Irvin on the edge of bust

[ivotuk]

Bruce Irvin will be just fine. He's not even close to "bust." He's been learning on the fly and then he was injured.

If we would have won this game, no one would be calling him a bust. He got some great pressure last night but had one stupid penalty which he will learn from.

Bruce will be upset today that he caused his team mates to be on the field even longer, and he will do something about it.

 

[hawkfan68]

Maybe. But the Seahawks had a glutton of pass rushers with Bennett and Avril being acquired. Clemons coming back. How about the thought they moved Irvin not because he was an inadequate pass rush specialist but because they knew he could do that and they wanted to see if he could flourish in another role...adding to his versatility. Not everyone that changes a position is because they are underperforming. If you think that way, then you are being narrow-minded. Unless you know for sure why he was switched (i.e. part of the PC and coaching staff discussions), you are just assuming. One thing is certain, Pete likes to experiment with his players - moving Red Bryant from DT to 5-tech DE, moving Sweezy from DL to OL, and moving Carpenter from tackle to guard.

The Atlanta playoff game was the perfect example of what I'm talking about. I GUARANTEE you Pete and John looked at that tape and decided that this team was ready to take the next step NOW, and couldn't wait another 3-4 years for Irvin to develop into the consistent DE this team needs. Thus we went out and got Bennett and Avril.

Do you honestly think Pete and John wanted to spend all that money on two DE free agents if they thought Irvin could play the position? Why? Just cause he might also be a good LB? That makes no sense.

Irvin was the only pass rusher the Seahawks had that game. He was rookie at the time. If you recall, Clemons was injured the week before and out. Irvin had no one else to help out. He was constantly getting double teamed. Plus the pass rush was non existent through the middle of the line that year too. Jason Jones was there early but also was injured and didn't play in the Atlanta game. What I do remember about Irvin that year was that he had 8 sacks and was the 2nd on the team in that stat next to Chris Clemons that season. Based off that, I think it is highly unlikely that Irvin was moved because he was underperforming there.

 

[NJlargent]

I remember when we picked him at 15 everyone commented "reach." He's ok if he was a 4th rounder, but at 15 overall he's a bust.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Irvin was the only pass rusher the Seahawks had that game. He was rookie at the time. If you recall, Clemons was injured the week before and out. Irvin had no one else to help out. He was constantly getting double teamed. Plus the pass rush was non existent through the middle of the line that year too. Jason Jones was there early but also was injured and didn't play in the Atlanta game. What I do remember about Irvin that year was that he had 8 sacks and was the 2nd on the team in that stat next to Chris Clemons that season. Based off that, I think it is highly unlikely that Irvin was moved because he was underperforming there.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that Irvin wasn't moved because he couldn't perform, he was moved because Pete "likes to experiment."

So we spent all this free agent money on DE's because Pete just likes to experiment? C'mon man.

It's time to own up to the Irvin pick. He was taken too high, and too much was expected out of a very raw hybrid DE/LB........and now he's on a defense where he's woefully falling behind his teammates in not only production, but development.

 

[Hendo66]

Not to piss anyone off, but Chandler Jones would look pretty good in a Seahawk uni.
Woulda coulda shouda?

 

[Hawks46]

Maybe. But the Seahawks had a glutton of pass rushers with Bennett and Avril being acquired. Clemons coming back. How about the thought they moved Irvin not because he was an inadequate pass rush specialist but because they knew he could do that and they wanted to see if he could flourish in another role...adding to his versatility. Not everyone that changes a position is because they are underperforming. If you think that way, then you are being narrow-minded. Unless you know for sure why he was switched (i.e. part of the PC and coaching staff discussions), you are just assuming. One thing is certain, Pete likes to experiment with his players - moving Red Bryant from DT to 5-tech DE, moving Sweezy from DL to OL, and moving Carpenter from tackle to guard.

The Atlanta playoff game was the perfect example of what I'm talking about. I GUARANTEE you Pete and John looked at that tape and decided that this team was ready to take the next step NOW, and couldn't wait another 3-4 years for Irvin to develop into the consistent DE this team needs. Thus we went out and got Bennett and Avril.

Do you honestly think Pete and John wanted to spend all that money on two DE free agents if they thought Irvin could play the position? Why? Just cause he might also be a good LB? That makes no sense.

Wow, there is a ton of assumption in this post.

I would say a fair assumption from it is: the team is ready to take the next step now and dind't want to wait for Irvin to develop.

I could almost guarantee you that Pete and John don't look at one game, specifically a playoff game, as a rookie, and go "welp, he sucks. no redemption...get a rope." If they did, we'd have way more roster turnover than we have now. Now fans....we overreact exactly that much.

I also think the whole "Pete and John didn't want to spend all that money" on Bennett and Avril. They didn't effect our cap and we definately didn't over pay for them. I can just see the conversation "well, we drafted Irvin and he was raw, but after that Atlanta game....whooo boy. We don't really like Avril or Bennett, and good gosh we shouldn't be spending money on them, but after that one game...ouch !"

I try not to make all these sweeping assumptions. Sure, you're right....if someone was poor at a position, yes they get moved in an effort to salvage the player/draft pick. You see this the most with OT's going to OG (also the reason Tackle has more value...you can move a guy inside if he busts). Thing is, I agree somewhat...Pete and John probably didn't want to hinge our entire season on whether Irvin made that next step. Once they got Avril and Bennett, well now we're really deep there, so we move Irvin to another position. Not because he's irredeemable, but because he's an elite athlete and we want him on the field.

 

[hawkfan68]

Irvin was the only pass rusher the Seahawks had that game. He was rookie at the time. If you recall, Clemons was injured the week before and out. Irvin had no one else to help out. He was constantly getting double teamed. Plus the pass rush was non existent through the middle of the line that year too. Jason Jones was there early but also was injured and didn't play in the Atlanta game. What I do remember about Irvin that year was that he had 8 sacks and was the 2nd on the team in that stat next to Chris Clemons that season. Based off that, I think it is highly unlikely that Irvin was moved because he was underperforming there.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that Irvin wasn't moved because he couldn't perform, he was moved because Pete "likes to experiment."

So we spent all this free agent money on DE's because Pete just likes to experiment? C'mon man.

It's time to own up to the Irvin pick. He was taken too high, and too much was expected out of a very raw hybrid DE/LB........and now he's on a defense where he's woefully falling behind his teammates in not only production, but development.

By the way Sgt. Largent, even though we don't agree on this topic, I do respect your point of view and opinion. You have your reasons why you believe he's a bust. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. I'm pointing out the reasons why I believe it's too early to judge him as a bust.

No they didn't spend all this money on DE because Pete likes to experiment. They spent the money because they needed more help with the pass rush - interior and DE. Red Bryant is not a pass rusher. Clemons is injury prone. Jason Jones was acquired in 2012 and then got injured. They did resign him. Then Irvin. They needed help there whether Irvin was producing or not. Irvin was productive as a rookie. He had 8 sacks, how he got them and when he got them is irrelevant. He got them and was 2nd on the team to Chris Clemons that season. No one else (except for CC) had more than he. He was doing his job.

One other fact that is overlooked- Gus Bradley was the DC in Irvin's rookie year. Dan Quinn took over last year and is current DC. Maybe that had something to do with changing his position and role?

 

[RiverDog]

[Wow, there is a ton of assumption in this post.

I would say a fair assumption from it is: the team is ready to take the next step now and dind't want to wait for Irvin to develop.

I could almost guarantee you that Pete and John don't look at one game, specifically a playoff game, as a rookie, and go "welp, he sucks. no redemption...get a rope." If they did, we'd have way more roster turnover than we have now. Now fans....we overreact exactly that much.

I also think the whole "Pete and John didn't want to spend all that money" on Bennett and Avril. They didn't effect our cap and we definately didn't over pay for them. I can just see the conversation "well, we drafted Irvin and he was raw, but after that Atlanta game....whooo boy. We don't really like Avril or Bennett, and good gosh we shouldn't be spending money on them, but after that one game...ouch !"

I try not to make all these sweeping assumptions. Sure, you're right....if someone was poor at a position, yes they get moved in an effort to salvage the player/draft pick. You see this the most with OT's going to OG (also the reason Tackle has more value...you can move a guy inside if he busts). Thing is, I agree somewhat...Pete and John probably didn't want to hinge our entire season on whether Irvin made that next step. Once they got Avril and Bennett, well now we're really deep there, so we move Irvin to another position. Not because he's irredeemable, but because he's an elite athlete and we want him on the field.

Of course, they didn't make the decision after just one game. They do have practices that we are not privvy to, and one possibility is that they suspected even before the Atlanta game that he didn't have what they were looking for in a Leo but were forced to put him in there as we didn't have a whole lot of other options.

Yes, Quinn was new to the coaching staff and I'm sure he had some ideas about improving our defense and getting the most out of our players, including Irvin. But make no mistake, this is Pete's defense. He's not going to subscribe to the wishes of a new coordinator on a position move if he was satisfied with Irvin's progress. Irvin himself said that the move "saved my career", so one can surmise that he wasn't cutting it.

 

[Jacknut16]

He had 8 sacks his rookie year, which he was a pass rush specialist. He led all rookies in that stat.
He was asked to play LB and drop into coverage last year, not be a pass rush specialist. Thus limiting his opportunities for getting sacks. So his production regarding sacks dropped.

Pete would not have moved Irvin to backer if he wasn't convinced that he no longer could develop him at purely the DE position.

You don't move a guy unless you've come to the conclusion that he's not capable of producing at the first position. Irvin couldn't be the consistent pass rusher that we needed, so he was moved to a position that Pete thought he could develop into.........and he's failing at that position now.

Couldnt agree more that this was a bad pick. Carroll wouldnt choose him again.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

By the way Sgt. Largent, even though we don't agree on this topic, I do respect your point of view and opinion. You have your reasons why you believe he's a bust. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else. I'm pointing out the reasons why I believe it's too early to judge him as a bust.
?

I appreciate your opinion as well, and I'm not ready to hit the panic button with Irvin. But we're in year 3 now, so while he's not a total bust? He's certainly not playing up to his draft position or what Pete and John told us when the reach criticisms got back to them.

btw, did you see Chandler Jone's pick six yesterday? Drafted after Irvin...........79 combined tackles and 11.5 sacks last year, and already two this year.

 

[Stiletto]

Zero excuse for hitting Rivers 5 yards out of bounds during a crucial third down at that point in the game. LIterally one of the most baffling mistakes I can remember with this team.

18' out of bounds? :shock: Glad nobody on .NET exaggerates after a loss!

 

[bmorepunk]

Zero excuse for hitting Rivers 5 yards out of bounds during a crucial third down at that point in the game. LIterally one of the most baffling mistakes I can remember with this team.

18' out of bounds? :shock: Glad nobody on .NET exaggerates after a loss!

I agree, but your multiplication is atrocious.

 

[nanomoz]

Funny what happens to .net after a loss.

Slow clap.

His early draft pick status is not the only reason he's stayed on the field despite solid linebacking depth. The guys behind Irvin have played well when given chances. And Wright and Wagner can move around as well, which would make getting Irvin on the field even easier for the coaches (if they thought he wasn't doing his job well).

 

[Tech Worlds]

Irvin was the only pass rusher the Seahawks had that game. He was rookie at the time. If you recall, Clemons was injured the week before and out. Irvin had no one else to help out. He was constantly getting double teamed. Plus the pass rush was non existent through the middle of the line that year too. Jason Jones was there early but also was injured and didn't play in the Atlanta game. What I do remember about Irvin that year was that he had 8 sacks and was the 2nd on the team in that stat next to Chris Clemons that season. Based off that, I think it is highly unlikely that Irvin was moved because he was underperforming there.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that Irvin wasn't moved because he couldn't perform, he was moved because Pete "likes to experiment."

So we spent all this free agent money on DE's because Pete just likes to experiment? C'mon man.

It's time to own up to the Irvin pick. He was taken too high, and too much was expected out of a very raw hybrid DE/LB........and now he's on a defense where he's woefully falling behind his teammates in not only production, but development.

Bruce Irvin was moved because they simply wanted to get the best and fastest players on the field. He wasn't going to start over Avril or Clemons. They moved him to increase the team speed on defense.

I think he did well last year considering the fact he was learning on the fly. This year I expect him to develop even more.

 

[HawkFan72]

I wanted the Hawks to draft Chandler Jones so bad in that draft. It is painful to watch Irvin flounder while Jones has developed into one of the best young DEs in football.

 

[Missing_Clink]

No question it was a bad pick in hindsight. They thought he was the perfect LEO. If he had been the perfect LEO, it would have been a stroke of genius.

They have since learned he is not the perfect LEO. In fact, he is so far from being the perfect LEO they moved him to a totally new position. Now he is a SAM linebacker. He still has a chance to be an adequate SAM, but you don't draft a SAM at 15 overall, let alone a just adequate one. Bad pick for the value they ultimately got, but the draft is a crap shoot.

Irvin will quickly play himself off this team with asinine penalties like the one yesterday, I agree. There is just no excuse for that, and he is not nearly good enough to excuse the occasional boneheaded mistake.

 

[Chawks1]

Speaking of the perfect LEO, did anyone see Cliff Avril yesterday? I saw he had 52 snaps but he was M.I.A. in San Diego. Didn't I read all summer how he was going to light it up and have something like 15 sacks this year? Could have used him yesterday on any of those drives.

 

[twelthmanfan]

I was just going to mention C Jones. 19.5 sacks since he was drafter "after" Bruce Irvin.

 

[hawkfan68]

I wanted the Hawks to draft Chandler Jones so bad in that draft. It is painful to watch Irvin flounder while Jones has developed into one of the best young DEs in football.

I really don't like comparing guys on other teams that are flourishing and assuming that they would be just as good here. It's great that they are doing well for their respective teams. It's not a given they would be doing the same for the Seahawks. There have been plenty of instances where the Seahawks have brought in a marquee player only to see him not fit as well here.

Do the Patriots run the same style of defense the Seahawks do? Ya it's a 4-3 defense but are they the same type of schemes, etc?

 

[joeseahawks]

Instead of looking at a single pick, why not look at the whole draft...

1. Bruce Irvin,
2. Wagner
3. Russell Wilson ...
4. Robert Turbin
6. Jeremy Lane
7. J.R. Sweezy
FA. Jermain Kearse
...

Not every pick would be perfect. But this draft was as good as it can be. We got 2 fantastic players, who will be around for a long time (Wagner + Wilson) and a player, who might or might not stick. To me, this is a successful draft.

That's the way I would look at it. You win some, you lose some. We won more in this draft than we lost...