Is C. Williams the cause of all this RW drama?

[hawknation2015]

I've been very critical of the WIlliams signing (he'll play well IMO, but i think there were MUCH cheaper options that would have been just as effective), but blaming him for Wilson/Wagner? LOL, nah.

Sorry, Popeye. Carroll has simply been too successful at finding stellar DBs to question him on this particular signing. Williams has played more snaps than any other corner over the last two seasons, meaning there was tons of tape on him. Finding a guy with that combination of experience, length, and athleticism is rare. Now, he is getting the best coaching any DB can receive. I expect we will see a much more finished product from Williams this season.

Don't want to drag off topic, but agree to disagree (I think scheme and surrounding talent makes some of that "talent" seem a lot better than it is; as we've seen with the CBs who try to keep up their level of play after leaving Seattle, and will most likely see again with Maxwell). Agreed though that Williams will look better for the Hawks than he has for the Eagles.

So, yeah, I'm including my thoughts on it after I said I wouldn't, but agree to disagree.

I agree with all of that . . . we find players who are capable of dominating in our defensive scheme. Who do you think would have been a better signing than Williams? Keeping in mind the requisite arm length and athleticism requirements.

 

[Hawkfan77]

I agree with all of that . . . we find players who are capable of dominating in our defensive scheme. Who do you think would have been a better signing than Williams? Keeping in mind the requisite arm length and athleticism requirements.

None of the players he's previously suggested would have been fits. All were lacking in length, athleticism or both. The only thing about them is they were cheaper options, not better fits. Popeye doesn't know about the prerequisites for our CB position.

 

[Hawks46]

I've been very critical of the WIlliams signing (he'll play well IMO, but i think there were MUCH cheaper options that would have been just as effective), but blaming him for Wilson/Wagner? LOL, nah.

First of all, where are you going to find a decent starting CB for "much cheaper" than 6 million/year ? That's kind of hard. Williams was a bargain because he didn't play that well in Philly, yet he had a terrible supporting cast. Yes, you can draft one, but you typically have growing pains for the first year or two while they develop. Hell, Sherman didn't even start right away.

As to that, look to when Williams played in Baltimore. He was a much better CB. I think he was misused, or the scheme fit was bad in Philly, plus the bad players around him. I honestly think Williams is going to surprise people this year, and Pete and John will look like geniuses again this year. It won't be them being smarter than everyone in this instance, just that everyone else just looked at the Philly tape and didn't account for circumstances.

 

[Popeyejones]

I agree with all of that . . . we find players who are capable of dominating in our defensive scheme. Who do you think would have been a better signing than Williams? Keeping in mind the requisite arm length and athleticism requirements.

I think this was all discussed in another thread, and as I recall, my opinion was there too unpopular. :lol:

(the major gripe was that all the names I mentioned didn't fit the "requisite" body requirements (which not every Seahawks CB even has), which I think are MUCH less important after Carroll changed some of his approach in response to NFL rule changes/changes in enforcement).

GENERAL RESPONSE: Just to reiterate again, I have never argued that Williams will play poorly in Seattle (I think he'll play well), just that they could have gotten a similar level of performacnce if they had held back in FA rather than overpaying (IMO) a 30 year old Williams at the opening bell.

 

[Hawkfan77]

I agree with all of that . . . we find players who are capable of dominating in our defensive scheme. Who do you think would have been a better signing than Williams? Keeping in mind the requisite arm length and athleticism requirements.

I think this was all discussed in another thread, and as I recall, my opinion was there too unpopular. :lol:

(the major gripe was that all the names I mentioned didn't fit the "requisite" body requirements (which not every Seahawks CB even has), which I think are MUCH less important after Carroll changed some of his approach in response to NFL rule changes/changes in enforcement).

Name one that doesn't fit

 

[Popeyejones]

Popeye doesn't know about the prerequisites for our CB position.

I of course know about them, I just question if they've become a liability of habit/inability to adapt as the strategy the Hawks employee in response to rule changes have changed things*, teams have adusted how they attack the Hawks through the air**, and the surrounding talent in the position group masks a lot of liabilities.***

*Less press coverage

**More timing routes, short passes, quick outs and hooks as a response to less press coverage and as a way to counteract against larger CBs who aren't pressing as much.

***Chancellor covering the middle cross and Sherman on the other side allows Thomas to shade and protect the other CB who has changed every year.

Name one that doesn't fit

Why completely and literally reproduce the Cary Williams thread in here when anyone who cares can just pull up that thread?

 

[hawknation2015]

I agree with all of that . . . we find players who are capable of dominating in our defensive scheme. Who do you think would have been a better signing than Williams? Keeping in mind the requisite arm length and athleticism requirements.

I think this was all discussed in another thread, and as I recall, my opinion was there too unpopular. :lol:

(the major gripe was that all the names I mentioned didn't fit the "requisite" body requirements (which not every Seahawks CB even has), which I think are MUCH less important after Carroll changed some of his approach in response to NFL rule changes/changes in enforcement).

GENERAL RESPONSE: Just to reiterate again, I have never argued that Williams will play poorly in Seattle (I think he'll play well), just that they could have gotten a similar level of performacnce if they had held back in FA rather than overpaying (IMO) a 30 year old Williams at the opening bell.

Sorry, Popeye, I don't recall that thread at all. Who were some of the alternatives to Williams that you mentioned? I was kind of hoping they would bring back Browner, but apparently they either weren't anticipating he would be released, or more likely, they preferred more athleticism at the position.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ All in the Cary Williams thread if you want to pull it up.

IIRC I made these same arguments and people dismissed them based on body metrics, which I wasn't that convinced by (for the reasons stated above), and nobody was convinced by my lack of being convinced.

Then it ended. :lol:

 

[hawknation2015]

^^^^ All in the Cary Williams thread if you want to pull it up.

IIRC I made these same arguments and people dismissed them based on body metrics, which I wasn't that convinced by (for the reasons stated above), and nobody was convinced by my lack of being convinced.

Then it ended. :lol:

Well, if you don't have names of cheaper free agent options who possessed enough length/athleticism to play boundary corner in our system, then it really is a moot point.

It's tough to find guys with 33'' arms, a 4.43 40, and a 1.47 10-yard second. Just not many of those type of athletes floating around, the prototype for our system.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^^ All in the Cary Williams thread if you want to pull it up.

IIRC I made these same arguments and people dismissed them based on body metrics, which I wasn't that convinced by (for the reasons stated above), and nobody was convinced by my lack of being convinced.

Then it ended. :lol:

Well, if you don't have names of cheaper free agent options who possessed enough length/athleticism to play boundary corner in our system, then it really is a moot point.

It's tough to find guys with 33'' arms, a 4.43 40, and a 1.47 10-yard second. Just not many of those type of athletes floating around, the prototype for our system.

Yes, as I said in the post you're quoting, as was the case in which this discussion already happened in the Williams thread, I'm less convinced by the applicability of those measurables in the Hawks current wrinkle on the scheme than from several years ago, and it has already been well established that not a lot of people here agree with me on this point.

Also, just to say it, Richard Sherman doesn't meet a single one of the benchmarks you just cited.

 

[hawknation2015]

^^^^ All in the Cary Williams thread if you want to pull it up.

IIRC I made these same arguments and people dismissed them based on body metrics, which I wasn't that convinced by (for the reasons stated above), and nobody was convinced by my lack of being convinced.

Then it ended. :lol:

Well, if you don't have names of cheaper free agent options who possessed enough length/athleticism to play boundary corner in our system, then it really is a moot point.

It's tough to find guys with 33'' arms, a 4.43 40, and a 1.47 10-yard second. Just not many of those type of athletes floating around, the prototype for our system.

Yes, as I said in the post you're quoting, as was the case in which this discussion already happened in the Williams thread, I'm less convinced by the applicability of those measurables in the Hawks current wrinkle on the scheme than from several years ago, and it has already been well established that not a lot of people here agree with me on this point.

Also, just to say it, Richard Sherman doesn't meet a single one of the benchmarks you just cited.

Just to clarify, "33'' arms, a 4.43 40, and a 1.47 10-yard second" is not a benchmark . . . those are just the specific measurables that Williams possesses.

Sherman is a great athlete (123 pSPARQ, 6.82 3-cone) with long arms (32''); that is the prototype.

In his four seasons in Seattle, coach Pete Carroll had drafted according to a prototype, which defensive coordinator Dan Quinn explains here in great detail.

Length: “You want him to have 32- or 33-inch arms,” Quinn says. “He doesn’t have to be 6-3 or 6-4 to have length.”

Press ability/physicality: “You might not get to see him play on the line in college, but does he have the strength to potentially do it?”

Vision: “Can he track the ball? On plays that are down the field, his back is going to be to the ball. Even if you didn’t see when the QB threw it, you have to be able to quickly locate it.”

Ball skills: “Did he play hoops? Sometimes, if a guy played receiver, that can be cool too. For whatever reason it didn’t work out at receiver, he still has to have good ball skills.”

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/06/stanley-j ... rnerbacks/