Attributes that make #1WRs for the Hawks ?

[hawksurething]

This is some funny stuff.

In building this fantasy, how about considering a companion attribute for attribute #3 "Jump ball ability, catch radius & can contort body to any catch so DBs can't tip it or int the ball."

One that reads something along the lines of ..... after flying around, must be able to make a proper landing without crashing.

Lol. Good one. Both Marshall & vjackson can land without crashing after they do all of what I said. Maybe green- Beckham can too?...but that remains to be seen consistently.

We know strong,white,and parker can.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Wilson will still continue to spread the ball like Brady,Peyton,rodgers and romo who have star receivers. So once again the you cant spread the ball with a #1 Received is invalid too !

Plus the spreading the ball to 10 receivers a game is not working !

Because hawks passing game was a big fail in the Superbowl

First of all, Brady does not spread the ball. He threw 265 passes to 2 WRs, and the next-best WR got 42. That's not spreading around - that's being focused on a couple of wide receivers.

Second, Manning also does not spread the ball around, going to 2 WRs on 325 throws, the next best getting 64. Again he focuses on a couple of guys.

Third, spreading the ball around IS working - we're the defending NFC Champions for the second year in a row and won our first Super Bowl by spreading the ball around. It was our *lack* of ball distribution that hurt us in the last Super Bowl. Did you even watch the game or just look at the stat page afterward?

Fourth, it's not that I don't want the passing game to improve, but that I want it to be done the right way, which is not by bringing in some ball-hog who will destroy team chemistry. Our players must work within our system. As long as Bevell is here, that system will include spreading the ball around instead of focusing on one or two main guys.

Fifth, I've probably been a Seahawks fan longer than you've been alive, and have been a member of the usenet community since 1995, and of this community since around 2000. I live in New Zealand, yet am probably more knowledgeable about the team, its history, and current philosophy than you are. I traveled 7000 miles in August to see a pre-season game.

Sixth, you've already been warned once by a moderator in this very thread for questioning someone else's fandom because such personal attacks are against posting rules. I responded with a personal attack toward you to underline and draw attention to this behaviour. It will likely have repercussions on me, but I don't mind as long as you are appropriately dealt to for your own rules violations.

 

[Sac]

hawksurething - check your messages.

 

[McGruff]

Wilson will still continue to spread the ball like Brady,Peyton,rodgers and romo who have star receivers. So once again the you cant spread the ball with a #1 Received is invalid too !

Plus the spreading the ball to 10 receivers a game is not working !

Because hawks passing game was a big fail in the Superbowl

First of all, Brady does not spread the ball. He threw 265 passes to 2 WRs, and the next-best WR got 42. That's not spreading around - that's being focused on a couple of wide receivers.

Second, Manning also does not spread the ball around, going to 2 WRs on 325 throws, the next best getting 64. Again he focuses on a couple of guys.

Third, spreading the ball around IS working - we're the defending NFC Champions for the second year in a row and won our first Super Bowl by spreading the ball around. It was our *lack* of ball distribution that hurt us in the last Super Bowl. Did you even watch the game or just look at the stat page afterward?

Fourth, it's not that I don't want the passing game to improve, but that I want it to be done the right way, which is not by bringing in some ball-hog who will destroy team chemistry. Our players must work within our system. As long as Bevell is here, that system will include spreading the ball around instead of focusing on one or two main guys.

Fifth, I've probably been a Seahawks fan longer than you've been alive, and have been a member of the usenet community since 1995, and of this community since around 2000. I live in New Zealand, yet am probably more knowledgeable about the team, its history, and current philosophy than you are. I traveled 7000 miles in August to see a pre-season game.

Sixth, you've already been warned once by a moderator in this very thread for questioning someone else's fandom because such personal attacks are against posting rules. I responded with a personal attack toward you to underline and draw attention to this behaviour. It will likely have repercussions on me, but I don't mind as long as you are appropriately dealt to for your own rules violations.

I heart kiwi.

 

[Sac]

We all heart Kiwi.

 

[hawksurething]

An attribute I missed was ability to read the zone & find a spot to sit in it

 

[MattA16]

I'm not quite sure what irritates me the most from hawksurething: his horrendous grammar, tremendous ego related to his football "knowledge", his attacks on others fandom based on their disagreement of his "knowledge", accusing people of wanting RW to get injured if they don't want a star WR on the roster, his frequent starting of threads, or his annoying use of emojis...

Anyways... I'm not convinced having a bonafide #1 receiver would dramatically change our offense. Bevell loves to spread the ball around, and when he starts to force passes to certain guys (Harvin screen passes for example) it doesn't work. I'm a huge RW fan, but his strength lies more in his improvisational skills then completing manufactured 1st read passes, guys like D. Thomas for example would probably take time to acclimate to this offense because of this reason IMO. I would like to see a big bodied guy start at WR who can act as a red zone/deep ball threat (Chris Matthews?), but I don't think it's worth an early draft pick/trade/free agent signing to pick up a top level receiver based on the structure of our offense.

 

[McGruff]

I would like to see a big bodied guy start at WR who can act as a red zone/deep ball threat (Chris Matthews?), but I don't think it's worth an early draft pick/trade/free agent signing to pick up a top level receiver based on the structure of our offense.

I agree with the want/need, but disagree with not addressing it early in the draft. In fact, I think the only way we get a high quality WR to come to Seattle is if we draft one early. It is generally almost impossible to find #1 type receivers late in the draft, and when you do they take time to develop. By the time that happens, the player will realize his potential is better utilized in a high volume passing offense, and will sign his second contract elsewhere (see Tate, Golden).

And top flight FA's will not sign here because of the lack of opportunities our offense allows. We run first, then we spread the passing around. No big name, big ego receiver wants that, nor (I hope we've learned) does it make sense to pay 5-10 million a year for a guy who will likely catch 4-5 passes a game.

So, drafting a big WR early allows us 4 years of control at a relatively low salary.

 

[HawkFan72]

I would like to see a big bodied guy start at WR who can act as a red zone/deep ball threat (Chris Matthews?), but I don't think it's worth an early draft pick/trade/free agent signing to pick up a top level receiver based on the structure of our offense.

I agree with the want/need, but disagree with not addressing it early in the draft. In fact, I think the only way we get a high quality WR to come to Seattle is if we draft one early. It is generally almost impossible to find #1 type receivers late in the draft, and when you do they take time to develop. By the time that happens, the player will realize his potential is better utilized in a high volume passing offense, and will sign his second contract elsewhere (see Tate, Golden).

And top flight FA's will not sign here because of the lack of opportunities our offense allows. We run first, then we spread the passing around. No big name, big ego receiver wants that, nor (I hope we've learned) does it make sense to pay 5-10 million a year for a guy who will likely catch 4-5 passes a game.

So, drafting a big WR early allows us 4 years of control at a relatively low salary.

Bingo.

 

[Schadie001]

Doug Baldwin could have a Wes Welker type career if he played with Manning or Brady. I doubt any receiver playing for the 'Hawks is going to put up 90+ catches or 1200+ yards given how little we actually throw the ball.

Then why did Peyton refuse to play with the hawks WR corp ? He choose the broncos all star WR corp & snuffed us.

Its a reason I don't like Peyton,since he dogged the hawks.

Last time I checked our WR's out played his in the SB, so who cares what Peyton did or didn't do.

A #1 WR isn't needed in our system (obviously) as we did make the SB twice and should have won twice.

 

[Basis4day]

Doug Baldwin could have a Wes Welker type career if he played with Manning or Brady. I doubt any receiver playing for the 'Hawks is going to put up 90+ catches or 1200+ yards given how little we actually throw the ball.

Then why did Peyton refuse to play with the hawks WR corp ? He choose the broncos all star WR corp & snuffed us.

Its a reason I don't like Peyton,since he dogged the hawks.

Last time I checked our WR's out played his in the SB, so who cares what Peyton did or didn't do.

A #1 WR isn't needed in our system (obviously) as we did make the SB twice and should have won twice.

Manning would have been killed behind our O-Line. Not the best situation following nerve surgery.

 

[hawksurething]

Doug Baldwin could have a Wes Welker type career if he played with Manthat or Brady. I doubt any receiver playing for the 'Hawks is going to put up 90+ catches or 1200+ yards given how little we actually throw the ball.

Then why did Peyton refuse to play with the hawks WR corp ? He choose the broncos all star WR corp & snuffed us.

Its a reason I don't like Peyton,since he dogged the hawks.

Last time I checked our WR's out played his in the SB, so who cares what Peyton did or didn't do.

A #1 WR isn't needed in our system (obviously) as we did make the SB twice and should have won twice.

Manning would have been killed behind our O-Line. Not the best situation following nerve surgery.

This is why Wilson is so amazing !

Also our O- line is not the biggest problem...it our WRs. Wilson had plenty of time vs the weak pat's pass rush, yet the WRs could not get open. They were so horrible that Pete had to put in a 4th stringer Matthews!

The WRs were so bad that one took a squat on top of the ball after the ref picked revis. That's how much frustration he had because he could only get open twice. The pick TD could have been a 3 yard play!

They were so bad that instead of Baldwin they used lockette for that last play to try to score ! Even then they had to use a pick play just to try to get him open!

Deion sanders said it, irvin said it, the list goes on & on...

Its OK if a few of y'all don't want the hawks to finally have a WR that can score on that last play...But the rest of us DO want a WR that can score on that last play.

 

[KiwiHawk]

This is why Wilson is so amazing !

Also our O- line is not the biggest problem...it our WRs. Wilson had plenty of time vs the weak pat's pass rush,yet the WRs could not get open. They were so horrible that Pete had to put in a 4th stringer Matthews !

The WRs were so bad that one took a squat on top of the ball after the ref picked revis. That's how much frustration he had because he could only get open twice. The pick TD & want could have been a 3 yard play!

They were so bad that instead of Baldwin they used lockett for that last play to try to score ! Even then they had to use a pick play just to try to get him open !

Dieon sanders said it,irvin said it,the list goes on & on...

Its OK if a few of y'all don't want the hawks to finally have a WR that can score on that last play...But the rest of us DO want a WR that can score on that last play.

So many logical fallacies in your post...

The weak pat's pass rush does not cover wide receivers - the strong corners do. The receivers had issues getting open because Revis and Browner are good corners.

Even then, if you watch the all-22, Baldwin was open for more than two throws but Wilson elected to look for deeper routes.

Using Matthews was not an indication of quality, but of size. With Browner matched up on Kearse, Matthews was going against short DBs who he could easily out-jump. Are you suggesting that having created a mismatch of a 6'5" WR vs a 5'9" DB the Seahawks shouldn't take advantage of it because the WR is 4th string? That would be asinine.

Baldwin was frustrated by Revis, but so are many receivers when matched up with quality cornerbacks. What about all of the quality receivers who get shut down by Richard Sherman - are they all rubbish? They must be if they get shut down, but those are the guys you want us to get because they are quality #1 receivers, but they got shut down by Sherman so they must suck, but they are quality except that they got shut down so they must suck... <head explodes>

On the last play they went to Lockette because Kearse was covered by Browner and Baldwin was covered by Revis. Logic dictates when you want to try a pass to see if you can sneak one in before going back to the run, you don't throw against your opponent's top 2 corners. That leaves Lockette (at least be knowledgeable enough about the team to spell his name correctly) as the logical choice.

Sanders said it? Irvin said it? Since when are either of those sources even remotely knowledgeable about the Seattle Seahawks? As Baldwin said, if you compare his production per target, he matches up with the best in the league. The fact that the Seahawks spread the ball around means he doesn't get the targets that other guys do.

And finally, if you want a goat for the Super Bowl, have a look at the tight ends. Have a look at the box score - do you see ANY catches by a tight end? They were invisible. When Wilson was struggling to get the ball to the WRs due to excellent secondary coverage, where the hell were the tight ends?

Don't get hung up on this idea of passing production = wide receivers. The Seahawks spread the ball, so it goes to the backs, tight ends, and receivers. In the Super Bowl, Lynch caught one ball and the tight ends laid a big old goose-egg. That stopped us from spreading the ball and upset our offensive scheme. We adapted by exploiting the mismatch of Matthews against a small DB, but in the end all those missed opportunities in the first half killed us - not the last play.

If you want to bleat on about the last play that's fine, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of what happened. Games may not be won in the first half, but they can be lost there.

 

[hawksurething]

Baldwin was only open twice...the all-22 shows the DB in position to jump the route for the INT or tipped INT. Its called the CB baiting. Revis & Sherman does this all the time.

Anyways hawks should just get some big WRs that Wilson elects to throw to like Matthews.

Or do you want hawks to just cut Wilson since he elects not to throw to WRs you say are open?

Problem solved.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Or do you want hawks to just cut Wilson since he elects not to throw to WRs you say are open?

Problem solved.

If it's all the same to you, I'll make my own statements with regard to our players. You tend to rely on the logical fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule, which is the logical fallacy of presenting the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. This sort of ploy is generally not received well by the person you are discussing something with and can be considered combative.

Also, you nee to get better at it, because to pull it off properly you must come up with a plausible restatement of position. Otherwise you can appear childish and snarky. No one here would possibly believe I am in favour of cutting Wilson, for example, so it's obvious to all that you are out of proper arguments and resorting to false logic.

I would like to see how Matthews comes along and pick up the best receiver we can manage through the draft, to compliment the returning Richardson (who would, I believe, have made the difference in the Super Bowl).

I am not in favor of spending much in the way of cap resources for free agent wide receivers because we spread the ball around too much to make them worth their money, and because any hot-shot we could get would likely cause friction when he doesn't get the targets he thinks he deserves.

Overall I am happy with the combination of Baldwin, Kearse, and Richardson. I think Lockette's speed is under-utilized, as is Matthew's height. We do need to add another guy to make us more injury-resilient. However, the area we sorely lack is the punt/kick returner. That must be addressed this off-season.

 

[MattA16]

I would like to see how Matthews comes along and pick up the best receiver we can manage through the draft, to compliment the returning Richardson (who would, I believe, have made the difference in the Super Bowl).

I am not in favor of spending much in the way of cap resources for free agent wide receivers because we spread the ball around too much to make them worth their money, and because any hot-shot we could get would likely cause friction when he doesn't get the targets he thinks he deserves.

Overall I am happy with the combination of Baldwin, Kearse, and Richardson. I think Lockette's speed is under-utilized, as is Matthew's height. We do need to add another guy to make us more injury-resilient. However, the area we sorely lack is the punt/kick returner. That must be addressed this off-season.

Great point. Other possible scenario with picking up a big name FA is we start force feeding passes down their throats (A la the Harvin screen pass) instead of spreading the ball around. Wilson succeeds when you let him make his reads and improvise, not when we create designed plays that only give Wilson one option to throw (I'm thinking of a certain pick play at the 1 yard line). Not saying Wilson is incapable of any designed pass, but I worry that with an obligation to target one particular receiver will deviate from particular areas of our passing game, like spreading the ball around, that has found success.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I will add that one reason we have difficulties finding tall wide receivers is that they show poorly against our secondary in scrimmages. Our entire secondary with the exception of Earl Thomas is well above traditional defensive back height, and is specifically designed to work against big receivers in response to that type of receiver becoming popular in the league. This makes our red-zone defense particularly good because we don't automatically lose jump-balls and we can defend fade routes.

 

[hawksurething]

I will add that one reason we have difficulties finding tall wide receivers is that they show poorly against our secondary in scrimmages. Our entire secondary with the exception of Earl Thomas is well above traditional defensive back height, and is specifically designed to work against big receivers in response to that type of receiver becoming popular in the league. This makes our red-zone defense particularly good because we don't automatically lose jump-balls and we can defend fade routes.

True. But we can find a Benjamin or even a Lafell who both scored on Sherman.

I feel so bad for Lynch always running against stacked boxes. We could get 2 or 3 more years out of the MODE if we can get at least 1 WR to pull that safety out of the box like Dez does for Murray. I love Lynch that much.

 

[Vetamur]

That's just asinine. Whether or not you put a safety in the box, Lynch will still get tackled every down that's not a touchdown. Unless you mean you want to throw it more. Which the Seahawks don't want to do.

No one is saying they don't want a great receiver. What they are saying is they don't value it was highly as you do. You have an obsession with the position. No matter who our top receiver is, they are going to end up with 800 some odd yards. You can do that with Baldwin or Tate or any number of third round or later WRs.
If we happen to hit on a sleeper, a great receiver in the 5th round-- that's awesome. But the Seahawks have a proven formula that is made even stronger by the fact that they don't have a true number. Most teams out there gear their defense to stop the pass. They spend lots of their budget on pass rushers and cornerbacks. All that gets negated when we play them. You want to spend huge money to get a Revis type? Cool. He can still only cover one guy, so we will make you waste it on Baldwin.. But we have 4 WRs that are cheap but decent.. And we have a run game you have not spent the money to defend because it's a passing league.
Patriots won the Super Bowl without a number one. So did the Seahawks last year. And the Ravens the year before. Of the last 6 TEAMS in the Super Bowl only one team had a "true number one" WR, and they got killed even with their number one setting a record for catches.
Chasing a number one is fools gold.

 

[hawksurething]

That's just asinine. Whether or not you put a safety in the box, Lynch will still get tackled every down that's not a touchdown. Unless you mean you want to throw it more. Which the Seahawks don't want to do.

No one is saying they don't want a great receiver. What they are saying is they don't value it was highly as you do. You have an obsession with the position. No matter who our top receiver is, they are going to end up with 800 some odd yards. You can do that with Baldwin or Tate or any number of third round or later WRs.
If we happen to hit on a sleeper, a great receiver in the 5th round-- that's awesome. But the Seahawks have a proven formula that is made even stronger by the fact that they don't have a true number. Most teams out there gear their defense to stop the pass. They spend lots of their budget on pass rushers and cornerbacks. All that gets negated when we play them. You want to spend huge money to get a Revis type? Cool. He can still only cover one guy, so we will make you waste it on Baldwin.. But we have 4 WRs that are cheap but decent.. And we have a run game you have not spent the money to defend because it's a passing league.
Patriots won the Super Bowl without a number one. So did the Seahawks last year. And the Ravens the year before. Of the last 6 TEAMS in the Super Bowl only one team had a "true number one" WR, and they got killed even with their number one setting a record for catches.
Chasing a number one is fools gold.

That's your opinion. Cool.

Mine is I want a WR that will score next time on the last play & keep Lynch fresher for more years.

Just let me want what I want,So i wont be heartbroken next time. You don't have to post on my thread. Or call my view asinine. Jeesh.

Go Hawks