Kam at LB?

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:32 am
  • ensett wrote:We should just end all these Fitzgerald fantasies and move Sherman to WR. Its been 2 years and he hasnt made the pro bowl at CB so i think its time we try something new with him!


    While we're at it, we might as well move John Moffitt to his natural position.

    Which is a Hooter's waitress.

    Image
    Image
    User avatar
    Winterfell
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 128
    Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
    Location: The Wall


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:43 am
  • oldhawkfan wrote:just armchair coaches and GMs spouting their opinions

    As far as I've heard, it's just this^
    Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


    2013 Adopt-a-rookie: #humblethug
    2014 Adopt-a-rookie: Kevin Norwood
    User avatar
    razgriz737
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Spokane/Seattle


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:53 am
  • We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.
    User avatar
    amill87
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1350
    Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:35 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:03 pm
  • i could see it situationally as well.. but hopefully we replace Hill with a more than capable pass covering LB...
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4053
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:55 pm
  • sainthawk29 wrote:There were rumblings last year. When JS said he wanted Mark Barron in the draft.


    Yup apples and oranges though, Barron was such a talented player that had he fallen to the Hawks they would take him just because they had him rated so highly. I think that had more to do with the team seeing Barron as a future All-Pro at safety then it did as any dissatisfaction with Chancellor.

    Chancellor could be better against the pass but the Seahawk's scheme does a lot of things which allow him to play underneath and in the box (which are his strengths).
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1155
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:14 pm
  • amill87 wrote:We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.


    I must have posted that quote ten times in the past week.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:30 pm
  • While it's true that JS admitted He had Barron and Keuchly as the only D players above Irvin, it's not necessarily true that he WOULD have taken him, but that is what was implied. Even so, I don't understand how you guys act like you know everything in your infinite wisdom. Is it likely to happen? NO. Is it possible? Definately, given JS's remarks.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1462
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:37 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:Changing a player's starting position is reserved for ineffective players at their current position. Prime examples being Red Bryant as a DT and JR Sweezy at DT.

    Not a discussion for all-pros or pro-bowl caliber players, unless you play too much Madden or FF.



    Ehhh....UNGER can play at guard and center if needed!

    Percy Harvin could start at RB if needed actually...


    Would say in this NFL if you can get another DB on the field to cover a "move TE". Or jam him of the line in obvious passing downs? Why not?
    zayden185
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 599
    Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:39 pm
  • In fact...you can have roster flexibility and by having flexible players as far as multiple positions? Salary cap and depth!! Get game time reps as well if possible...disguise coverages? If say why not?
    zayden185
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 599
    Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:50 pm
  • zayden185 wrote:In fact...you can have roster flexibility and by having flexible players as far as multiple positions? Salary cap and depth!! Get game time reps as well if possible...disguise coverages? If say why not?



    Having players who can play other positions in a pinch is a good thing, it adds to the depth of the team, but that's a far cry from moving players out of their position to see if it will work
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13993
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:59 pm
  • zayden185 wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:Changing a player's starting position is reserved for ineffective players at their current position. Prime examples being Red Bryant as a DT and JR Sweezy at DT.

    Not a discussion for all-pros or pro-bowl caliber players, unless you play too much Madden or FF.



    Ehhh....UNGER can play at guard and center if needed!

    Percy Harvin could start at RB if needed actually...


    Would say in this NFL if you can get another DB on the field to cover a "move TE". Or jam him of the line in obvious passing downs? Why not?


    Unger IS our starting center (And an all-pro), and that is where he is needed and serves our team best. He ain't moving either. Carpenter, Moffit, Sweezy and McQuisten are all going to take over at guard before you would move Unger out of desperation. You're scenario is injury based, not which player should start at "X" position 1st string.

    This FO has done a pretty bang up job finding LBs, no need to switch a pro-bowler like Kam when you know how to draft LBs.

    Seriously, just leave our best players at their native positions.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:01 pm
  • Kam got his first defensive snaps basically playing LB when we ran the bandit package in passing situations. The bandit was a 6-7 DB formation designed to create a variety of blitzing opportunities while leaving fewer liabilities in coverage than the usual blitz. We didn't have the DB depth or the offense to make this a staple back then, but it still offered a role which Kam played well enough to become the starting SS. If our pass rush still isn't there, Kam COULD play a similar position if this is the route we go for addressing the issue, even if only in certain situations.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:07 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:Kam got his first defensive snaps basically playing LB when we ran the bandit package in passing situations. The bandit was a 6-7 DB formation designed to create a variety of blitzing opportunities while leaving fewer liabilities in coverage than the usual blitz. We didn't have the DB depth or the offense to make this a staple back then, but it still offered a role which Kam played well enough to become the starting SS. If our pass rush still isn't there, Kam COULD play a similar position if this is the route we go for addressing the issue, even if only in certain situations.


    The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13993
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:07 pm
  • amill87 wrote:We need a giant banner somewhere at the top of the site with the quote from Schneider saying they try not to move pro bowl players to another position so this stuff doesn't come up.


    The quote you're referring to is about changing players' positions on a full-time basis.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:08 pm
  • I swear to God I'm starting to miss the QB controversy already :roll:
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13993
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:14 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:I swear to God I'm starting to miss the QB controversy already :roll:


    HAHAHAHA. True. I need the draft talk to heat up. But with my luck it will be about finding a CB so Browner can move to SS and Kam can switch to LB because it worked in Madden.

    That reminds me. We should switch Irvin to WR. Look how well it COULD work!!!

    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:26 pm
  • not confident on his ability to take on o-linemen on an every down basis.
    User avatar
    GeorgeKush
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 202
    Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:39 am
    Location: big black hawk


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:29 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB


    That's just a difference in semantics. You're basically saying if a SS lines up at LB, he's still a SS, but I think of Kam as a LB when he lines up at LB. I'm happy to debate but this one seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:34 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:The bandit is a defense with More DBs and less LBs on the field. The defense is played differently than the standard defense would be, so Kam isn't playing LB in that defense, he's still playing Safety. Playing a Bandit defense when it's called for is NOT the same as moving a safety to LB


    That's just a difference in semantics. You're basically saying if a SS lines up at LB, he's still a SS, but I think of Kam as a LB when he lines up at LB. I'm happy to debate but this one seems a bit silly, now doesn't it?


    Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13993
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:42 pm
  • skater18000 wrote:
    jlwaters1 wrote:dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


    Winston Guy.


    Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

    Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:08 pm
  • kidhawk wrote:Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


    That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

    However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:23 pm
  • McGruff wrote:Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

    Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


    Revis is the top CB in his conference and even he gets moved inside to cover guys like Welker. If we don't move a versatile player around, it's for a better reason than "You just don't do it".
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:24 pm
  • I don't understand why we can't have sub packages that include rotating in a different SS. We rotate in different DE's and DT's depending on the situation to take advantage of their diverse skillsets, so why not do the same for the secondary? Kam is a BEAST in run support, but has shown a little bit of a chink in the armor in pass coverage. Red Bryant and Allan Branch are beasts in run support but aren't so hot at rushing the passer so we rotate them out on passing downs in favor of Bruce Irvin and Jason Jones who can get the job done better. Nothing wrong with putting the best skillsets on the field in the best positions to take advantage of them in a given scenario.

    If we're going to run that press man with the 2 safties playing deep zones over the top, what's wrong with rotating in a SS who's a little better in coverage like Jeron Johnson and having Kam move down to nickel LB with Bobby Wagner? Hell, I thought that was why we drafted Mark Legree; to have two ball hawks over the top in passing situations. Kam's not quite a big enough thumper to go down and play Will on every play. I think a lot of what makes Kam "Bam Bam Kam" would be lost if he's just a regular every down linebacker taking on fullbacks and guards every play, but if he were to roll down and play Will or something in obvious passing situations, he'd be a big improvement in coverage over a standard LB and Jeron Johnson (or a FA or a rookie or whoever) could be an improvement over Kam in that deep zone.

    I see nothing wrong with moving people around situationally to take advantage of their skillsets given the scenario. ...but I also see nothing wrong with leaving Kam exactly where he is because he's not exactly a liability back there either.
    Last edited by CANHawk on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:24 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


    That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

    However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."


    Kid is right and you are wrong. The Bandit is a very specific package used for very specific purposes, and the role Kam played within it has little in common with a tradition 4-3 WSLB role.

    Bottom line is that Kam went to the pro bowl as a SS, was an alternate this year in a season in which he played injured, and while he can and will be used situationally in bandit tpe packages, the thought of using as a regular linebacker is fan fabricated and ludicrous.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:26 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
    McGruff wrote:Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

    Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


    Revis is the top CB in his conference and even he gets moved inside to cover guys like Welker. If we don't move a versatile player around, it's for a better reason than "You just don't do it".


    Moving a corner inside is significantly less radical than switching from the back safety to linebacker . . . Sure, in situational packages Kam can and does play an in the box role . . . But that should and will continue to be the exception.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:28 pm
  • We do move Kam and others around situationally. That's not the question being asked, though, and if it is it is a dumb question considering we already do it.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:36 pm
  • BirdsCommaAngry wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Not really, because talking Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense and Kam playing in the Bandit Defense are two different discussions. This thread started discussing playing Kam at the 4-3 Linebacker position. Playing 5, 6 or 7 DB's is not even close to the same thing


    That's just a difference in interpretation. The OP put up a very open thread title and asked specifically if there was any validity to whatever speculation he heard about moving Kam around with him going to WLB and JJ going to SS in our base set or Kam taking up a role closer to the LoS with a extra DB coming in. The latter is the role Kam filled during his days as a situational guy in the bandit package and while the overall formation is different and the personnel he's playing with have largely changed, the hypothetical "Kam at LB" role is more than similar enough to be a part of this topic (and it should be one of the focal points of any conversations about that kind of move IMO).

    However, if you're going to get on me for stepping outside what you interpret to be the confides of the discussion, then why don't you take that very literal interpretation toward the guys who are poking fun at this thread and the threads like it as well? They aren't talking about Kam at LB in a standard 4-3 defense when they say their version of "*Sigh* it must be the off-season..."


    If Kam is already moving to what you call a situational LB, then there isn't really a discussion to be had as to whether Kam should be moved to a situational LB because he already is one by your own definition.

    The main discussion, as i see it here, is the annual discussion amongst Seahawks fans about switching Kam to a full time LB in our base 4-3 defense.

    It didn't matter his first year because he wasn't a starter in our base 4-3. He wasn't established yet.

    His second year it was intriguing but he ended up playing at a pro-bowl level, at SS. To me, that's the end of the debate. It's hard enough getting players to play their native positions at a pro-bowl level and makes absolutely no sense to switch a person's native position in that scenario. If you brought in a SS that was that much better, like an all-pro SS, you might be able to convince me. But bringing in say Revis (not going to happen) to be a CB does not convince me to move Browner to SS and Kam to LB, it convinces me to explore your options with Browner alone. These guys aren't rookies or slowing down yet. I don't need to explore my options or wait for them to develop at a new position when they are already playing at a high level and continuing to develop at a high level at their native position.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:41 pm
  • Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
    Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

    Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

    My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

    I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

    Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

    Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1890
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:50 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
    Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

    Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

    My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

    I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

    Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

    Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package


    Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

    Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule. Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

    If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:02 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:Players change positions all the time. mRob was a QB, Sweezy and the list goes on. look at guys like Tebow...maybe not the best example. Last winter Kam worked out at Linebacker.
    Players as they get older tend to get bigger, and Kam is already linebacker size. He was out of position at times this year and is the slowest DB we start already. As the game changes so do roles and responsibilities

    Don't discount PCs influences. He saw the great Ronnie Lott moved from corner to SS at year 3. he was all-pro at both. In reality Lott was playing a combination SS/LB based on the play. I think he would like to do a similar role with Kam.

    My gut feeing is with the run game as discounted as it is we are seeing a lot of non classical defenses. 3-4 teams have already implied that they are looking at the pistol next year. When change occurs the defenses change accordingly.

    I see Pete & Co. going to variations off the Bandit that are similar to the 46 , but not like that used by the Jets, to combat the pistol. Strong edge pressure and quick LB linebackers filling throwing lanes or running lanes

    Look at some of the old bill Wash videos and see how he played the DBs. People I suspect when they think of the old Bill Walsh teams think of Offense first. When PC was there the D was ranked 1-3 he is a far better defensive coach than I think many realize and give the accolades his assistants. Make no mistake PC is a guru, especially with defensive backs.

    Defenses change often every 2 or 3 plays the idea of a base defense is really just the basic package


    Corner to safety is a very natural and common progression. It greatly extended the careers and productive years of Rod Woodson and Ronde Barber (and those are just two guys off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more) and they have been pro bowlers at both positions. Lol, Champ Bailey might play another 15 years if he moves to safety!

    I could potentially see Kam moving to a full time LB as he gets older and loses a step speed wise (not that he's exactly blazing fast to start with), but I don't think it's necessary now. If a blue chip, all world, possible HOF candidate SS falls to us in the draft then it's absolutely an avenue we could explore, but I don't see SS as a need right now.

    And you're right on the money, Pete is going to be at the head of the pack when it comes to combating the pistol and the spread option offenses. He's a total mad scientist.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:04 pm
  • The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1890
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:12 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

    Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule - Rod Woodson, Ronde Barber, Charles Woodson.... Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

    If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.


    There's only 8 safties in the HOF and 3 of them started out as corners. Ronde will likely be in ASAP too so that's 4 of 9. It's more common than you'd think...
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:25 pm
  • CANHawk wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:
    Stick with Lott for your example. That is a much sounder argument. MRob was never a pro bowl QB (but he thrived at FB). Sweezy was not going to play in the NFL as on D, but hes a starter on Oline.

    Lott. Now that is an intriguing argument. As he was an all-pro corner before becoming a all-pro safety. Without dismissing any of this, Lott was one of the best football players to play the game and i think hes the exception rather than the rule - Rod Woodson, Ronde Barber, Charles Woodson.... Not to mention he played in the pre salary cap/ free agency era and teams with deep pockets had no problem keeping their top talent.

    If we could bring in any player we wanted with Paul Allen's money, by all means my beliefs go out the window.


    There's only 8 safties in the HOF and 3 of them started out as corners. Ronde will likely be in ASAP too so that's 4 of 9. It's more common than you'd think...


    I still think Lott is the exception, because those players played a lot longer at CB than Lott did. Like you said, they did it to extend their careers. Barber was never as good at Safety as he was at CB. Prime Time played at nickel for the Ravens, but that was at the end of his career and no one is going to say he was HOF worthy there. Both Woodson's switched teams. If Kam went somewhere else, i would be open to the discussion of switching him because he was a pro-bowler under our scheme.

    Kam is still pretty young. If he wanted to switch when he got older, thats a different discussion in my opinion. I think his best years at safety are still in front of him.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:28 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    He's on the field quite a lot as it is. Not complaining, but not sure you want to do too much more and not risk fatigue. Need to keep that in balance.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:29 pm
  • Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:31 pm
  • McGruff wrote:
    Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.


    JJ and Guy are young and need experience, but as the overall talent level grows on our team, the chances for the younger players to make a difference diminish. They're going to really need to show it on ST and sub-packages. It was easier for Kam to get on the field as a rookie to show what he can do when you look at the roster we had.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3352
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:33 pm
  • McGruff wrote:We do move Kam and others around situationally. That's not the question being asked, though, and if it is it is a dumb question considering we already do it.


    It's not a dumb question. It's a question that puts a person in a position where they have to measure trading a known value versus an unknown/lesser known value and it's an uncanny exercise in reasoning given our human nature to resist giving up anything. In this case, the known value is the perceived role and effect of Kam at SS and the unknown value is the result of changing that role to involve more play from the WLB or a WLB style position. You see it as not necessarily a dumb question but mainly a simplistic question because you're more familiar with what Kam does and the idea of moving him around is either nearly identical to what he's been doing well or it's just a subtle expansion on what he's been doing well. To you it's not radical in the slightest unless we're talking about a full-time position change, which I'd be cautious against as well.

    However, there are likely people on this forum that may not have that level of reasoning and having a seemingly simple question imposed like "Kam at LB?" hashed out in front of them with a degree of detail from a variety of people will help them expand upon their level of reasoning (if they allow it to). That or people are just going to roll their eyes and carry on about their business. Anyhow, *sigh* it's the off-season etc etc...
    Last edited by BirdsCommaAngry on Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    BirdsCommaAngry
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:25 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:38 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    McGruff wrote:
    Happypuppy wrote:The question is if we agree he is a Pro Bowl level talent how to keep him on the field for more plays? He can't move back he is too slow slow and we have 3 excellent talent there. The only place to move him in my mind is take the place of the weak side LB. Then add another faster player (JJ or Guy) to fill the SS spot

    I am not considering this a base defense , but an often used variant of the base but not Bandit


    But JJ and Guy suck.


    JJ and Guy are young and need experience, but as the overall talent level grows on our team, the chances for the younger players to make a difference diminish. They're going to really need to show it on ST and sub-packages. It was easier for Kam to get on the field as a rookie to show what he can do when you look at the roster we had.


    The difference is Kam actually looked good when given opportunity. Guy in particular as looked like a gassy skunk in a trash heap.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: Kam at LB?
Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:53 pm
  • The Seahawks have moved players before. Red Bryant moved from DT to DE. Several of the Seahawks players played different positions before settling into their current roles. Clemons was a LB. JR Sweezy was a DT in college. Irvin was a safety in high school and early on at college. Evan Moore was a WR. Richard Sherman was a WR. Golden Tate was a RB in high school. Our pro-bowl fullback was a Heisman nominated QB in college... etc.

    Now, I get that none of those players were pro-bowlers at their positions before being moved (although Clemons (in Oakland) was close). But I think a lot of the snark in this thread regarding Chancellor's options reflects not only ignorance of this regime's philosophy and values (always looking to get better at every position, valuing players that can play multiple positions, etc), but that mindset also displays an ironic closemindedness, the exact opposite of the kind of thinking that put the Seahawks on the map in the first place.

    Of course, people like to cite the JS quote about not moving pro-bowlers, while forgetting that he said that during the peak of lying season. I thought he was bullshitting then to cover his ass (like any GM would), and to his credit he may as well have admitted as much after the draft when he confessed that safety Mark Barron was a top target at #12.

    As far as Chancellor himself, the status quo is acceptable, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we thought there wasn't room for optimizing. Chancellor the "8 in the box enforcer" is a badass. Chancellor the deep safety coverage helper, not so much. Seattle likes to show different looks on defense and sometimes that means Earl and Kam switch jobs for a play. In a true Tampa 2 defense, the safeties are supposed to be interchangeable. Remember when Sherman got "burned" by Roddy White in the playoffs for a long TD? That wasn't on Sherman, that was on Chancellor for having limited ability as a coverage helper. He basically has the coverage ability of a fast linebacker.

    Chancellor is already a very good linebacker who lines up at safety. If Seattle felt they could find another safety that was interchangeable with Earl Thomas (as Mark Barron was), then that player is a high priority (Jeron Johnson isn't that guy, lol). Then the question of what to do with Chancellor comes up. He'd make an outstanding outside linebacker, and would be a huge upgrade over Jeron Johnson as the big nickle safety.

    That doesn't mean that Chancellor's move is imminent. It just means that it's one of the options that's on the table if the right situation arises (like Mark Barron last year). Whatever our coach does, it will be to make this defense even better. I suspect we'll see the team draft a LB instead of another safety simply because good linebackers are far more common than Earl Thomas type safeties. In the case of Barron, they were preparing for a scenario where they'd have access to a very rare type of player, and in that scenario moving Chancellor was a no brainer. I'm not really expecting that scenario to come up again any time soon.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11218
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:10 am
  • ^Word to Big Bird.

    Chancellor is already a very good linebacker who lines up at safety. If Seattle felt they could find another safety that was interchangeable with Earl Thomas (as Mark Barron was), then that player is a high priority (Jeron Johnson isn't that guy, lol). Then the question of what to do with Chancellor comes up. He'd make an outstanding outside linebacker, and would be a huge upgrade over Jeron Johnson as the big nickle safety.


    This right here is why I was so bummed that Mark Legree didn't pan out. 2 ball hawks over the top with Kam and Bobby as nickel LB's would be all kinds of bad ass.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:30 am
  • McGruff wrote:
    skater18000 wrote:
    jlwaters1 wrote:dumb idea. I still don't get the love for Jeron Johnson. He's a decent player, but not anything spectacular. Chancellor is fine where he's at.


    Winston Guy.


    Guy sucked the few times we've seen him.

    Kam is one of the top 4-5 safeties in the conference. You don't move him.


    Guy sucked? Let's see you try to cover Tony Gonzalez in your first start!!! We had him cover man to man with Roddy White and Julio Jones also and he was really close... How many 3rd Safeties in this league can cover any of those any of those 3 guys? :34853_doh:
    Week 1 of the preseason vs. The Tennessee Titans, I said the Seahawks were winning the superbowl...

    "Oh and by the way, Go Hawks!!!" Russel Wilson
    User avatar
    skater18000
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 504
    Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:14 pm


Re: Kam at LB?
Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:24 am
  • ^I don't recall really seeing Guy in coverage much against ATL. Seemed every time he was on the field they were sending him on a blitz. Guy spent a LOT of time in the backfield IIRC.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Next


It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information