Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:28 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 1363
-Sidney Rice and Golden Tate had 148 combined targets
-They also had a combined total of 1436 yrds and 14 TDs
- Both averaged over 15.0 yards per reception
-Both have very few dropped passes (I can't find the exact statistic anywhere online but couldn't count more than 5 total combined all season.)

-Mike Wallace and Dwayne Bowe had 233 combined targets
-Mike Wallace and Dwayne Bowe had 1637 yards and 11 TDs combined
-Neither averaged 15.0 yards per reception
- Wallace was 2nd in the AFC North in Drops (7)
- Between 2009-2011 Dwayne Bowe had the 4th most dropped passes in the league at 26 (in that 3 year span).

So, in essence Tate and Rice had a combined 85 less targets than the two star UFAs and managed 3 more TDs and 200 less yards...Sidney Rice was open on many balls this year that RW missed him on (especially early), and made a pretty spectacular catch in nearly every game. I think people come down to hard on "not having play-makers at WR".

_________________
Image

"We all we got, we all we need"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:37 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:50 pm
Posts: 595
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.

_________________
Image
"I'm not the type to let a sleeping giant lie. I wake up the giant, slap him around, make him mad and beat him to the ground. I talk a big game because I carry a big stick." --- All-Pro Stanford Graduate


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:39 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
Posts: 9180
Location: Renton Wa.
We as a fan base always want the headline guys and never appreciate who we have till the replacement stinks it up and they then blame the F.O. for getting rid of the player they were trashing to begin with.

_________________
Image

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
.Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:45 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9542
Location: Monroe, WA
Nice stats comparison. Thanks.

Drops is not an official stat, so it's hard to track. It's kind of subjective, too, and open to the observer's opinion on how "catchable" the ball was. Having said that, the only game where drops really affected the outcome, IIRC, was at San Fran, and that was the Thurs night game where fatigue played a major factor. That was their 3rd game in like 11/12 days, I believe.

I was saying before the season that our WR corps would probably be OK and I think my opinion was vindicated.

I'm not against bringing in another WR or two, but I wouldn't break the bank for a FA "star" or anything. I also wouldn't spend Day 1/2 draft capital on one unless he was damn good. We have more pressing needs IMHO.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:50 pm 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


Actually, he said he wants to surround Wilson with more talent on offense. If you read between the lines, that means WR/TE.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:57 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm
Posts: 3179
I hope we keep Rice with a slightly detuned contract of course, and without a doubt, Tate is a keeper, and is probabaly spending more time with Russell Wilson at bettering their game time performances.
I'm not sure about how Baldwin fits into the future, but, I think he showed that he could play the role of a Bobby Engram style receiver.
I hope we seriously go after a reciever early on in this years draft.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:17 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:37 pm
Posts: 2539
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


He said something about giving Wilson some weapons this off season.
But im sure defensive line is still #1 priority by far


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 890
Location: Camano Island, WA
I can agree that Rice/Tate are pretty darn good. Kearse, Martin and Obo however could all be replaced if we could find a better player or fit. Assuming rounds 1 and 2 are used in the draft for DT, DE or OLB, round 3 could be a time to start considering WR. What you are NOT going to find much of in round 3-5 is WR's that are 6-2 to 6-5. Just for kicks I put together the following stats on mid-round WR's.

Some mid-round draft picks at WR's that may be available on or after round-3, (pick-#89). (xxx) = cbssports.com overall rankings as of 2/03/2013. Stat. Reference: http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... 2/group/80

(1) WR-Steadman Bailey(#96), 5-10, 195, W. Virginia
114/1622, 14.2-ypc, **25**-td's
(2) WR-Kenny Stills(#98), 6-0, 190, Oklahoma
82/959, 11.7-ypc, 11-td's
(3) WR-Tavarres King(#116), 6-0, 192, Georgia
42/950, 22.6-ypc, 9-td's
(4) WR-Ryan Swope(#123), 6-0, 204, Texas A&M
72/913, 12.7-ypc, 8-td's
(5) WR-Chris Harper(#144), 6-1, 228, Kansas St.
58/857, 14.8-ypc, 3-td's
(6) WR-Conner Vernon(#160), 6-0, 193, Duke
85/1074, 12.6-ypc, 8-td's

From this list, my favorite by far is Steadman Bailey as a 3-rd round pick, his 114/1622 & especially his 25 TD's (most in NCAA by a mile) is insane (watch his you-tube films). I also kinda like Chris Harper as a late 5-th round pick, he's a pretty decent physical possession receiver as far as I can tell. Of course there are some tall WR's available in the later rounds like Brandon Kaufman that would certainly be a viable round 6-7 pick. I also think Marcus Davis is under valued as a 6-th to 7th round flyer for some team.

_________________
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:02 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:01 pm
Posts: 2359
After watching Wilson transform from Dangeruss to downright lethal with that Pro Bowl cast, I'm all for adding more threats. He scrambles way too long while waiting for our guys to get open.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:56 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 4258
FlyingGreg wrote:
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


Actually, he said he wants to surround Wilson with more talent on offense. If you read between the lines, that means WR/TE.

Funny, I don't read that between the lines at all. What I see between the lines are pretty craptacular linemen at pass pro. I think that's the talent Carroll wants to surround Wilson with on offense.

We have the 5th best WR tandem in the NFL with Rice/Tate. You add a healthy Baldwin next season and this WR corps only needs a backup should Rice get hurt.

We need a DT a DE a pass blocking lineman and a nickel slot CB. WR will come after the 3rd round because that's when they draft for depth and that's what we need at WR, depth. We've already got a great starting WR corps.

But I'd take Welker if we could get him.

_________________
Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:03 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:13 am
Posts: 7851
It's not a case of increasing targets IMO - more a case of improving the quality and making sure there's sufficient depth. Rice, Tate and Baldwin have all been injured. What if Rice goes down early next season? Do you want to rely on what you've got?

They looked at T.O., Winslow and Edwards for a reason. I think they clearly feel there's room for another big target.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:31 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm
Posts: 4651
Between WR and pass pro, pass pro would be the more dire need on offense by a long shot. Although...can we count on Rice being healthy 2 seasons in a row?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:22 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
Posts: 713
Location: Orlando, FL
FlyingGreg wrote:
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


Actually, he said he wants to surround Wilson with more talent on offense. If you read between the lines, that means WR/TE.

Smoke and mirrors. All of it. Can't wait to see what these geniuses do this championship off-season.

_________________
World Champion
Image
Seattle Seahawks


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:28 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:50 pm
Posts: 595
FlyingGreg wrote:
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


Actually, he said he wants to surround Wilson with more talent on offense. If you read between the lines, that means WR/TE.


Oh. My bad.

_________________
Image
"I'm not the type to let a sleeping giant lie. I wake up the giant, slap him around, make him mad and beat him to the ground. I talk a big game because I carry a big stick." --- All-Pro Stanford Graduate


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:33 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 1363
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
It's not a case of increasing targets IMO - more a case of improving the quality and making sure there's sufficient depth. Rice, Tate and Baldwin have all been injured. What if Rice goes down early next season? Do you want to rely on what you've got?

They looked at T.O., Winslow and Edwards for a reason. I think they clearly feel there's room for another big target.


This thread wasn't about increasing targets... if you thought that, then you failed to see my point. My point is, paying at guy 6-8MM a year in UFA will not help this team as our WRs were just as productive with less targets.

_________________
Image

"We all we got, we all we need"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:09 pm 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9542
Location: Monroe, WA
lukerguy wrote:
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
It's not a case of increasing targets IMO - more a case of improving the quality and making sure there's sufficient depth. Rice, Tate and Baldwin have all been injured. What if Rice goes down early next season? Do you want to rely on what you've got?

They looked at T.O., Winslow and Edwards for a reason. I think they clearly feel there's room for another big target.


This thread wasn't about increasing targets... if you thought that, then you failed to see my point. My point is, paying at guy 6-8MM a year in UFA will not help this team as our WRs were just as productive with less targets.

Kind of what I said. If someone hits the top of our board, sure draft him, but don't waste big bucks on some FA that isn't any better than what we currently have. I think that fits the philosophy that P&J have been working towards anyway. I actually kind of like our backups, too, but that doesn't mean they are irreplaceable. Drafting a WR that may take a couple of years to develop is fine by me.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:00 am 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:23 am
Posts: 34
Hey,

I dont know all the situation about Greg Jennings, but if he is an UFA I believe we should go for him. I believe that a premier WR is the only thing we are missing on offense.
We can add some depth on the O-Line or maybe a better 2nd TE (even tough I really like McCoy) but I think that a WR like Jennings would benefit us.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:24 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am
Posts: 599
Bowe had word qb in league and off injury....Wallace had dink an dunk offense to protect Ben

I think the deficiency of SF is their backand and that was shown last night...

Prognosis?

Bigger faster stronger


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:33 am 
*NET Poop Holster*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:07 pm
Posts: 310
Location: N. Seattle
CamanoIslandJQ wrote:
I can agree that Rice/Tate are pretty darn good. Kearse, Martin and Obo however could all be replaced if we could find a better player or fit. Assuming rounds 1 and 2 are used in the draft for DT, DE or OLB, round 3 could be a time to start considering WR. What you are NOT going to find much of in round 3-5 is WR's that are 6-2 to 6-5. Just for kicks I put together the following stats on mid-round WR's.

Some mid-round draft picks at WR's that may be available on or after round-3, (pick-#89). (xxx) = cbssports.com overall rankings as of 2/03/2013. Stat. Reference: http://espn.go.com/college-football/sta ... 2/group/80

(1) WR-Steadman Bailey(#96), 5-10, 195, W. Virginia
114/1622, 14.2-ypc, **25**-td's
(2) WR-Kenny Stills(#98), 6-0, 190, Oklahoma
82/959, 11.7-ypc, 11-td's
(3) WR-Tavarres King(#116), 6-0, 192, Georgia
42/950, 22.6-ypc, 9-td's
(4) WR-Ryan Swope(#123), 6-0, 204, Texas A&M
72/913, 12.7-ypc, 8-td's
(5) WR-Chris Harper(#144), 6-1, 228, Kansas St.
58/857, 14.8-ypc, 3-td's
(6) WR-Conner Vernon(#160), 6-0, 193, Duke
85/1074, 12.6-ypc, 8-td's

From this list, my favorite by far is Steadman Bailey as a 3-rd round pick, his 114/1622 & especially his 25 TD's (most in NCAA by a mile) is insane (watch his you-tube films). I also kinda like Chris Harper as a late 5-th round pick, he's a pretty decent physical possession receiver as far as I can tell. Of course there are some tall WR's available in the later rounds like Brandon Kaufman that would certainly be a viable round 6-7 pick. I also think Marcus Davis is under valued as a 6-th to 7th round flyer for some team.



I hate to bring up height on a Seahawks forum...but WR is not QB.
Many of the clutch pass receptions in the NFL are with 6' 2" guys just as fast or faster draped all over you.

Separation is easier in college..rare in the pros. Bailey's numbers look intoxicating but unless the guy can muster up a 4.2 40 he will never get the space in the NFL to match his college numbers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:41 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am
Posts: 2447
lukerguy wrote:

This thread wasn't about increasing targets... if you thought that, then you failed to see my point. My point is, paying at guy 6-8MM a year in UFA will not help this team as our WRs were just as productive with less targets.


I think Pete and John think the same, which is why I'd be surprised if they went after a big name WR in free agency.

But don't gloss over the fact that we do need WR depth. Yes our WR corp was productive this year, but that was because they remained healthy (for the most part), especially Tate and Rice.

I guarantee you we'll be adding WR depth in the draft, as well as bringing in free agents for tryouts during camp.

_________________
If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:59 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm
Posts: 1960
Yes WR is a problem Rice and Tate are good but they really don't have anything after that and what if one of them goes down . They really do have draft WR in the first or second round. Look at all th retreads they had to bring in last year. Were not going to win a SB with what we have.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:09 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 2216
WR is really an issue because of Rice's injury history, new questions about doug baldwin's durability, and our lack of depth and size at the position.

we're a little bad luck away from featuring obomanu and charlie martin as starting receivers in a 3 receiver set.

no offense to those guys but you need more depth than we have at the position to win championship games.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:10 am 
I'M JIMMY!
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 4306
Location: Auburn, WA
They will bring in a piece at WR, no doubt at least to add depth. In fact, I can see JS/PC trying to get better in every position, regardless of it's production. If Flynn ends up leaving, you can include backup QB to that list also.

I love the WRs the Hawks have now, they work so hard to bring the ball down, but we can always use another one.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:16 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 2216
Rice and Tate are the two guys IMO who are no brainers to keep.

Baldwin is a toss up; if he can stay healthy and be more productive than last year he's good to go. Otherwise Tate is going to be your slot guy and you bring in another big guy to start opposite rice.

Obomanu is going to be a FA after 2013 and I'm not sure he's productive enough to re-sign. If you cut him someone else will pick him up on waivers and I'm not sure how much you want to pay a special teams player.

Martin/Kearse? Phil Bates? Who knows.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:24 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
A star WR in free agency is not mandatory, but it is the easiest solution. Getting a long term free agent TE who can help is unlikely, adding a rookie WR is more uncertain of a fix, as is a rookie TE, and adding a good player to the backfield is unlikely. The two receivers mentioned in the OP are quick and effective fixes.

Either Wallace or Bowe gives the Seahawks offensive flexibility in going 4 wide when added to Baldwin, Tate, and Rice, and great depth in case of injury. That 4 wide with a single back or Miller on the end of the line would give Russell tons of playcalling options to isolate players. Bowe and Wallace are also decent blockers, so focusing on drops is kind of silly.

Wilson is the best player on this offense, and with the defensive needs this team has I will be stunned if we don't make a play for either of these guys. I expect Jenning to go to Miami, I have already dismissed him from the list.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:25 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
SalishHawkFan wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
Hawken-Dazs wrote:
Pete was very clear about bringing in help on the defensive line, but never mentioned once about bringing in more receiver help. Just something to think about.


Actually, he said he wants to surround Wilson with more talent on offense. If you read between the lines, that means WR/TE.

Funny, I don't read that between the lines at all. What I see between the lines are pretty craptacular linemen at pass pro. I think that's the talent Carroll wants to surround Wilson with on offense.

We have the 5th best WR tandem in the NFL with Rice/Tate. You add a healthy Baldwin next season and this WR corps only needs a backup should Rice get hurt.

We need a DT a DE a pass blocking lineman and a nickel slot CB. WR will come after the 3rd round because that's when they draft for depth and that's what we need at WR, depth. We've already got a great starting WR corps.

But I'd take Welker if we could get him.


I disagree (about what Carroll is inferring about surrounding Wilson with more talent) . . . but who knows. We definitely need to improve the pass protection, but does that mean drafting another OL in the first few rounds if they have the opportunity to snag a play maker? Doesn't make sense.

We are thin at WR, no question - and it will be addressed, via free agency or in the draft. Where in the draft, I don't know. I have to think at some point they are going to want to pull the trigger early in the draft on an offensive skill player.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:31 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am
Posts: 2192
WR is not a primary issue for us. Tate and Rice did quite good all year, and on top of that, we have Baldwin.

I think we have defensive spots that need to be filled first.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:35 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am
Posts: 2216
FYI as much as I'm saying it's an issue, my solution would be to draft a guy, not sign a pricey FA. we need that money to pay our own guys.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:38 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 1363
Sgt. Largent wrote:
lukerguy wrote:

This thread wasn't about increasing targets... if you thought that, then you failed to see my point. My point is, paying at guy 6-8MM a year in UFA will not help this team as our WRs were just as productive with less targets.


I think Pete and John think the same, which is why I'd be surprised if they went after a big name WR in free agency.

But don't gloss over the fact that we do need WR depth. Yes our WR corp was productive this year, but that was because they remained healthy (for the most part), especially Tate and Rice.

I guarantee you we'll be adding WR depth in the draft, as well as bringing in free agents for tryouts during camp.


I agree with you 100%. We may add 2 WRs in the draft and 1 in FA and see what sticks. I just doubt it's a top end guy given the difference between our top guys and what is available.

I could easily see us bring in a a guy like Ogletree or M.Massaquoi to compete.

_________________
Image

"We all we got, we all we need"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:40 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
The Outfield wrote:
WR is not a primary issue for us. Tate and Rice did quite good all year, and on top of that, we have Baldwin.

I think we have defensive spots that need to be filled first.


We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:03 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
FlyingGreg wrote:
The Outfield wrote:
WR is not a primary issue for us. Tate and Rice did quite good all year, and on top of that, we have Baldwin.

I think we have defensive spots that need to be filled first.


We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

Pete has explored adding big free agent guys every single year so far, and it just hasn't worked out. Yet. We have no reason to expect him to quit trying to find that experienced guy. B Marshall, V. Jackson, B Edwards, TO, Winslow... Pete wants that big experienced guy badly.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:42 am 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 147
Scottemojo wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
The Outfield wrote:
WR is not a primary issue for us. Tate and Rice did quite good all year, and on top of that, we have Baldwin.

I think we have defensive spots that need to be filled first.


We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

Pete has explored adding big free agent guys every single year so far, and it just hasn't worked out. Yet. We have no reason to expect him to quit trying to find that experienced guy. B Marshall, V. Jackson, B Edwards, TO, Winslow... Pete wants that big experienced guy badly.


How about an Anquan Boldin then? As they mentioned yesterday, he could be a cap casualty and not a Raven next year. Dude is a legit #1, clutch, proven. Would prefer Boldin over Wallace and Bowe. Not entirely sure how much $$ he would require though.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:45 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
GoHawks1212 wrote:
Scottemojo wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:

We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

Pete has explored adding big free agent guys every single year so far, and it just hasn't worked out. Yet. We have no reason to expect him to quit trying to find that experienced guy. B Marshall, V. Jackson, B Edwards, TO, Winslow... Pete wants that big experienced guy badly.


How about an Anquan Boldin then? As they mentioned yesterday, he could be a cap casualty and not a Raven next year. Dude is a legit #1, clutch, proven. Would prefer Boldin over Wallace and Bowe. Not entirely sure how much $$ he would require though.

If the price was right, I think they would get Boldin. He has some miles on him.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:06 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm
Posts: 1745
Separation; this is the main reason I want John and Pete to pick up either Hopkins or Wheaton. Our WR aren't bad but we need one or two who can create more separation like Stokley could and Kearse is the only one that seemed to be able to do the separation thing. Another big possession type probably is needed as well but maybe a long pass catching TE like Ertz could be that guy? Either way, say we add a long possession type of WR, a separation gut and a big pass catching TE, holy crap does our offense suddenly look more explosive especially with Lynch and Wilson forcing defenses into the box to account for the inside outside zone running plays and scrambles from Wilson.

_________________
NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:36 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 1363
Scottemojo wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
The Outfield wrote:
WR is not a primary issue for us. Tate and Rice did quite good all year, and on top of that, we have Baldwin.

I think we have defensive spots that need to be filled first.


We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

Pete has explored adding big free agent guys every single year so far, and it just hasn't worked out. Yet. We have no reason to expect him to quit trying to find that experienced guy. B Marshall, V. Jackson, B Edwards, TO, Winslow... Pete wants that big experienced guy badly.


Isn't that kind of what Sidney Rice is 6'4 and as many years under his belt as Bowe? Wallace certainly doesn't fit that bill. Bowe does, but at what cost? You get someone who is already as productive as what we have and pay him to eat into our future star's salary? Doesn't make sense to me. I think we'll continue to add through the draft while signing someone for depth for 2.5 MM per season who can compete.

_________________
Image

"We all we got, we all we need"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:39 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:25 am
Posts: 716
Location: Queen Anne
theENGLISHseahawk wrote:
It's not a case of increasing targets IMO - more a case of improving the quality and making sure there's sufficient depth. Rice, Tate and Baldwin have all been injured. What if Rice goes down early next season? Do you want to rely on what you've got?

They looked at T.O., Winslow and Edwards for a reason. I think they clearly feel there's room for another big target.



I think as far as WR goes - as English just said - DEPTH is the biggest issue. I would be totally fine with 2012 Sidney Rice and Golden Tate being our #1 and #2 WR's. But once one of those guys goes down, it gets a little scary. I don't want to see Charlie Martin again.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:40 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
Posts: 890
Location: Camano Island, WA
HUGGY
""I hate to bring up height on a Seahawks forum...but WR is not QB. Many of the clutch pass receptions in the NFL are with 6' 2" guys just as fast or faster draped all over you. Separation is easier in college..rare in the pros. Bailey's numbers look intoxicating but unless the guy can muster up a 4.2 40 he will never get the space in the NFL to match his college numbers.""

"Bailey's complete skill set and very good speed are what help him stand out in a receiver class dominated by big-bodied playmakers and prototypical slashers. The wide receiver position at the NFL level is one of patience and development, but Bailey is built to contribute and play at a high level right off the bat. He has near-flawless hands, outstanding route-running ability and a knack for making the first defender miss. Few receivers are as efficient as Bailey when it comes to dropping weight and gathering at the top of a route, and his ability to create separation in tight spaces makes him a viable red zone target, as well. He's also plenty nasty as a blocker, and isn't afraid to mix it up with his opponent."
Where Bailey loses points with scouts is his size (5'11", 195). He's also far from a go-up-and-get-it prospect (though he flashes the ability to win in jump-ball situations). Size doesn't equal physicality in Bailey's book, however, and his game tape reveals a receiver who is very good at fighting off initial jams at the line of scrimmage. It isn't easy to re-route Bailey, and it's even more difficult for defenders to get an initial hand on him. "Slippery" is a term often used to describe Bailey, and it's pretty fitting--dude looks like mercury on tape. Currently a fringe second/third rounder, Bailey's top-end speed and stylistic similarity to receivers like Greg Jennings (5-11, 198) should earn him plenty of attention during the pre-draft process."
http://www.thephinsider.com/2013/1/29/3 ... man-bailey

Also Bailey was Mr outside to Austin's Mr inside in the W. Virginia offense, and that's even with Austins elite speed. The only 40 time I can find online for Bailey is 4.49, but I'll be watching the combine #'s.

_________________
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:08 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1141
I like Tate and Rice a lot, I think Martin, Kearse (no hands) and Obomanu are extremely average however and could be upgaded.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:05 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Posts: 3181
I agree with one of the above posters. We have a few definate needs, but if a good WR fell to us in the draft, I can see PC/JS jumping on it.

As English noted, our top 3 guys are good, but the only really durable one is Tate. Baldwin is an injury waiting to happen, and are we even really happy with our next option after Doug ? I can see us drafting to upgrade our depth....basically after Rice and Tate, I feel a decent mid round pick can upgrade everyone from Baldwin on down.

The thing I don't like about our WR's is that they don't always win their individual matchups. Put an above average CB on Tate or Rice and they disappear. We need a guy you have to game plan against. A guy that actually creates mismatches; a guy you have to drop a safety over the top, thus creating mismatches all over the field.

Is it a priority ? Maybe not outside of injury concerns, but there's definately room for improvement.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:49 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10044
lukerguy wrote:
Scottemojo wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:

We need depth. It will be addressed. You look to improve from Obomanu, Martin and Kearse.

Pete has explored adding big free agent guys every single year so far, and it just hasn't worked out. Yet. We have no reason to expect him to quit trying to find that experienced guy. B Marshall, V. Jackson, B Edwards, TO, Winslow... Pete wants that big experienced guy badly.


Isn't that kind of what Sidney Rice is 6'4 and as many years under his belt as Bowe? Wallace certainly doesn't fit that bill. Bowe does, but at what cost? You get someone who is already as productive as what we have and pay him to eat into our future star's salary? Doesn't make sense to me. I think we'll continue to add through the draft while signing someone for depth for 2.5 MM per season who can compete.

No, that is not what Sidney is. Sidney is big enough, but his injury history is one of the reasons we have to get another guy. Rice isn't a tackle breaker like the other big guys they have tried to get.

Wallace would be 2nd after Bowe on a Pete wish list. Wallace is a matchup issue for most teams. Bowe is a physical matchup problem for even our corners.
Pete has gotten to see both players up close over the last three years, and that is going to be what he thinks of most when we scout them for free agency. Wallace just killed us in Pittsburgh in 2011, Browner couldn't cover him, and Bowe owned Trufant in 2010. Wallace fits what Wilson does, and Bowe fits what Pete wants.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is WR really an issue? A statistical comparison of UFA WRs.
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:33 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:58 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Bellevue
stats are great, but they only tell half the story.

Sidney Rice is a rock solid WR, but he is very brittle. it was a MIRACLE that he lasted all season long, which is highly uncharacteristic of him.
He will do fine as #1 WR, but he is not an elite option. He would be absolutely brilliant as a #2 though. He should be our version of Roddy White.

Golden Tate is a slot guy, enough said. move this guy into the slot and he will do wonders.

#1 WR is still a glaring need. We have nobody of Julio Jones / AJ Green / Andre Johnson / Megatron / Fitzgerald statue, a true burner and a huge red zone target, but we clearly need someone to complement Russell Wilson's natural talent as a passer.

Doug Baldwin? I love him to death, but he is a depth guy, sort of like our version of Harry Douglas. if we want a Superbowl caliber team, we need elite playmakers.

_________________
Cheesehead Seahawk Extraordinaire


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hawknation2014, jasehawk, Largefarva, NoChops, SmokinHawk, Sprfunk, UK_Seahawk and 69 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.