Mike Holmgren wrote:Would I like him to hit the hole, on occasion, a little quicker and get it up in there? I've said that from day one and he knows it for the last however many years he has been here. But at the same time his style has produced some wonderful things. He goes around (the end) and scores a touchdown and I'm happy so you have to be careful with that. He has great instincts. There are times -- I've told him so I'm not saying anything to you that I haven't told him -- and he's told me (what he was thinking at the time) and he agrees with me that this is why I did this. We talk about that all the time. When the running game isn't going though there's a lot to pick at. Now it's our job to get it going so we can back people off just a little bit on that."

Flyingsquad23 wrote:The dude had 5 straight years with 300+ carries and you say he never ran through a tackle...I have a hard time calling any NFL player soft let alone a RB. SA took a pounding for 11+ years of his life and produced at record levels. Definitely NOT soft.

chris98251 wrote:Yes he was soft, Lynch, Doornink, Watters, John L Williams, Curt Warner, all much more physical, Shaun was so soft he would not pass block and had to be taken out of the line up. None of the others were, so that makes him a one dimensional back as well since he was rarely in a game for a passing situation.

It was why as a 1st rounder he could not take the position from Ricky Watters also, he was soft and continually in Holmgren's dog house.

Holmgren drafted him hoping for Watters 2.0 or a Roger Craig 2.0. He got a Franco Harris clone, run out of bounds and go down. The reason Rocky Blier was so popular was because he got the tough yards and was physical as well. Franco was on a multiple Super Bowl teams and had a long career granted. But nobody talks about him in regards to all-time greats either really unless your in Pittsburgh, still I think they more fondly think of Bettis.

Flyingsquad23 wrote:The dude had 5 straight years with 300+ carries and you say he never ran through a tackle...I have a hard time calling any NFL player soft let alone a RB. SA took a pounding for 11+ years of his life and produced at record levels. Definitely NOT soft.

OrangeGravy wrote:

Flyingsquad23 wrote:The dude had 5 straight years with 300+ carries and you say he never ran through a tackle...I have a hard time calling any NFL player soft let alone a RB. SA took a pounding for 11+ years of his life and produced at record levels. Definitely NOT soft.

AND all that being said, he was the biggest BI!CH in the NFL in the last 20 years

TypeSly wrote:I don't know where that comes from. I don't seem to remember him running out of bounds prematurely.

KinesProf wrote:No. Nobody who steps on a pro football field is soft.

People tend to underestimate what exactly is happening on an NFL; but, be fortunate enough to get close to a sideline for some live action and you'll realize how silly of a thought it is to think any of them are soft.

TypeSly wrote:I don't think he was soft. Just because he avoids contact, it doesn't make him soft to me. I think that's smart. As for his reputation of running out of bounds, I don't know where that comes from. I don't seem to remember him running out of bounds prematurely.

TypeSly wrote:

KinesProf wrote:No. Nobody who steps on a pro football field is soft.

People tend to underestimate what exactly is happening on an NFL; but, be fortunate enough to get close to a sideline for some live action and you'll realize how silly of a thought it is to think any of them are soft.

Not even CJ Prosise?

Chapow wrote:I hate this topic because I just can't understand the amount of disrespect, bordering on hatred, so many Seahawks fans seem to have for Alexander. 300+ carries a year for 5 straight seasons, while putting up prolific numbers, the man was an absolute warrior for this team. OF COURSE his body started breaking down after carrying a load like that. Just disgusting to me how he's treated by many around here. Makes me feel like this fan base doesn't deserve elite, MVP caliber players since we don't appreciate them anyway.

ivotuk wrote:He was smart. Chris Carson needs to let up once in a while to preserve himself.

Bo Jackson had so much muscle that it ripped his ball right out of it's socket. Bones can only take so much before muscle take over and causes damage. Ever see those horrible weight lifting accidents?

hawkfan68 wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Yes he was soft, Lynch, Doornink, Watters, John L Williams, Curt Warner, all much more physical, Shaun was so soft he would not pass block and had to be taken out of the line up. None of the others were, so that makes him a one dimensional back as well since he was rarely in a game for a passing situation.

It was why as a 1st rounder he could not take the position from Ricky Watters also, he was soft and continually in Holmgren's dog house.

Holmgren drafted him hoping for Watters 2.0 or a Roger Craig 2.0. He got a Franco Harris clone, run out of bounds and go down. The reason Rocky Blier was so popular was because he got the tough yards and was physical as well. Franco was on a multiple Super Bowl teams and had a long career granted. But nobody talks about him in regards to all-time greats either really unless your in Pittsburgh, still I think they more fondly think of Bettis.

No SA wasn’t soft. However after he injured his foot he didn’t have the same acceleration and speed he had prior to that. That combined with his OL getter weaker contributed to his struggles post injury.

Curt Warner’s running style is very close to SA’s style. Curt was great but no way would I say he was a physical back. He was a magnificent cut back runner and he made people miss. Curt also ran behind a very good line. Steve August, Ron Essink, Reggie McKenzie, and Blair Bush.

Flyingsquad23 wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote:

Flyingsquad23 wrote:The dude had 5 straight years with 300+ carries and you say he never ran through a tackle...I have a hard time calling any NFL player soft let alone a RB. SA took a pounding for 11+ years of his life and produced at record levels. Definitely NOT soft.

AND all that being said, he was the biggest BI!CH in the NFL in the last 20 years

And your credentials? Your addition to the thread is applauded...you are pathetic

OrangeGravy wrote:

Flyingsquad23 wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote:

Flyingsquad23 wrote:The dude had 5 straight years with 300+ carries and you say he never ran through a tackle...I have a hard time calling any NFL player soft let alone a RB. SA took a pounding for 11+ years of his life and produced at record levels. Definitely NOT soft.

AND all that being said, he was the biggest BI!CH in the NFL in the last 20 years

And your credentials? Your addition to the thread is applauded...you are pathetic

https://www.seattlepi.com/sports/footba ... 163237.php

TypeSly wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote:

Flyingsquad23 wrote:

OrangeGravy wrote:
AND all that being said, he was the biggest BI!CH in the NFL in the last 20 years

And your credentials? Your addition to the thread is applauded...you are pathetic

https://www.seattlepi.com/sports/footba ... 163237.php

I don't get what that article has to do with him being soft and a b*tch, though. I think anyone would be peeved if they didn't get a chance to get one yard for the rushing title, and being immortalized.

keasley45 wrote:Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

keasley45 wrote:Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

Nunya wrote:

keasley45 wrote:Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

Gotta love the people that try to re-write history to fit their own false reality.

Zorn did not cut Alexander because he thought he was soft. He cut him because he had 4 RBs on his roster and the other 3 were getting healthy. This made Alexander expendable. He was cut in order to free up a roster spot for someone to help their defense....which was struggling at the time.

Hockey Guy wrote:This place is just amazing.

The mental gymnastics somebody needs to go through to convince themselves that a player, who never missed a game in his first 6 seasons & carried the ball that many times & gained that many yards & scored that many TD's in the most physically demanding sport in the most physically demanding league & won an MVP award in said league, was "soft" is impressive.

& by amazing, I mean embarrassing.

keasley45 wrote:

Nunya wrote:

keasley45 wrote:Whats amazing is that people can't distinguish between 'soft' in the context of durability and 'soft' in the context of being willing to make contact intentionally and forcefully in a contact sport like football. And hey, guess what... IF YOU RARELY GET HIT HARD BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS SLIDING TO THE GROUND AND AVOIDING CONTACT YOU MIGHT BE PRETTY GOOD AT AVOIDING INJURY. But somehow now the fact that he was rarely hurt is a sign of his toughness? By that rule, norm Johnson was the toughest player we ever had.

There's no 'mental gymastics' required to see that Alexander's running style was one predicated on avoiding contact when possible to the point of sliding down to the ground when it looked like he might take a hit... instead of meeting the tackle and trying to force his will... and not turning out hard yards unless he was in sight of the goal line.

Thats who he was and because he had a great line, there were a ton of yards and touchdowns available to him without needing to play a more hard-nosed style.

And for the folks on this board who insist on creating this binary condition where a back is either Shaun alexander or Earl Campbell... again. Thats whats amazing. Theres a huge range of styles between the two and most don't involve sliding to the ground and avoiding contact and hard yards.

This is not an opinion shared by justvthose on this board. Homlgren saw it and no doubt it was the root of the disconnect between the two. Zorn saw it while he was here and after he signed him in washingtin... and cut him. And the 31 other teams that could have signed him after he was cut by seattle saw it too. But maybe we are all just crazy.

Gotta love the people that try to re-write history to fit their own false reality.

Zorn did not cut Alexander because he thought he was soft. He cut him because he had 4 RBs on his roster and the other 3 were getting healthy. This made Alexander expendable. He was cut in order to free up a roster spot for someone to help their defense....which was struggling at the time.

the statement about Zorn's feelings on Alexander are straight from his mouth, not conjecture. but i guess in this universe the feeling that Shaun wouldnt hit a hole or practice hard somehow didnt factor into him being cut?? lol. And Ladell Betts beat him out?? Please. They could have brought him back and the thought at the time among the media here in the mid-atlantic was that they would. But they didnt. because why bring back a guy you were taking a flier on in the first place when nobody else wanted him and who has a reputation for not running hard, practicing hard. DC media even talked about him not being teh same kind of back if he didnt have great blocking. And he wasnt. which is why he was let go in DC and Seattle.

Look. Shaun benefited from a generationally good o-line. He dint run hard, hit the hole hard (unless he was in sight of the goal-line, or actively grind out yards that werent easily there. And he was gifted a ton of yards when all that was required was speed and the ability to make a cut and get upfield. When that gift was no longer there, he was no longer the same back. He'd just signed a fat contract, was now in a position where running was no longer as easy as it once was becauise the line wasnt as good, and his performance declined. His coaches saw it and he was cut. After he was cut, the other teams in the league saw it and let him sit. And when the reskins signed him, they saw the same thing and cut him in favor of Portis and Betts.

This isnt some revisionist history. Its what happened. Its who he was.

chris98251 wrote:Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

hawkfan68 wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

Shaun is no Alvin Kamara as a receiver out of the backfield but to claim he had hands of stone is a huge stretch. He caught 68% of the passes thrown to him in his overall career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlexSh00.htm.

Which is similar to Terrell Davis who caught 66% of his targets through his career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htm

chris98251 wrote:

hawkfan68 wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Why was he on the bench most his rookie season?

Because he was riding on his College accomplishments and thought he didn't have to put in the effort, he could not Challenge Watters even at the late stage of his career because he wouldn't work at his craft and didn't want to block.

He started off on a bad note here, he had talent, but could have been one of those backs mentioned as top 20 all time.

They picked him as Watters replacement, for a younger body as well as salary.

Oh and he had hands of stone in the passing game as well, why Mack Strong was Third and long so much, we telegraphed plays when we pulled Shaun due to his refusal to block driving Holmgren nuts.

Shaun is no Alvin Kamara as a receiver out of the backfield but to claim he had hands of stone is a huge stretch. He caught 68% of the passes thrown to him in his overall career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AlexSh00.htm.

Which is similar to Terrell Davis who caught 66% of his targets through his career. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/D/DaviTe00.htm

Yes Matt had to almost underhand toss the ball to him.

Would not pass block, would not go into the flat because he didn't want to get hit, how many screens do you remember?

3rd and Long Matt Strong.