with the #4 pick... doesn't make sense.

A) The two best blockers on the team are tackles, if the Hawks drafted a tackle at #4 one of them (Locklear) rides the pine, which leaves the three worst blockers on the line in the game.

B) Rookies make mistakes, guaranteed. Even if Eugene Monroe is a better player than Lock athletically, Locklear would make up for that and possibly more with execution next season.

C) Eugene Monroe has limited upside. He's technically sound for his level, but that also means he has less room to improve in the easiest area to get better.

D) Beyond the upcoming season, the Hawks have neither a starting LG or a center under contract while they have three potential starters at tackle inked beyond this season in Jones, Locklear, and Willis.

Most offensive tackles accel at playing guard, since it is generally an "easier" position to play. I suggest taking Walt's replacement, and let him play next to Walt until he retires. That way Locklear and his contract don't sit on the bench. Like I say, there is a strong argument for WR, OL, DB, or DT. I just prefer O-Line.

Smith/Robinson
Crabtree/Moore
Monroe/Moore
Raji/Unger
Jenkins/Robinson
Curry/Unger.......................none of those scenarios would disappoint me, I just prefer getting 2 stud lineman and keeping Matt off the ground. Let me ask this............ WE ALL AGREE MATT CAN TAKE US TO THE SUPER BOWL BEFORE HE RETIRES, WITH THE WR's WE HAVE CURRENTLY, right? So why not protect him and make sure he stays healthy on the field, because without him, our Super Bowl chances drop significantly. The benefit of adding protection for Matt, is it also helps the run game. You know, 2 birds-one stone?

clang7777
03-13-2009, 03:01 AM
Ill say it once more, if we go OL, we better go RB to completly fulfill the running game. No rookie tackle converted to guard is going to change julius jones significantly, not happening.

Chawks10
03-13-2009, 03:08 AM
Why r we forgetting about Bobby? We r so quick to forget about our proven vetren soliders. What about Koren??? Am I the only one who is looking at the 5 reciever set??? Give Bobby his due respect. Throw him a bone. Pay him a bit more. We could be something trully special.

slickintern
03-13-2009, 03:55 AM
durka durka

clang7777
03-13-2009, 05:09 AM
Chawks, i agree with you on bobby, he deserves respect, at the same time, his role is lost to Housh. He can take a smaller version of the same role, but thats up to him. As for Koren, thats ridiculous. He did nothing last season with all the oppurtunity in the world. I dont care who was at Quarterback, he didn't make plays. He was easily the worst "#1" in the league last year. I have no desire what so ever to see him back. Initially, I was thrilled. I am always for giving a guy a second chance, whether its character or injuries. He got his chance, and didn't do enough with it.

FWBrodie
03-13-2009, 10:43 AM
Most offensive tackles accel at playing guard, since it is generally an "easier" position to play. I suggest taking Walt's replacement, and let him play next to Walt until he retires. That way Locklear and his contract don't sit on the bench. Like I say, there is a strong argument for WR, OL, DB, or DT. I just prefer O-Line.

Smith/Robinson
Crabtree/Moore
Monroe/Moore
Raji/Unger
Jenkins/Robinson
Curry/Unger.......................none of those scenarios would disappoint me, I just prefer getting 2 stud lineman and keeping Matt off the ground. Let me ask this............ WE ALL AGREE MATT CAN TAKE US TO THE SUPER BOWL BEFORE HE RETIRES, WITH THE WR's WE HAVE CURRENTLY, right? So why not protect him and make sure he stays healthy on the field, because without him, our Super Bowl chances drop significantly. The benefit of adding protection for Matt, is it also helps the run game. You know, 2 birds-one stone?

You don't pay somebody tackle money to play guard.

If this player is going to play guard for the next few seasons, why not just draft the best guard in the draft with a second round pick and pay him accordingly?

If you believe Matt can take us to the Super Bowl with Housh and Branch (I definitely don't), imagine what he could do with Crabtree.

Adding credibility on the outside (Crabtree) pulls defensive focus out of the middle, thus helping the run game, and the Hawks could still draft an interior lineman in round two to "help the run game" the way you are talking about.

Drafting a tackle in round one doesn't make sense.

FWBrodie
03-13-2009, 10:45 AM
Chawks, i agree with you on bobby, he deserves respect, at the same time, his role is lost to Housh. He can take a smaller version of the same role, but thats up to him. As for Koren, thats ridiculous. He did nothing last season with all the oppurtunity in the world. I dont care who was at Quarterback, he didn't make plays. He was easily the worst "#1" in the league last year. I have no desire what so ever to see him back. Initially, I was thrilled. I am always for giving a guy a second chance, whether its character or injuries. He got his chance, and didn't do enough with it.

Well Koren was productive all things considered. He had a bunch of huge blocks including about three that sprung other players for TD's. He's lost his explosiveness, but he's still a quality player for the salary he's earning.

RickyBobby
03-13-2009, 03:07 PM
^and he hadn't played in a while. He may improve over last year, now that he's back in the swing of things, and we could probably pay him vet. minimum salary.
Bring him back cheap, I'm okay with it. Don't bring him back, I'm okay with it.