Can we go after Bruce Irvin? (Update: Signed with Falcons)

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/VicTafur/status/1058822738805026816[/tweet]

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SeahawksMachine/status/1058825951684034560[/tweet]

 

[sutz]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SeahawksMachine/status/1058825951684034560[/tweet]

Where there's a will, there are relatives. :twisted:

 

[Scorpion05]

Don't want him. He was part of the anti-Russ dysfunction here, especially after "the play" and his quotes in the locker room. Not sure why people are obsessed with the past. If he was an elite talent I'd understand but he's B level at his position

 

[toffee]

Don't want him. He was part of the anti-Russ dysfunction here, especially after "the play" and his quotes in the locker room. Not sure why people are obsessed with the past. If he was an elite talent I'd understand but he's B level at his position

Ok you are right, bye Irvin,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jville]

In my opinion, Bruce Irvin made a living off his athleticism and implied potential. He struggled to develop into a complete well rounded player. And after considerably more than 12 weeks of investing in the development of a rapidly improving 2018 Seahawks front seven, I see nothing to be gained and much to be risked in mucking that up by making room for someone that has long since been replaced.

"Irvin played just nine snaps in a 34-3 loss to the 49ers Thursday night. Counted upon to provide an outside pass rush for the Raiders, especially after the trade of Khalil Mack, Irvin has a team-high three sacks but has been largely ineffective on a team with the NFL’s worst pass rush.
Irvin played only 24 of 78 defensive snaps (31%) in Oakland’s 42-28 loss to Indianapolis and didn’t record a single stat. That comes a game after he was non-existent in a 27-3 loss against the Seahawks, when he recorded a single tackle and implied after the game he was more concerned with making babies with his wife than the 24-point loss." -- Mercury News

 

[Atradees]

You have to know if we did get him coach would put him in a position to succeed.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

In my opinion, Bruce Irvin made a living off his athleticism and implied potential. He struggled to develop into a complete well rounded player. And after considerably more than 12 weeks of investing in the development of a rapidly improving 2018 Seahawks front seven, I see nothing to be gained and much to be risked in mucking that up by making room for someone that has long since been replaced.

"Irvin played just nine snaps in a 34-3 loss to the 49ers Thursday night. Counted upon to provide an outside pass rush for the Raiders, especially after the trade of Khalil Mack, Irvin has a team-high three sacks but has been largely ineffective on a team with the NFL’s worst pass rush.
Irvin played only 24 of 78 defensive snaps (31%) in Oakland’s 42-28 loss to Indianapolis and didn’t record a single stat. That comes a game after he was non-existent in a 27-3 loss against the Seahawks, when he recorded a single tackle and implied after the game he was more concerned with making babies with his wife than the 24-point loss." -- Mercury News

Wait... wait... the Raiders just cut their sack leader? Bahahahahahaha. Now I know they're tanking for next year.

 

[Hawksfan78]

If he clears waivers; does that mean we can sign him for less than is current contract?

 

[rain7]

Yeah, I just assumed he wouldn't get picked up via waivers, but someone might want to take a flyer.

 

[evergreen]

Nope. This will never happen. We are better without Kam, Earl, Sherm, Bennet, and Avril. Why would we need another relic around? The past is over. Young and hungry. Not old and in the way...

 

[Hawksfan78]

With that logic, we should get rid of sweezy then???

 

[Mad Dog]

If you can sign him to Vet minimum type deal then grab him.
If he’s all about the money then let him hang out at home.
Cheap insurance for Jordan, Green and Clark is fine by my books.

 

[Jville]

With that logic, we should get rid of sweezy then???

JR Sweezy is a 3 down starter who has made an exemplary come back from injury. Bruce Irvin is in decline in both skill and focus without any residual prospects for developing into a focused 3 down player.

3. Why would the Raiders dump Bruce Irvin now? Because he’d lost a step, they shopped him ahead of the trade deadline, and word is he’s grown unhappy with his shrinking role. Irvin has played less than half the Raiders’ defensive snaps (48 percent), and that number has been falling of late—he went from 41 snaps against Seattle to 24 against the Colts to 9 on Thursday night against the Niners. At this point, it makes sense for the scuffling Raiders to invest their time and resources into young D-linemen like Maurice Hurst and Arden Key. [urltargetblank]https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/11/04/week-9-news-notes-baker-mayfield-browns-coaching-sam-bradford-bruce-irvin-released-dalvin-cook?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=sinow&xid=socialflow_twitter_si&utm_medium=social[/urltargetblank]

Bruce Irvin would not fit and would quickly become unhappy and disruptive to Seattle's new defense. Seattle has Frank Clark, Dion Jordan and Jacob Martin all competing for precious snaps in that Leo role and more. From what I have seen to date, an up and coming Jacob Martin is vastly preferable over a rapidly fading poseur. Plus, Rasheem Green returns from injury and needs snaps to restart his game day development and experience.

Beyond Seattle, there are other teams out there, including dysfunctional organizations, with far greater need to risk taking a chance on Irvin.

 

[nwHawk]

First thought: Poison. He chimed in when Avril said the players started questioning Carroll after SB49 interception. We don't need players who question Carroll. We need guys who buy in, shut up, and worry about their own improvement.

Well said. +1.

 

[Hawksfan78]

saying he wouldn’t fit in the same defense he was used to playing in or declining with no proof is silly to me. He had his best years under Ken Norton. I see nothing wrong with giving him a chance, especially with all the injuries that can and do happen.

 

[knownone]

If Bruce clears waivers, I would be surprised if he's not a Seahawk by Wednesday morning. If you have a shot at adding a quality pass rusher who has experience and versatility in your scheme for the veteran minimum, you've got to do it. He can back up Mingo at SAM, add to your pass rush rotation and allow you to rush Dion Jordan from the inside in nickel situations.

When I look at the types of players you need to stop offenses like the Rams and Chiefs, Bruce Irvin and Bark Mingo are exactly the types of guys I think about. It's rare to have 1 big guy with the athleticism to both rush the passer and drop into coverage, having two allows you to play a smaller lineup to stop the passing game while still be able to stop the run. Add on top of that Bobby, KJ, Jordan, and Kendricks you suddenly have a front 7 that can pretty much shift in every possible way pre and post snap which as we've seen from Alabama in college can absolutely shut down the misdirection / spread heavy offenses.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/1059575772589940736[/tweet]

 

[knownone]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/1059575772589940736[/tweet]

To follow up on this, It's incredibly unlikely Bruce gets claimed. His contract is guaranteed, so any team that claims him takes on the remainder of his contract. If he goes unclaimed Bruce can sign with any team for the minimum and the Raiders will have to pay the difference.

 

[chris98251]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Curtis_Crabtree/status/1059575772589940736[/tweet]

To follow up on this, It's incredibly unlikely Bruce gets claimed. His contract is guaranteed, so any team that claims him takes on the remainder of his contract. If he goes unclaimed Bruce can sign with any team for the minimum and the Raiders will have to pay the difference.

I say sign him for a dollar !

[youtube]dv5G7pTt7DY[/youtube]