Best NFL offensive triplets ranked.

[Laloosh]

Gotta remember these writers have deadlines that they have to get an article on the editors desk. Sometimes they get desperate and submit some "weak sauce". This is an example of "weak sauce". No credibility IMO.

Generally speaking, I enjoy Barnwell's stuff. Sometimes people just have an opinion that differs from mine. In this particular case, I think the top 10-15 probably reflect his opinion and the bottom half are just "okay here are the rest".

 

[2_0_6]

Where is the Dolphin fan celebrating his team being ranked ahead of us? :lol:

 

[hawker84]

Love it, more fuel on the fire.

When's the Defensive trio list coming out, wonder where he put us there? 15,16ish.......

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

When the author uses language like, "Rawls lead the league in Y/A and had the highest success rate among RBs but..." or in effect, say that, "Baldwin led WRs in TDs but...", there's an agenda.

Alternatively when he talks about IND, you get "Here's where it's important to look past last year. " and "But it's unlikely that the talent of young players like Luck and Hilton has suddenly disappeared."

Bullshit.

This why your post is crap Popeye. But it fit your pro-9er, anit-Seahawk agenda so by all means, please continue,

 

[Laloosh]

When the author uses language like, "Rawls lead the league in Y/A and had the highest success rate among RBs but..." or in effect, say that, "Baldwin led WRs in TDs but...", there's an agenda.

Alternatively when he talks about IND, you get "Here's where it's important to look past last year. " and "But it's unlikely that the talent of young players like Luck and Hilton has suddenly disappeared."

Bullshit.

This why your post is crap Popeye. But it fit your pro-9er, anit-Seahawk agenda so by all means, please continue,

I in no way, agree with this sentiment... Actually wish you hadn't used my post as an example of why popeye is anti anything tbh.

 

[volsunghawk]

Barnwell is pretty universally regarded as the best writer covering the NFL these days, and deservedly so, IMO.

Also, FWIW, I've never seen him be as effusive in his praise of a player as he was of Wilson for his second half of the regular season last year.

All to say that I too was surprised to see how low the Hawks were, but I think Barnwell has more than earned the right to have surprising opinions, and to be give second thought to the surprising ones he has.

Wilson's obviously the money shot of the trio, but maybe Barnwell isn't just thin-slicing the second half of last year and is including the first half of last year and the playoffs. Maybe Wilson is then for him right now a top 5-10 guy and not a top 1-5 guy.

In Rawls he sees a guy who had four huge games last year, but still isn't back from a season ending injury. Is he the next Marshawn Lynch or the next Peyton Hillis?

Baldwin is a guy who has been pretty steadily average across five years, save for an explosion of 11 tds in six weeks which even if he becomes All World in his sixth season he'll never repeat again.

Does that drop this trio all the way down to 23? I really don't know. I think I would have had them higher, but not probably as high as Hawks fans would want. 23 seems a hair low to me, but it's worth considering, and I can at least make the argument for why it's not blashepmous even if I'm not entirely convinced it's a great one. .

Excellent points.

Barnwell is top notch, but I disagree with his assessment here.

I understand his hesitance to assume that Baldwin will pick up where he left off last season, and none of us know if Rawls will return from injury at the same level he was or if any of the 72 RBs we drafted can fill in. Those are fair questions. But I don't think they are concerning enough to put the Hawks down at 23, especially behind some of the other groups he has listed. Even great analysts have a few misses here and there, and I think this is one of Barnwell's.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

When the author uses language like, "Rawls lead the league in Y/A and had the highest success rate among RBs but..." or in effect, say that, "Baldwin led WRs in TDs but...", there's an agenda.

Alternatively when he talks about IND, you get "Here's where it's important to look past last year. " and "But it's unlikely that the talent of young players like Luck and Hilton has suddenly disappeared."

Bullshit.

This why your post is crap Popeye. But it fit your pro-9er, anit-Seahawk agenda so by all means, please continue,

I in no way, agree with this sentiment... Actually wish you hadn't used my post as an example of why popeye is anti anything tbh.

I apologize. Feel free to delete. You're a mod.

 

[HawkFan72]

Last year Seattle was Top 5 on this list with Wilson, Lynch, and Graham.

Rawls and Baldwin, by FAR, had better years than the guys they are replacing on the list, yet the Hawks drop that far down the rankings.

Shows how this list is about name recognition, not actual production.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

I hope someone pins this article on Angry Doug's locker. Any more articles like this and I will buy my plane ticket for Houston ASAP.

 

[jammerhawk]

Yep, once again the talking heads think that SEATTLE WILL SUCK ON O. Whatever?

At least we should acknowledge we think they are wrong again, as per usual. Based upon last season's results I suspect that of course they are wrong.

I just find it hard to get at worked up about some schmuck's preseason ranking when it's clear he fails to understand exactly what it is he's ranking. I refrained from clicking as reading nonsense frequently causes me headaches.

 

[Jerhawk]

Meh, the list is just a popularity contest. Fantasy stats.

Our guys win as a team, not fantasy stats

 

[jammerhawk]

Thanks, good rational post!

 

[HawkGA]

Funny. Didn't somebody else rank the Eagles #5 in overall roster talent? Yet here they are ranked even below the Hawks for their triplets?????

 

[LargentFan]

When's the Defensive trio list coming out, wonder where he put us there? 15,16ish.......

I think we have a few trios that should rank near the top. The interesting question is, which three guys do you use?

Sherm will be in the trio, guaranteed.
Then, you have to fill out the list with Kam, Earl, Bobby and Bennett. You can make an argument for Avril to be there, but Bennett is more visible.
I think you go with Sherm, Bobby and Bennett. One guy from each layer of the D.
Interestingly, that leaves Kam, Earl and Avril. Another trio I would rank top 10 probably.

 

[Ozzy]

I think it's safe to say we all agree that putting Seattle at 23rd is ridiculous? Heck even just Wilson alone should probably put you near the top 10 if you weren't a big believer in Baldwin/Rawls repeating but regardless 23 is laughable. I like the author too.

 

[BelfastHawk]

I sometimes still get surprised by how this messageboard gets it knickers in its knot by being "disrespected" by the media. Like they all sit together twisting their waxed moustaches thinking of ways to antagonise us, like baddies in a Dickensian novel. As soon as someone has an opinion that doesn't chime in with the Seahawks/ a specific Seahawk is the greatest they are immediately derided as a blowhard/ignorant/a hater/crap at their jobs.

Bill Barnwell is an excellent NFL writer and even if I think his stance here is questionable, I would consider he is approaching it from a perspective that is much more healthy than any fan who is involved enough to bother to post on a messageboard.

Baldwin was great last year, but it was his first 1,000 yard season. There are lots of other receivers who could put up decent numbers with the running game and qb we have. Rawls was great but is unproven.

 

[scutterhawk]

I sometimes still get surprised by how this messageboard gets it knickers in its knot by being "disrespected" by the media. Like they all sit together twisting their waxed moustaches thinking of ways to antagonise us, like baddies in a Dickensian novel. As soon as someone has an opinion that doesn't chime in with the Seahawks/ a specific Seahawk is the greatest they are immediately derided as a blowhard/ignorant/a hater/crap at their jobs.

Bill Barnwell is an excellent NFL writer and even if I think his stance here is questionable, I would consider he is approaching it from a perspective that is much more healthy than any fan who is involved enough to bother to post on a messageboard.

Baldwin was great last year, but it was his first 1,000 yard season. There are lots of other receivers who could put up decent numbers with the running game and qb we have. Rawls was great but is unproven.

Baldwin's first 1000 yard season was because the Seahawks were a Run heavy Offense under Pete Carroll's call, it's only when Pete had taken some of the fetters off of Wilson, who by the way, flourished WITHOUT having a top notch RB at his disposal, that Baldwin came on like a top # 1 Receiver, thus proving to me anyways, that when utilized, has the talent to put up the numbers.
When you spread the ball around like the Seahawks have done, it's really hard to pinpoint who should be the other 2 players that should round out to be in the top 3, because Wilson makes several other players viable options.
The thing is, some Quarterbacks have that something extraordinary, and can make plays that many of the others around the League cannot.....Wilson, Rodgers, Newton, Breese, Brady and Roethlisburger have all improvised a way to win games, that other Quarterbacks would have let slip away.
Rating Wilson and whomever into the 20's?....Seriously?....No.

 

[Smellyman]

I sometimes still get surprised by how this messageboard gets it knickers in its knot by being "disrespected" by the media. Like they all sit together twisting their waxed moustaches thinking of ways to antagonise us, like baddies in a Dickensian novel. As soon as someone has an opinion that doesn't chime in with the Seahawks/ a specific Seahawk is the greatest they are immediately derided as a blowhard/ignorant/a hater/crap at their jobs.

Bill Barnwell is an excellent NFL writer and even if I think his stance here is questionable, I would consider he is approaching it from a perspective that is much more healthy than any fan who is involved enough to bother to post on a messageboard.

Baldwin was great last year, but it was his first 1,000 yard season. There are lots of other receivers who could put up decent numbers with the running game and qb we have. Rawls was great but is unproven.

I often wonder why people get their knickers in a knot over others getting their knickers in a knot.

Other than my above comment, the part in bold above is the strangest 'logic' I have ever read.

 

[BelfastHawk]

I often wonder why people get their knickers in a knot over others getting their knickers in a knot.

Other than my above comment, the part in bold above is the strangest 'logic' I have ever read.

Knickers not in a knot at all. I just thought it was interesting that Barnwell's ranking had generated the replies it had. I doubt it would if he had ranked them 7th/8th or whatever.

My comment on Baldwin was that Wilson and the running game we had (Lynch/Wilson's 500 odd yards etc) made it easier for Baldwin to find space and not be keyed on etc. I am sorry you cannot see the 'logic' in that. Maybe it is because I am not American and I do not understand the game as well as you.

 

[NINEster]

Look at the bright side:

If you took the Seahawks at their offensive peak, they wouldn't be ranked much higher if at all (whenever that peak is....2012 thru now, you decide).

You can argue for Wilson and Lynch, but the #3 element was never dominant in Seattle.

And neither was it in SF. Kap/Gore/Crabtree in 2012 was a nice mix, but I would have been surprised to see it break 20 back then if such ranking were made.

Looking at some of the 24-32 on this list, I wouldn't have had them pegged so low.

It's almost a silly thing to list out because it makes teams with legit groupings look a lot worse than they are.

Only one NFL team had a triplets nickname -- Cowboys in the '90s -- and for good reason. So damn hard to have hall of fame at just those 3 positions.