TAB420":3e936lkd said:
JPatera76":3e936lkd said:
Adams is a good person., but not a good safety.
I personally feel our defense looked better this year and last year.. sadly once he went down with season ending injuries
Three straight trips to the Pro Bowl, and that whole NFL Record For Sacks By A Safety thing may beg the differ. Look, I get it. But I find myself wondering how the LOB would do under this DC.
The sack record is a poor way to judge Jamal Adams. He blitzed more than any safety in the league and he got home on a very small percentage of his blitzes. Having 9 sacks as a safety means that you're moving the player out of coverage and leaving a hole. In addition to this, Jamal Adams didn't fare so well this season when he rushed.
Jamal Adams has struggled in coverage with the Seahawks as well. He got burned quite a bit and in some cases he was a liability. He was essentially a glorified linebacker playing safety for us the last two years.
Was he good in NY? Absolutely, has he been good with Seattle? No. In fact, I'd argue that his backup was playing better football than Jamal Adams.
This has been a case of Seattle trying to pigeon hole a player into our system that clearly doesn't fit well. Carroll even stated in a press conference "we're still trying to figure out how to use him". That is negligence, you traded two firsts for a player that you had no idea how to integrate or use?
It was a bad trade all around and a bad contract. This trade reeked of desperation and it will go down as one of the worst trades in Seahawk history. We gave up franchise QB levels of capital for an inbox strong safety. Think about that for a moment. This is the type of move that gets FO's fired and for the life of me I don't understand why we don't pull Carroll's GM authority after this bungled trade.