The case for retaining bobby

[SantaClaraHawk]

He made 2nd team all pro last year, whereas Jordyn, his replacement, did not and has not. 3.5 sacks and 96 solo tackles. If he were five years younger we would, right? Well the point is he’s still playing better than those five years younger FAs who will probably cost three times as much, and rookies usually dont Instantly start.

 

[DirectMessage]

It's not like his 5.5 million has much impact of the Seahawks budget if they bring him back. Was he blocking anyone in the lineup? Devin Bush seems kind of small to be playing LB, tbh. There doesn't appear to be much on the FA market this year.

 

[JPatera76]

Brooks even with 2 games injured vs bobby in 2023 didnt do bad however he's not and wasn't Bobby's replacement, he was KJ's and is doing exactly what KJ was.
2023: 3.5 Sacks 96 solo Tackles per your post and pff for bobby
2023: 4.5 Sacks 62 Solo tackles and 1 Forced Fumble for Brooks.

But the comparisons stop there as they weren't used the same either.

Claiming Brooks as bobby's replacement. I don't think i've ever heard a coach or anyone say that. Pure speculation. Otherwise why weren't people saying KJ (Who Brooks was the replacement for) was Bobby's replacement.

KJ Wrights 2020 Season stats (last season with Seattle)
2020: 2 Sacks 60 Solo Tackles 1 Interception, 1 forced fumble.

As of right now Brooks is on Pace to be identical stat wise to KJ just slightly better. IF he doesn't get injured too much. IMO Brooks wasn't worth the 27th overall pick seeing the comparisons between KJ And Him. But I also think that Bobby did/does better when he's playing with a stable LB by his side i.e. Brooks and KJ.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

Ok, sincere question, then who was Bobby’s replacement?

 

[Hipflexor]

As much as it pains me, because I love the guy and think he’s the greatest Seahawk of all time. I do not want him back, Watching him struggle to get to a hook a few yards back was painful, and the rams took advantage of it all day.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Ok, sincere question, then who was Bobby’s replacement?

That is a good question, and Seahawks need an answer for it.

They tried it with Brooks when Bobby was with the Rams and he struggled (I honestly think it's hard to ascertain how much was on Brooks and how much was it the new defensive scheme), so I doubt they would try Brooks again next season if Bobby is gone.

I don't follow college ball basically at all, but Junior Colson I believe was the Mike at Michigan, so we could draft Bobby's replacement.

-

The case for retaining Bobby will have nothing to do with Brooks, really. The case for retaining Bobby is if Macdonald and/or Schneider value the leadership and mentorship abilities he brings to the table enough to retain him and if he is willing to accept a reduced on-field role (and the commensurate drop in pay that would go along with it).

 

[flv2]

Another viewing of the 3rd quarter of the Seahawks do-or-die Week 18 game against the Cardinals should settle the matter. At best he's a $2M depth chart player now.

 

[SonicHawk]

Bobby played a big part in how bad our passing defense was. He is a liability in coverage. How many times do I have to watch the back of his jersey on crossing routes?

 

[Seahawker]

Not having a second rounder really limits us in finding Wagner's replacement. With so many holes, this is why I'm against going all in on a QB. This rebuild, or mini reset will take two years to get us back up to snuff in the division.
Better to let the QB come to you after most the pieces are in place and this team has formed an identity. If John is unable to trade down from 16 or trade a player for picks, this draft will be morphine worthy painful to watch from #17 to our first pick in the 3rd.

This is in part why I have spent so little time delving into this draft. I don't want to waste my time just to cause myself more pain. This is John's deal.
Wagz was drafted #47, and I'd keep him one more year if it don't break the bank.

 

[xray]

He's not really old ; but he has been on the field a whole lot over the years . He's wearing down at this point .

 

[Seahawker]

He's not really old ; but he has been on the field a whole lot over the years . He's wearing down at this point .

Yes, that's why you put a couple of legit DT's in front of the slightly fading all pro and scheme the younger LBers in coverage.
I think Bobby held up ADMIRABLY considering the dog crap that defense had on its cleats last year. I mean really.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

Another viewing of the 3rd quarter of the Seahawks do-or-die Week 18 game against the Cardinals should settle the matter. At best he's a $2M depth chart player now.

I mean, lots of teams will pick him up at 2m. Keeping him at least at 4 will ensure stability and mentorship Of any potential replacements.

 

[JPatera76]

Another viewing of the 3rd quarter of the Seahawks do-or-die Week 18 game against the Cardinals should settle the matter. At best he's a $2M depth chart player now.

In all fairness brooks "reinjured" (dont think he was 100% tbh) iirc his ankle during the cardinals game. He missed the week before due to the ankle injury.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Yes, that's why you put a couple of legit DT's in front of the slightly fading all pro and scheme the younger LBers in coverage.
I think Bobby held up ADMIRABLY considering the dog crap that defense had on its cleats last year. I mean really.

It's not really fair to require everyone else do more because Bobby can't and then act like the problem isn't on Bobby at all.

He was a liability in pass obvious situations. He was targeted. No pass rush is going to save you if the QB already knows the exact spot on the field he's going to throw the ball because his OC has schemed an attack against our Mike LB that he knows Wagner can't cover.

Every QB (and backup QB) in the league can dissect a defense if they literally only have to read 1 player at all times. Bobby was a major part of the reason we couldn't get off the field on 3rd and mid.

Bobby was good in neutral situations but a liability in pass situations. I want to keep him for his leadership, mentorship, sure tackling, and knowledge of the game. But I would not want him to be our starting Mike LB next year.

 

[kidhawk]

Ok, sincere question, then who was Bobby’s replacement?

I believe they tried to fill the spot with Cody Barton. That experiment was a total failure IMO. Brooks not having a Bobby makes him so much better. 2021 and 2023 with Bobby calling the plays on defense and Brooks excelled. In 2022 when Bobby was with the Rams rooks looked like he lost a step. Brooks is an amazing athlete but he isn’t an on the field general, he’s a point and shoot kind of guy. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as teams realize that he can be a great asset.

 

[kidhawk]

It's not really fair to require everyone else do more because Bobby can't and then act like the problem isn't on Bobby at all.

He was a liability in pass obvious situations. He was targeted. No pass rush is going to save you if the QB already knows the exact spot on the field he's going to throw the ball because his OC has schemed an attack against our Mike LB that he knows Wagner can't cover.

Every QB (and backup QB) in the league can dissect a defense if they literally only have to read 1 player at all times. Bobby was a major part of the reason we couldn't get off the field on 3rd and mid.

Bobby was good in neutral situations but a liability in pass situations. I want to keep him for his leadership, mentorship, sure tackling, and knowledge of the game. But I would not want him to be our starting Mike LB next year.

the problem with Bobby in coverage can be fixed with scheme and planning. Dropping a guy with his talents because coaches didn’t use them properly, especially when his price is minimal would be crazy stupid. People who know a lot more football than those of us in this thread made him a 2nd team all pro. Personally, I believe in the new coaches being able to find new and inventive ways of game planning to players strengths. If a qb thinks Bobby is a weakness and targeting the middle then being a safety to help there. It doesn’t always need to be the LB responsibility. This is just one way to scheme around it. With that we can see a lot of success with Bobby on this team. Add in the fact that we don’t have tons of cap room and keeping Bobby for now makes a ton of sense. Trying to replace him with someone as good or better will cost either a large chunk of cash or draft capital. Both of which can be used to help us improve in areas of bigger weakness.

 

[DarkVictory23]

the problem with Bobby in coverage can be fixed with scheme and planning. Dropping a guy with his talents because coaches didn’t use them properly, especially when his price is minimal would be crazy stupid. People who know a lot more football than those of us in this thread made him a 2nd team all pro. Personally, I believe in the new coaches being able to find new and inventive ways of game planning to players strengths. If a qb thinks Bobby is a weakness and targeting the middle then being a safety to help there. It doesn’t always need to be the LB responsibility. This is just one way to scheme around it. With that we can see a lot of success with Bobby on this team. Add in the fact that we don’t have tons of cap room and keeping Bobby for now makes a ton of sense. Trying to replace him with someone as good or better will cost either a large chunk of cash or draft capital. Both of which can be used to help us improve in areas of bigger weakness.

I want to keep Bobby. I didn't say dump him.

He just can't be our starting MLB because you can't just scheme and plan your way around a starting MLB who can't drop into coverage in 3rd and mid-range situations. There is no amount of scheming you can do to hide those liabilities if the guy can't be put on the bench because he's your green dot.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

Right, but I think we need to give him an offer that’s maybe a bit high.

 

[Chukarhawk]

he doesn't fit the system, can't cover. he's gone.

 

[kidhawk]

I want to keep Bobby. I didn't say dump him.

He just can't be our starting MLB because you can't just scheme and plan your way around a starting MLB who can't drop into coverage in 3rd and mid-range situations. There is no amount of scheming you can do to hide those liabilities if the guy can't be put on the bench because he's your green dot.

I think you underestimate an NFL coaching staffs ability to scheme to the players’ strengths. I just gave one example of how it can be done and a great NFL mind could come up with a dozen more easily sure. If that means giving the green dot to someone else then so be it but I still think he’ll end up staying on the field more often than some may think.