End of an Era?

[hawk45]

everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.

The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.

I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.

I'm not criticizing Graham. I quite agree that he adds something significant and valuable to the scoring offense, and that it will be work to replace it. Also, I did not say we'd be fine without 10 touchdowns. You'll notice I distinctly point out that the argument for being fine without Graham rests upon replacing those 10 touchdowns.

Of course my correlation isn't provable. Neither is your assertion that Graham will match or come near to his 10-TD production in another hypothetical year. Or that other parts of the offense (rushing attack) may not rise to a level where they offset losing his production. All such assertions are inextricably tied to the performance of the new coaches which we can't assess yet.

So, in order to be fair to that, I avoided characterizing your argument as "being obsessed with" the idea that Graham will score 10 TDs every year the rest of his career. Because I'm interested in responding to the actual merits of your position, rather than mischaracterizing it for ease of dispensing with it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that.

Brown was the kind of move that I was critical of at the time, and still am. We lost two high picks for one player who didn't - couldn't - improve the offense all on his own. It was not a good move and could well go a long ways towards a down year.

Where I'll disagree with Dome was Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings. Those were bad.

Maybe not just using tunnel vision on that alone. However it is very easy to criticize using our top pick on a red flag player that ended up costing a chain reaction of another signing and more draft losses because the guy took himself out for somewhere between 1 year and forever. There are many great players we passed on to make this move.

They need to take quality lower risk players in early rounds and save the red flag risks for later rounds IMO.

It's not that black and white.

I get what you're saying, but IMO it's value vs risk, and obviously Pete and John thought the value of getting a player like McDowell vs the risk of his character and work ethic was worth it.

Lynch, Bruce Irvin, Frank Clark...............all on the other side of what you're suggesting. The calculated risk/reward paid off.

 

[Seymour]

Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that.

Brown was the kind of move that I was critical of at the time, and still am. We lost two high picks for one player who didn't - couldn't - improve the offense all on his own. It was not a good move and could well go a long ways towards a down year.

Where I'll disagree with Dome was Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings. Those were bad.

Maybe not just using tunnel vision on that alone. However it is very easy to criticize using our top pick on a red flag player that ended up costing a chain reaction of another signing and more draft losses because the guy took himself out for somewhere between 1 year and forever. There are many great players we passed on to make this move.

They need to take quality lower risk players in early rounds and save the red flag risks for later rounds IMO.

It's not that black and white.

I get what you're saying, but IMO it's value vs risk, and obviously Pete and John thought the value of getting a player like McDowell vs the risk of his character and work ethic was worth it.

Lynch, Bruce Irvin, Frank Clark...............all on the other side of what you're suggesting. The calculated risk/reward paid off.

Lynch wasn't drafted by us. Beyond that, if we add an additional bust of 1 out of 5 (above the average bust rate for that round), then IMO it's safe to say that is too high a price. Are you saying that Irvin and Clark are that much better than everyone else that was available at the time? That could not only be disputed, but we could go back and prove there were better players on the board (ie risk was greater than reward).

 

[hawk45]

Yeah, we didn't burn a first on Lynch.

Clark has worked out.

Bruce Irvin became an okay starter at OLB which isn't what they drafted him for, but he didn't fail due to character issues, so far as I can tell, so I'll grant that as another success drafting iffy character guys high.

The iffy character thing has had mixed results. McDowell lit a first round pick on fire and Harvin warped our offense for half a year until we jettisoned him. Clark and Irvin started.

Seymour the argument isn't around whether we could have drafted better players than Irvin and Clark in those drafts. The argument is whether it was iffy characters that are the reason that those players haven't done better. IMO that isn't evident. You can argue that our talent evaluation fell down if we failed to draft a better player, but not that it fell down specifically around character.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Lynch wasn't drafted by us. Beyond that, if we add an additional bust of 1 out of 5 (above the average bust rate for that round), then IMO it's safe to say that is too high a price. Are you saying that Irvin and Clark are that much better than everyone else that was available at the time? That could not only be disputed, but we could go back and prove there were better players on the board (ie risk was greater than reward).

I'm saying with guys like Irvin, Clark and McDowell their character/work ethic is what made them a value, and therefore worth considering and drafting.

McDowell was the same, mid first rounder that fell to the early 2nd because of character issues.

So to say "well why not just draft the next best guy that DOESN'T have character issues" means that you might be passing on a good value for talent.

And like any draft pick, you don't know if he's going to work out or not. Sometimes it's character value, sometimes it's work ethic value, and sometimes it's height value like with Russell.

Many reasons players fall in the draft, doesn't mean you don't consider them just to go with the safer pick. Arguably the "safest" pick in Hawk's history was Aaron Curry, he was the CAN'T MISS! pick of the entire draft.

Well.........he missed, just like McDowell. Doesn't mean you don't keep evaluating that risk vs reward, cause sometimes it hits.

 

[chris98251]

everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.

The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.

I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.

A good running game should get you ten Touchdowns a season collectively we had how many from our Running back? I think it was Zero, McKissic caught one pass for a TD but not running.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.

The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.

I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.

A good running game should get you ten Touchdowns a season collectively we had how many from our Running back?

Nice. You got our red-zone production back to...where it was in 2017. Which I think we all agree wasn't enough.

Oh wait, we're not even back there yet...we let Paul Richardson walk, too.

 

[Seymour]

I'm saying with guys like Irvin, Clark and McDowell their character/work ethic is what made them a value, and therefore worth considering and drafting.

McDowell was the same, mid first rounder that fell to the early 2nd because of character issues.

So to say "well why not just draft the next best guy that DOESN'T have character issues" means that you might be passing on a good value for talent.

And like any draft pick, you don't know if he's going to work out or not. Sometimes it's character value, sometimes it's work ethic value, and sometimes it's height value like with Russell.

Many reasons players fall in the draft, doesn't mean you don't consider them just to go with the safer pick. Arguably the "safest" pick in Hawk's history was Aaron Curry, he was the CAN'T MISS! pick of the entire draft.

Well.........he missed, just like McDowell. Doesn't mean you don't keep evaluating that risk vs reward, cause sometimes it hits.

Curry's impact was not just like McDowell IMO. Curry we got "some use" for better than 2 years, and got a 7th and a 5th for him to Oakland. McDowell cost us his pick, the Richardson trade, Kearse, and another 2nd round pick overall just to fill the hole. The McDowell pick could well end up being the biggest impacting mistake this team ever made when you take into account the other dominos that fell (if Richardson walks).

 

[Seymour]

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.

The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.

I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.

A good running game should get you ten Touchdowns a season collectively we had how many from our Running back?

Nice. You got our red-zone production back to...where it was in 2017. Which I think we all agree wasn't enough.

Oh wait, we're not even back there yet...we let Paul Richardson walk, too.

Why are you assuming that Grahams replacement will score zero TD's?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm saying with guys like Irvin, Clark and McDowell their character/work ethic is what made them a value, and therefore worth considering and drafting.

McDowell was the same, mid first rounder that fell to the early 2nd because of character issues.

So to say "well why not just draft the next best guy that DOESN'T have character issues" means that you might be passing on a good value for talent.

And like any draft pick, you don't know if he's going to work out or not. Sometimes it's character value, sometimes it's work ethic value, and sometimes it's height value like with Russell.

Many reasons players fall in the draft, doesn't mean you don't consider them just to go with the safer pick. Arguably the "safest" pick in Hawk's history was Aaron Curry, he was the CAN'T MISS! pick of the entire draft.

Well.........he missed, just like McDowell. Doesn't mean you don't keep evaluating that risk vs reward, cause sometimes it hits.

Curry's impact was not just like McDowell IMO. Curry we got "some use" for better than 2 years, and got a 7th and a 5th for him to Oakland. McDowell cost us his pick, the Richardson trade, Kearse, and another 2nd round pick overall just to fill the hole. The McDowell pick could well end up being the biggest impacting mistake this team ever made when you take into account the other dominos that fell (if Richardson walks).

Dude, he was the #4 pick in the draft..............if you're picking 4th you're getting a ten year cornerstone type player.

And we don't even know what's going on with McDowell yet, he might still play and be a good player. We don't know yet.

All my points are still valid, you always want your FO to take calculate risks. I'm not sure how any GM could have forseen McDowell getting into a serious ATV accident.

 

[semiahmoo]

End of an era?

Yes.

Reddit is the new black...

 

[Seymour]

I'm saying with guys like Irvin, Clark and McDowell their character/work ethic is what made them a value, and therefore worth considering and drafting.

McDowell was the same, mid first rounder that fell to the early 2nd because of character issues.

So to say "well why not just draft the next best guy that DOESN'T have character issues" means that you might be passing on a good value for talent.

And like any draft pick, you don't know if he's going to work out or not. Sometimes it's character value, sometimes it's work ethic value, and sometimes it's height value like with Russell.

Many reasons players fall in the draft, doesn't mean you don't consider them just to go with the safer pick. Arguably the "safest" pick in Hawk's history was Aaron Curry, he was the CAN'T MISS! pick of the entire draft.

Well.........he missed, just like McDowell. Doesn't mean you don't keep evaluating that risk vs reward, cause sometimes it hits.

Curry's impact was not just like McDowell IMO. Curry we got "some use" for better than 2 years, and got a 7th and a 5th for him to Oakland. McDowell cost us his pick, the Richardson trade, Kearse, and another 2nd round pick overall just to fill the hole. The McDowell pick could well end up being the biggest impacting mistake this team ever made when you take into account the other dominos that fell (if Richardson walks).

Dude, he was the #4 pick in the draft..............if you're picking 4th you're getting a ten year cornerstone type player.

And we don't even know what's going on with McDowell yet, he might still play and be a good player. We don't know yet.

All my points are still valid, you always want your FO to take calculate risks. I'm not sure how any GM could have forseen McDowell getting into a serious ATV accident.

Soo? Busts happen every year, and no team is exempt. Joeckel was the #2 pick for crying out loud.

Busts happen more often when you ignore red flags regularly, so why drop your chances even further on higher round picks? Do it in later rounds is my answer.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Soo? Busts happen every year, and no team is exempt. Joeckel was the #2 pick for crying out loud.

Busts happen more often when you ignore red flags regularly, so why drop your chances even further on higher round picks? Do it in later rounds is my answer.

You keep creating these scenarios that don't exist in Seattle.

What times have we ignored red flags regularly? We've taken gambles on a LOT of players, and most of them have worked out, some VERY well.

You're harping on one of the few times it didn't, and saying that's the reason we shouldn't do it anymore.......or shouldn't have done it with McDowell.

Again McDowell was a mid first round talent that fell to the 2nd, and we gambled. Didn't work out (yet), doesn't mean you don't take gambles ever again. Doesn't even mean our FO screwed up. That's the draft, there are no sure things, ever.

 

[Chapow]

I'm saying with guys like Irvin, Clark and McDowell their character/work ethic is what made them a value, and therefore worth considering and drafting.

McDowell was the same, mid first rounder that fell to the early 2nd because of character issues.

So to say "well why not just draft the next best guy that DOESN'T have character issues" means that you might be passing on a good value for talent.

And like any draft pick, you don't know if he's going to work out or not. Sometimes it's character value, sometimes it's work ethic value, and sometimes it's height value like with Russell.

Many reasons players fall in the draft, doesn't mean you don't consider them just to go with the safer pick. Arguably the "safest" pick in Hawk's history was Aaron Curry, he was the CAN'T MISS! pick of the entire draft.

Well.........he missed, just like McDowell. Doesn't mean you don't keep evaluating that risk vs reward, cause sometimes it hits.

Curry's impact was not just like McDowell IMO. Curry we got "some use" for better than 2 years, and got a 7th and a 5th for him to Oakland. McDowell cost us his pick, the Richardson trade, Kearse, and another 2nd round pick overall just to fill the hole. The McDowell pick could well end up being the biggest impacting mistake this team ever made when you take into account the other dominos that fell (if Richardson walks).

McDowell is still only 21 years old. The book has not been closed on his career as far as I know.

For all we know, McDowell and Richardson could both end up being impact players for us next season and in future seasons.

 

[Seymour]

Soo? Busts happen every year, and no team is exempt. Joeckel was the #2 pick for crying out loud.

Busts happen more often when you ignore red flags regularly, so why drop your chances even further on higher round picks? Do it in later rounds is my answer.

You keep creating these scenarios that don't exist in Seattle.

What times have we ignored red flags regularly? We've taken gambles on a LOT of players, and most of them have worked out, some VERY well.

You're harping on one of the few times it didn't, and saying that's the reason we shouldn't do it anymore.......or shouldn't have done it with McDowell.

Again McDowell was a mid first round talent that fell to the 2nd, and we gambled. Didn't work out (yet), doesn't mean you don't take gambles ever again. Doesn't even mean our FO screwed up. That's the draft, there are no sure things, ever.

Irvin.....gone.
Clark....still here and solid.
Simon.....gone...(but not before giving up 2 huge SB plays to the same player on the same route)
McDowell.....career likely ended (according to all info released)

That = pretty much regularly IMO, and that is just the draft. They have ignored them on traded players as well more so than many teams would.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Soo? Busts happen every year, and no team is exempt. Joeckel was the #2 pick for crying out loud.

Busts happen more often when you ignore red flags regularly, so why drop your chances even further on higher round picks? Do it in later rounds is my answer.

You keep creating these scenarios that don't exist in Seattle.

What times have we ignored red flags regularly? We've taken gambles on a LOT of players, and most of them have worked out, some VERY well.

You're harping on one of the few times it didn't, and saying that's the reason we shouldn't do it anymore.......or shouldn't have done it with McDowell.

Again McDowell was a mid first round talent that fell to the 2nd, and we gambled. Didn't work out (yet), doesn't mean you don't take gambles ever again. Doesn't even mean our FO screwed up. That's the draft, there are no sure things, ever.

Irvin.....gone.
Clark....still here and solid.
Simon.....gone...(but not before giving up 2 huge SB plays to the same player on the same route)
McDowell.....career likely ended (according to all info released)

That = pretty much regularly IMO.

Four guys, three of which contributed and contributed well to above average for years is "regularly?"

C'mon Seymour, you're grasping at straws. You're wrong, and I'm glad you're not the GM. I and most fans want Pete and John taking calculated risks.

McDowell may not work out, we'll see. But he is certainly not the norm of character risk drafts for us.

 

[Seymour]

And I'm glad you are not the GM because we would be stuck in groundhogs day with Bevell and Cable and would learn nothing from our mistakes.

I'd like to see this evidence that "most fans prefer to take risks" also please.

 

[DomeHawk]

I'd like to see this evidence that "most fans prefer to take risks" also please.

Oh gawd, not another poll.

"Survey says....."

 

[pittpnthrs]

I'd like to see this evidence that "most fans prefer to take risks" also please.

I would have liked to see some of those offensive linemen we passed up for sure.

 

[PlinytheCenter]

I'm kind of resigning myself to no playoffs in 2018 at this point. I realize it's crazy premature to do that before the draft and free agency, but Seattle went win-now with the Duane Brown trade and injury replacement signings and it's left them in a pickle. They don't have a lot of collateral to replace all the talent they'll be offloading, and everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

The point about the win-now philosophy that characterized last year is spot-on AND you know, unlike the previous year, I can't fault them for any of the moves they made. I was so excited when we got Sheldon Richardson and then Duane Brown, I really thought they were the missing pieces. In fact, just about all the moves they made last year, Bradley McDougald etc., were excellent, it just didn't work out with all the injuries and disappointing running back play.

I was fine with the Richardson and Brown moves............but if we're delving into WHY we had to get those two, there's a deeper criticism to be made.

When you're mortgaging your next year or two's draft to fill in VITAL starting positions? It means you didn't adequately address those needs the year(s) before.

So yeah, those are great players, and they both played well. But the negative snowball effect is;

- failure to draft
- straps your cap taking on those massive salaries which means not having that money to address other needs

May I add to the list the inexplicable (to me) signing of a head-case kicker. Win now? Why him?