Our Receivers

Year of The Hawk · Dec 9, 2014

By now it is no secret that our receiving core is not top shelf for this league. But in weird way I like watching it. It is such a rush to see a so called "weak" receiving core grab a clutch 3rd down pass, make a sideline grab, or take the contested ball away. It is like rooting for the underdog. I think all this talk about being pedestrian gives them a chip on there shoulder. Not that I wouldn't like a receiving core of Calvin Johnson's but there is some entertainment value for me. I will admit some ulcers as well but still fun.

SoulfishHawk · Dec 9, 2014

All that talk about the WR's gets real old. This is a running team, period. Sure they could use a big guy who can go up and get it in the red zone etc. But, the media and many fans act like they are horrible, couldn't be more wrong.

Anthony! · Dec 9, 2014

SoulfishHawk":1wx9svm1 said:
All that talk about the WR's gets real old. This is a running team, period. Sure they could use a big guy who can go up and get it in the red zone etc. But, the media and many fans act like they are horrible, couldn't be more wrong.

Not horrible just at best Avg. Our top Wr would be a #3 at best on most good teams. It I our QB that makes them look better than what they are.

SoulfishHawk · Dec 9, 2014

Yet they are winning, and these guy DO make plays. They won the whole damn thing last year with this "average at best" core. Just sayin. And it's not like Russ hasn't been running for his life a good portion of the time.

Anthony! · Dec 9, 2014

8)

SoulfishHawk":aenza03n said:
Yet they are winning, and these guy DO make plays. They won the whole damn thing last year with this "average at best" core. Just sayin. And it's not like Russ hasn't been running for his life a good portion of the time.

All true but again does not change the facts they are at best Avg.

HawkerD · Dec 9, 2014

Actually we had this other guy named Golden Tate who happened to be our #1. Losing him for what ever reason took the WRs down a significant notch. We were significantly better with him (especially on STs)

LOB4UandME · Dec 9, 2014

It's more than us being a running team although that is a lot of it. What PC and JS understand all to well is that you pick your poison. Lots of people lamenting the loss of Tate. We all knew he'd have a big year in Detroit, but he's not winning another ring there. Well not this year anyway. What has turned out so sweet with trading Harvin for essentially nothing, is that with the saving on the cap of his salary next year AND Tates, the reality of re-signing not only RW but KJ and BWags is very likely. Had we kept one or both of them, we're looking for new LB's next year.

The bottom line is they know that there has to be an area on the team where you live on the cheap in this league. PC is all about the ball. That means run more, throw less (take less chances for t.o.'s). Then it's D and finally bad ass special teams.

They have this figured out for real. No chance you're gonna see a 10M a year WR while this Defense is this young and talented. All the $ going to RW and those horses on the Defensive side.

Anthony! · Dec 10, 2014

HawkerD":1n2bmbx6 said:
Actually we had this other guy named Golden Tate who happened to be our #1. Losing him for what ever reason took the WRs down a significant notch. We were significantly better with him (especially on STs)

I agree he was a legit #2 on most good teams, and loosing him hurts.

Anthony! · Dec 10, 2014

LOB4UandME":1gw6tj2b said:
It's more than us being a running team although that is a lot of it. What PC and JS understand all to well is that you pick your poison. Lots of people lamenting the loss of Tate. We all knew he'd have a big year in Detroit, but he's not winning another ring there. Well not this year anyway. What has turned out so sweet with trading Harvin for essentially nothing, is that with the saving on the cap of his salary next year AND Tates, the reality of re-signing not only RW but KJ and BWags is very likely. Had we kept one or both of them, we're looking for new LB's next year.

The bottom line is they know that there has to be an area on the team where you live on the cheap in this league. PC is all about the ball. That means run more, throw less (take less chances for t.o.'s). Then it's D and finally bad ass special teams.

They have this figured out for real. No chance you're gonna see a 10M a year WR while this Defense is this young and talented. All the $ going to RW and those horses on the Defensive side.

That is fine then no one should be complaining about the passing game, or if Rw leaves since he wants to be the best and it is obvious that will not happen here.

onanygivensunday · Dec 10, 2014

Anthony!":3ua04629 said:
That is fine then no one should be complaining about the passing game, or if Rw leaves since he wants to be the best and it is obvious that will not happen here.

Russell is already close to being the best but in a different way... and he's going nowhere.

Rodgers is the best considering all aspects of QB play.

sutz · Dec 10, 2014

Meh. I think most of the whining about 'quality of play' is just fantasy football afficianados wishing they could pick a Seahawk player for their teams. But the Seahawks under the current regime will never have good FF players, with the exception of our defense and maybe Marshawn Lynch. But even ML doesn't get the gaudy stats people want. Our WRs and even RW will have maybe one or two games a season worthy of FF selection.

What I like is we don't put up with a lot of dropsies. It may seem like it to some folks, but our guys generally catch balls thrown their way. I think it is at least partly because they don't get thrown to as much as they would be on other teams and in other systems. Hey, they might only get a couple of targets a game so they better catch it or they'll be sitting. On more prolific passing teams, they can put up with 10% or more drops by a WR because, hey, they'll throw another one to him soon. On our team, that doesn't work.

My stock answer to the people whining that we don't have a "true #1 WR" is that we don't really need one. We need guys who make the catch when you ask them to and can make things happen. The guys we have have been carefully selected and groomed to fit into our system and make it work. I'm OK with that.

Hawks46 · Dec 10, 2014

LOB4UandME":2kjosi0e said:
It's more than us being a running team although that is a lot of it. What PC and JS understand all to well is that you pick your poison. Lots of people lamenting the loss of Tate. We all knew he'd have a big year in Detroit, but he's not winning another ring there. Well not this year anyway. What has turned out so sweet with trading Harvin for essentially nothing, is that with the saving on the cap of his salary next year AND Tates, the reality of re-signing not only RW but KJ and BWags is very likely. Had we kept one or both of them, we're looking for new LB's next year.

The bottom line is they know that there has to be an area on the team where you live on the cheap in this league. PC is all about the ball. That means run more, throw less (take less chances for t.o.'s). Then it's D and finally bad ass special teams.

They have this figured out for real. No chance you're gonna see a 10M a year WR while this Defense is this young and talented. All the $ going to RW and those horses on the Defensive side.

We signed Harvin at 11 mil/year with this defense. All you need is 1 mismatch on one side of the field and it changes the way teams have to play you. If there's someone you have to respect running out there, then you have to roll safety help or do something else imbalanced, and that's when you can find soft spots to attack a defense.

We rarely attack soft spots. We bludgeon a team and create soft spots. We don't have to spend huge money on it, guys like Richardson or Norwood can develop into that. People also seem to forget, Tate was good, but there were large stretches (especially in the playoffs) where he disappeared altogether.

Sarlacc83 · Dec 10, 2014

sutz":18yey0cb said:
Meh. I think most of the whining about 'quality of play' is just fantasy football afficianados wishing they could pick a Seahawk player for their teams. But the Seahawks under the current regime will never have good FF players, with the exception of our defense and maybe Marshawn Lynch. But even ML doesn't get the gaudy stats people want. Our WRs and even RW will have maybe one or two games a season worthy of FF selection.

What I like is we don't put up with a lot of dropsies. It may seem like it to some folks, but our guys generally catch balls thrown their way. I think it is at least partly because they don't get thrown to as much as they would be on other teams and in other systems. Hey, they might only get a couple of targets a game so they better catch it or they'll be sitting. On more prolific passing teams, they can put up with 10% or more drops by a WR because, hey, they'll throw another one to him soon. On our team, that doesn't work.

My stock answer to the people whining that we don't have a "true #1 WR" is that we don't really need one. We need guys who make the catch when you ask them to and can make things happen. The guys we have have been carefully selected and groomed to fit into our system and make it work. I'm OK with that.

Ah, the fantasy player put down - the dismissive stock answer meant to shut down a conversation. It's intellectual arrogance and wrong in the face of reality. Seattle needs a big receiver especially in the red zone and on blitzes. They do need an unselfish WR (or TE) but they still want that 'guy', and fans are right to want one, too. Which is why Pete and John have tried to find one with the resources they have at their disposal.

sutz · Dec 10, 2014

Sarlacc83":tbyufcf1 said:
sutz":tbyufcf1 said:

Meh. I think most of the whining about 'quality of play' is just fantasy football afficianados wishing they could pick a Seahawk player for their teams. But the Seahawks under the current regime will never have good FF players, with the exception of our defense and maybe Marshawn Lynch. But even ML doesn't get the gaudy stats people want. Our WRs and even RW will have maybe one or two games a season worthy of FF selection.

What I like is we don't put up with a lot of dropsies. It may seem like it to some folks, but our guys generally catch balls thrown their way. I think it is at least partly because they don't get thrown to as much as they would be on other teams and in other systems. Hey, they might only get a couple of targets a game so they better catch it or they'll be sitting. On more prolific passing teams, they can put up with 10% or more drops by a WR because, hey, they'll throw another one to him soon. On our team, that doesn't work.

My stock answer to the people whining that we don't have a "true #1 WR" is that we don't really need one. We need guys who make the catch when you ask them to and can make things happen. The guys we have have been carefully selected and groomed to fit into our system and make it work. I'm OK with that.

Click to expand...

Ah, the fantasy player put down - the dismissive stock answer meant to shut down a conversation. It's intellectual arrogance and wrong in the face of reality. Seattle needs a big receiver especially in the red zone and on blitzes. They do need an unselfish WR (or TE) but they still want that 'guy', and fans are right to want one, too. Which is why Pete and John have tried to find one with the resources they have at their disposal.

I guess we define 'need' differently. We won a SB basically without a "true #1 WR." We're currently 9-4 without a 'true #1 WR' and looking pretty good overall for a solid playoff run. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we could find that 6'-4" guy with great hands for a red zone target, and the team has been looking for him since Pete & John got here. But we've had success without 'that guy' and I suspect we'll continue to have success, regardless if we find that true #1 WR, whatever that means.

The reality of it that yes, P&J will continue to look for big, talented WRs to complement the team. That falls under the mantle of good drafting, but it's not a do or die issue for us. And they certainly aren't looking for a WR to be the 'focus' of the offense. That would be the abandoning of our core strategy and I don't see it happening under Pete.

Spin Doctor · Dec 10, 2014

Anthony!":c511eqlc said:
HawkerD":c511eqlc said:

Actually we had this other guy named Golden Tate who happened to be our #1. Losing him for what ever reason took the WRs down a significant notch. We were significantly better with him (especially on STs)

Click to expand...

I agree he was a legit #2 on most good teams, and loosing him hurts.

Except he's playing like a legitimate number 1 right now.....

tdlabrie · Dec 10, 2014

Well, I don't care what anybody says... I really, really like ADB. I don't know if he gets separation or not, because it's not on the camera; and even if he does get separation, it doesn't mean RW will target him. But what I do see on camera is Doug making some really incredible, really clutch catches. Is he a #1? No, not by traditional evaluation; and, given different personnel he would make a better slot receiver, a la Bobby Engram, one of my all-time favorites. Do we need a burner from the draft or free agency? Sure we do. Lockette is fast but not a good enough catcher to really threaten; Kearse is a really good catcher, but not fast enough. I'm sure PC/JS already have a plan in mind. But until then, let's quit bashing our receivers and start appreciating what we have.

Sarlacc83 · Dec 10, 2014

sutz":isw5axrn said:
Sarlacc83":isw5axrn said:

sutz":isw5axrn said:

Meh. I think most of the whining about 'quality of play' is just fantasy football afficianados wishing they could pick a Seahawk player for their teams. But the Seahawks under the current regime will never have good FF players, with the exception of our defense and maybe Marshawn Lynch. But even ML doesn't get the gaudy stats people want. Our WRs and even RW will have maybe one or two games a season worthy of FF selection.

What I like is we don't put up with a lot of dropsies. It may seem like it to some folks, but our guys generally catch balls thrown their way. I think it is at least partly because they don't get thrown to as much as they would be on other teams and in other systems. Hey, they might only get a couple of targets a game so they better catch it or they'll be sitting. On more prolific passing teams, they can put up with 10% or more drops by a WR because, hey, they'll throw another one to him soon. On our team, that doesn't work.

My stock answer to the people whining that we don't have a "true #1 WR" is that we don't really need one. We need guys who make the catch when you ask them to and can make things happen. The guys we have have been carefully selected and groomed to fit into our system and make it work. I'm OK with that.

Click to expand...

Ah, the fantasy player put down - the dismissive stock answer meant to shut down a conversation. It's intellectual arrogance and wrong in the face of reality. Seattle needs a big receiver especially in the red zone and on blitzes. They do need an unselfish WR (or TE) but they still want that 'guy', and fans are right to want one, too. Which is why Pete and John have tried to find one with the resources they have at their disposal.

Click to expand...

I guess we define 'need' differently. We won a SB basically without a "true #1 WR." We're currently 9-4 without a 'true #1 WR' and looking pretty good overall for a solid playoff run. Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we could find that 6'-4" guy with great hands for a red zone target, and the team has been looking for him since Pete & John got here. But we've had success without 'that guy' and I suspect we'll continue to have success, regardless if we find that true #1 WR, whatever that means.

The reality of it that yes, P&J will continue to look for big, talented WRs to complement the team. That falls under the mantle of good drafting, but it's not a do or die issue for us. And they certainly aren't looking for a WR to be the 'focus' of the offense. That would be the abandoning of our core strategy and I don't see it happening under Pete.

I consider it a need more from the standpoint of Russell's continued growth. Most of the great modern QBs have had 'their guy'.

Sgt. Largent · Dec 10, 2014

HawkerD":26tcmbdg said:
Actually we had this other guy named Golden Tate who happened to be our #1. Losing him for what ever reason took the WRs down a significant notch. We were significantly better with him (especially on STs)

Whatever reason = didn't want to spend 5-8M a year on a receiver that only catches 50 balls in this offense.

We all loved Golden, and oh boy do we miss him catching balls and returning punts. But I can't blame Pete and John for not matching Detroit's offer. Just not a wise use of cap space with so many needs to fill and guys to sign.

lobohawk · Dec 10, 2014

It's pretty obvious that we don't have a game changer at WR that many teams have (e.g. Green, Jones, Bryant, Marshall, Johnson, etc). These guys can elevate a QB's play just by being on the field.

Without looking at coach's tape or being in the org, it's hard to call out specifically how the WRs might be lacking. Are the plays built to work in a particular situation? Is blocking adequate enough? Can the QB throw in rhythm, with accuracy while making the right read?

Pretty sure the the WRs are good and can get the job done. There are too many factors in play to say they aren't good enough, or the OL stinks, or the QB can't do it.

The only thing you can definitively say is that we don't have a true game changer at WR. A WR that forces most defenses to gameplan against. The only way we will ever have one is via a steal in the draft, because they are usually too pricey. The Hawks focus their money on the running game and defense.

jlwaters1 · Dec 10, 2014

I'm excited for the development of Richardson and Norwood. I think they'll be solid players next year. I just wish Wilson would pull the trigger more often like he did in 2012/2013. He took more chances and made more big plays because he trusted his WR to make the plays. This year he hasn't had that kind of trust. There were a few plays where multiple WR's were open by NFL standards and he decided to dance around instead of make the throw.

There were 2 plays-- 1 to Richardson, 1- Lockette, If he throws it properly it's a much bigger play/gain. Lockette's play should have been a TD with a better pass. Richardson, should have have 10+ more yards on his, if it was throw out in front of him more. Those were great plays, but could have been spectacular plays.

I think people misinterpret the desires of PC. He wants a BALANCED Attack. He wants as close to 50/50 between pass/ run. Which nowadays is "run heavy" Once we get the lead then we go into burn the clock mode and we pound it down their throat. I like this strategy.

Our Receivers

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads