2013 NFC B/West Thread

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I am. Before last year's ankle injury, he had only missed 3 out of 48 games. That doesn't scream injury prone. It remains to be seen if he'll miss any games this year... he was running full speed just days ago. Now James Carpenter and Walter Thurmond... they are injury prone.

Heard the injuray may have come from the Seattle game last season. Harvin could be out of football a calender year by the time he plays again.

He hurt his ankle against Seattle, not his hip. You don't think that team doctors thoroughly examined him before the trade went through, especially considering what we paid him? He was 100% when we acquired him, and hurt the hip in OTAs.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Not only is Harbaugh a much better coach than Carroll, the San Francisco office blows Seattle's out of the water.

This is why we didn't go after Harvin.

The Niners were interested in him, they just didn't have the cap space to give him the $ he wanted. Seattle's front office is way better, not only because Schneider is a better GM than Baalke, but because we also have Scott McCloughan (sp) who put together a lot of SF's core.

[Grizalltheway]

Heard the injuray may have come from the Seattle game last season. Harvin could be out of football a calender year by the time he plays again.

He hurt his ankle against Seattle, not his hip. You don't think that team doctors thoroughly examined him before the trade went through, especially considering what we paid him? He was 100% when we acquired him, and hurt the hip in OTAs.

So he was all healed up, and then got injured again shortly thereafter? Sounds like the definition of injury prone to me.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

He hurt his ankle against Seattle, not his hip. You don't think that team doctors thoroughly examined him before the trade went through, especially considering what we paid him? He was 100% when we acquired him, and hurt the hip in OTAs.

So he was all healed up, and then got injured again shortly thereafter? Sounds like the definition of injury prone to me.

This new injury would certainly give that impression.

[uofmman1122]

Not only is Harbaugh a much better coach than Carroll, the San Francisco office blows Seattle's out of the water.

This is why we didn't go after Harvin.

The Niners were interested in him, they just didn't have the cap space to give him the $ he wanted. Seattle's front office is way better, not only because Schneider is a better GM than Baalke, but because we also have Scott McCloughan (sp) who put together a lot of SF's core.

Like Pavlov and his dog.

Sure, we were interested, but so was almost every other team. And our GM took one look and said he wasn't worth it with the injury problems. Looks like that was a great decision.

How much is guaranteed to Harvin this year?

[rkwittem]

The receivers left in Seattle are abysmal? Weren't you just douching about hyperbole?

We still have the same WRs that played last year, who helped the offense finish #9 in scoring despite starting the season averaging just 17 points a game. Rice is our #1 WR, and Tate is a solid #2 still with potential to get better. He's Percy without the top end speed and elite athleticism.

I was under the impression that Rice has knee injuries/problems (and he's had 1 good year in his career, too). Tate is a receiver whose best year is 688 yards and 7 TDs. Sure, he can get better, but he wouldn't be a #1 or #2 WR on almost any other team in the NFL- except maybe Cleveland, Philadelphia (without Maclin), Jacksonville (maybe- depends on Blackmon), and probably Oakland. Maybe a couple of teams I left out. But that's not a resume that suggests #1 or #2 WR. It looks like a great #4 WR's line. Sorry, but without Harvin, I don't buy Seattle's receivers as anything but mediocre. They score points on account of a great offensive line, running game, quarterback play and strong defense. Why is it so hard for you to admit they're not elite at something? Did you forget the Atlanta game? That's what elite WR's look and play like.

[rkwittem]

Also, Culliver gone for the year. Division looks a little more wide open with each passing day

[Screamin_Eagle174]

The Niners were interested in him, they just didn't have the cap space to give him the $ he wanted. Seattle's front office is way better, not only because Schneider is a better GM than Baalke, but because we also have Scott McCloughan (sp) who put together a lot of SF's core.

Like Pavlov and his dog.

Sure, we were interested, but so was almost every other team. And our GM took one look and said he wasn't worth it with the injury problems. Looks like that was a great decision.

How much is guaranteed to Harvin this year?

Harvin's only 4.9M against the cap this year. Next year is when it jumps.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

The receivers left in Seattle are abysmal? Weren't you just douching about hyperbole?

We still have the same WRs that played last year, who helped the offense finish #9 in scoring despite starting the season averaging just 17 points a game. Rice is our #1 WR, and Tate is a solid #2 still with potential to get better. He's Percy without the top end speed and elite athleticism.

I was under the impression that Rice has knee injuries/problems (and he's had 1 good year in his career, too). Tate is a receiver whose best year is 688 yards and 7 TDs. Sure, he can get better, but he wouldn't be a #1 or #2 WR on almost any other team in the NFL- except maybe Cleveland, Philadelphia (without Maclin), Jacksonville (maybe- depends on Blackmon), and probably Oakland. Maybe a couple of teams I left out. But that's not a resume that suggests #1 or #2 WR. It looks like a great #4 WR's line. Sorry, but without Harvin, I don't buy Seattle's receivers as anything but mediocre. They score points on account of a great offensive line, running game, quarterback play and strong defense. Why is it so hard for you to admit they're not elite at something? Did you forget the Atlanta game? That's what elite WR's look and play like.

I didn't say our WRs were elite... YOU said they were abysmal... that same ridiculous hyperbole you accused me of having. Rice, Tate and Baldwin aren't elite, but they're above average, and nowhere near abysmal.

[Gil Dobie]

Heard the injuray may have come from the Seattle game last season. Harvin could be out of football a calender year by the time he plays again.

He hurt his ankle against Seattle, not his hip. You don't think that team doctors thoroughly examined him before the trade went through, especially considering what we paid him? He was 100% when we acquired him, and hurt the hip in OTAs.

Certainly the team doctors examined him, but why did the Vikings put him on injured reserver later in the season? Did the doctors even think to thoroughly examine his hip? Vikings fans are nominating Rick Spielman for NFL executve of the year right now, at least on the local talk shows. SE, never trust the Vikings. First they take Hutchinson from Seattle, make them overpay for Nate Burleson, dump injury plagued Rice, an now Harvin. Waiting for Winfield to go down.

[clenz]

He hurt his ankle against Seattle, not his hip. You don't think that team doctors thoroughly examined him before the trade went through, especially considering what we paid him? He was 100% when we acquired him, and hurt the hip in OTAs.

Certainly the team doctors examined him, but why did the Vikings put him on injured reserver later in the season? Did the doctors even think to thoroughly examine his hip? Vikings fans are nominating Rick Spielman for NFL executve of the year right now, at least on the local talk shows. SE, never trust the Vikings. First they take Hutchinson from Seattle, make them overpay for Nate Burleson, dump injury plagued Rice, an now Harvin. Waiting for Winfield to go down.

The Seahawks are always a good partner when it comes to unloading crap we don't want any more.

Kind of like what we were for KC for a couple years about a decade ago

quando omni flunkus moritati

[rkwittem]

I was under the impression that Rice has knee injuries/problems (and he's had 1 good year in his career, too). Tate is a receiver whose best year is 688 yards and 7 TDs. Sure, he can get better, but he wouldn't be a #1 or #2 WR on almost any other team in the NFL- except maybe Cleveland, Philadelphia (without Maclin), Jacksonville (maybe- depends on Blackmon), and probably Oakland. Maybe a couple of teams I left out. But that's not a resume that suggests #1 or #2 WR. It looks like a great #4 WR's line. Sorry, but without Harvin, I don't buy Seattle's receivers as anything but mediocre. They score points on account of a great offensive line, running game, quarterback play and strong defense. Why is it so hard for you to admit they're not elite at something? Did you forget the Atlanta game? That's what elite WR's look and play like.

I didn't say our WRs were elite... YOU said they were abysmal... that same ridiculous hyperbole you accused me of having. Rice, Tate and Baldwin aren't elite, but they're above average, and nowhere near abysmal.

They are abysmal without Harvin. Jacksonville has better wideouts right now. So do almost 30 other teams. Seattle's currents receivers, based on talent and production is a bottom-of-the-barrel receiving corps. They suck- that's not hyperbole. Hyperbole would be saying that a college team has better wideouts than Seattle or something along those lines.
Being above average is simply not good enough considering most teams have "above average" DBs- it is the NFL, after all. I hope Lynch has been eating his Wheaties because he's going to need to carry the rock at least 30 times a game until one of their wideouts shows something.

[UNI88]

The Seahawk/49er vitriol in this thread is awesome especially when combined with the Viking na nana na.

Keep up the good work!

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I didn't say our WRs were elite... YOU said they were abysmal... that same ridiculous hyperbole you accused me of having. Rice, Tate and Baldwin aren't elite, but they're above average, and nowhere near abysmal.

They are abysmal without Harvin. Jacksonville has better wideouts right now. So do almost 30 other teams. Seattle's currents receivers, based on talent and production is a bottom-of-the-barrel receiving corps. They suck- that's not hyperbole. Hyperbole would be saying that a college team has better wideouts than Seattle or something along those lines.
Being above average is simply not good enough considering most teams have "above average" DBs- it is the NFL, after all. I hope Lynch has been eating his Wheaties because he's going to need to carry the rock at least 30 times a game until one of their wideouts shows something.

That's absolutely hyperbole. Seattle was tied for 25th in the league for number of passing attempts, yet 4th highest in YPA, which means our WRs are very productive on the few attempts they're given. You're either fucking retarded, or trolling. Either way, you've lost all credibility.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Certainly the team doctors examined him, but why did the Vikings put him on injured reserver later in the season? Did the doctors even think to thoroughly examine his hip? Vikings fans are nominating Rick Spielman for NFL executve of the year right now, at least on the local talk shows. SE, never trust the Vikings. First they take Hutchinson from Seattle, make them overpay for Nate Burleson, dump injury plagued Rice, an now Harvin. Waiting for Winfield to go down.

The Seahawks are always a good partner when it comes to unloading crap we don't want any more.

Kind of like what we were for KC for a couple years about a decade ago

quando omni flunkus moritati

The Vikings are always good... for an easy win, as long as they have Ponder at QB.

[rkwittem]

They are abysmal without Harvin. Jacksonville has better wideouts right now. So do almost 30 other teams. Seattle's currents receivers, based on talent and production is a bottom-of-the-barrel receiving corps. They suck- that's not hyperbole. Hyperbole would be saying that a college team has better wideouts than Seattle or something along those lines.
Being above average is simply not good enough considering most teams have "above average" DBs- it is the NFL, after all. I hope Lynch has been eating his Wheaties because he's going to need to carry the rock at least 30 times a game until one of their wideouts shows something.

That's absolutely hyperbole. Seattle was tied for 25th in the league for number of passing attempts, yet 4th highest in YPA, which means our WRs are very productive on the few attempts they're given. You're either fucking retarded, or trolling. Either way, you've lost all credibility.

So what? Who cares about passing attempts? Your facts are wrong- Pro Football reference has Seattle dead last in pass attempts. 27th in passing yards. 2nd in TD% per attempt, right behind Green Bay. Tbe fact that Seattle's WR corps looks so good (to you, at least), is a byproduct of Seattle's #3 rushing offense and Russell Wilson not being as bad as Tavaris Jackson.
It would be hyperbole if it was exagerrated. It's not. Only one of your wideouts has ever had a 1000 yard season. Yet I'm the one who is being a retard and with no credibility, even though I am neither a Seahawks hater nor lover? I have no horse in this race- I merely call it like I see it. And I see a WR corps that feeds off play-action passing and is full of marginal or average NFL talents. Sidney Rice has one Pro Bowl on his resume, and that was 4 years ago. They are abysmal wide receivers on the whole, which is my main point. IDK how you missed that.

Where, pray tell, would YOU rank Seattle's wide receivers/tight ends? I'm assuming Golden Tate is somewhere around Megatron, Baldwin is in Roddy White's class, and your TE's are the 2011 Patriots' TE corps reincarnated?
I'd easily put Green Bay, Dallas, New Orleans, Indy, Detroit, St. Louis, Arizona, Denver, Cincinnati, Atlanta, New England, Tampa Bay, NY Giants, and probably a healthy SF over Seattle's WR corps off the top of my head. If you want to play the potential card, like you did with Golden Tate, then you can throw Jacksonville, Cleveland, Carolina, Kansas City, San Diego, Miami, and maybe even the Vikings and Bears. It's not a diss to be an imperfect team. Don't take every slight against your precious Seachickens so personally you whinyass schoolgirl. It's not like Seattle is going to suck all season at wideout.
Probably wouldn't hurt for you to consider that maybe Seattle doesn't pass because none of their wideouts are worth trusting. Why throw if your wideouts are so spotty...even if you had Joe Montana at QB, it wouldn't matter, those WRs don't have elite skills. Not a single one. Maybe their blocking, but that doesn't put up passing yards.
I'd put them collectively in the bottom 10 of the NFL- Harvin's hurt, Rice is hurt. You get Harvin back, you move up a few pegs. You get Rice back, they move up again. Golden Tate actually gets 800 yards receiving in a season, you move up again. Russell Wilson actually throwing for 300 yards in a game probably wouldn't hurt either. Is he not throwing for big yards because he's not good (which is wrong) or because his WR's blow? Colin Kaepernick managed to put up decent passing numbers despite playing for the 2nd-lowest pass attempt team in the league.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

So what? Who cares about passing attempts? Your facts are wrong- Pro Football reference has Seattle dead last in pass attempts. 27th in passing yards. 2nd in TD% per attempt, right behind Green Bay. Tbe fact that Seattle's WR corps looks so good (to you, at least), is a byproduct of Seattle's #3 rushing offense and Russell Wilson not being as bad as Tavaris Jackson.
It would be hyperbole if it was exagerrated. It's not. Only one of your wideouts has ever had a 1000 yard season. Yet I'm the one who is being a retard and with no credibility, even though I am neither a Seahawks hater nor lover? I have no horse in this race- I merely call it like I see it. And I see a WR corps that feeds off play-action passing and is full of marginal or average NFL talents. Sidney Rice has one Pro Bowl on his resume, and that was 4 years ago. They are abysmal wide receivers on the whole, which is my main point. IDK how you missed that.

Your lack of credibility has nothing to do with your rooting interests in relation to the Seahawks, but with the subjective and absurd opinions you profess as fact. I might as well call you Skip Bayless. Pro Bowls are popularity contests for those with gaudy numbers in offenses like the Packers, Lions, Falcons etc that are very pass heavy. It's hard for a WR to get 1,000 yards when running the ball is the main priority, and you have more than one WR to throw to... Russell spread the ball around a lot. Football Outsiders ranks both Rice and Tate in the top 20... but yeah, I guess they're abysmal.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where, pray tell, would YOU rank Seattle's wide receivers/tight ends? I'm assuming Golden Tate is somewhere around Megatron, Baldwin is in Roddy White's class, and your TE's are the 2011 Patriots' TE corps reincarnated?
I'd easily put Green Bay, Dallas, New Orleans, Indy, Detroit, St. Louis, Arizona, Denver, Cincinnati, Atlanta, New England, Tampa Bay, NY Giants, and probably a healthy SF over Seattle's WR corps off the top of my head. If you want to play the potential card, like you did with Golden Tate, then you can throw Jacksonville, Cleveland, Carolina, Kansas City, San Diego, Miami, and maybe even the Vikings and Bears.

NE has no one, outside of Gronk when he's healthy. Indy is Reggie Wayne and who? St. Louis has a bunch of rookies that have yet to catch a ball in the NFL. Weird how some NFL analysts were considering SEA to have the best WR corps in the NFL with a healthy Harvin. But yeah, I guess it's just because Harvin is that good and the rest are terrible.

Probably wouldn't hurt for you to consider that maybe Seattle doesn't pass because none of their wideouts are worth trusting. Why throw if your wideouts are so spotty...even if you had Joe Montana at QB, it wouldn't matter, those WRs don't have elite skills. Not a single one. Maybe their blocking, but that doesn't put up passing yards.

You clearly know nothing about Seattle's offense. We didn't pass much in 2012 because
1) Our offense is built around running the ball, running the ball some more, and then throwing over the top.
2) Pete wanted to bring Russell along slowly, and thus limited the number of times he put the ball in the air for the first half of the season. So instead of the 25-30 attempts he got in the second half, he was only throwing 15-20 in the first 8 games.

We didn't draft Christine Michael in the 2nd round because we want to throw the ball more and aren't satisfied with our WRs. Our WRs aren't spotty at all... Tate was one of the best in YAC last year, and Rice is #10 between 2009-2011 in fewest drops per catch attempt. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... receivers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd put them collectively in the bottom 10 of the NFL- Harvin's hurt, Rice is hurt. You get Harvin back, you move up a few pegs. You get Rice back, they move up again. Golden Tate actually gets 800 yards receiving in a season, you move up again. Russell Wilson actually throwing for 300 yards in a game probably wouldn't hurt either. Is he not throwing for big yards because he's not good (which is wrong) or because his WR's blow? Colin Kaepernick managed to put up decent passing numbers despite playing for the 2nd-lowest pass attempt team in the league.

Again, Russell's not throwing for 300 a game because our offense is built around running the ball and punishing defenses physically. When the run game isn't producing, our WRs/TEs are more than capable of carrying the load. Russ threw for 385 in the loss to ATL because our run game was sputtering. If Russell had thrown as few attempts as Kaep, he would've thrown only 85 yards less. Yeah, real big difference.

[rkwittem]

Your lack of credibility has nothing to do with your rooting interests in relation to the Seahawks, but with the subjective and absurd opinions you profess as fact. I might as well call you Skip Bayless. Pro Bowls are popularity contests for those with gaudy numbers in offenses like the Packers, Lions, Falcons etc that are very pass heavy. It's hard for a WR to get 1,000 yards when running the ball is the main priority, and you have more than one WR to throw to... Russell spread the ball around a lot. Football Outsiders ranks both Rice and Tate in the top 20... but yeah, I guess they're abysmal.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your claims are no different than mine. I used simple facts: one Pro Bowl appearance. One 1,000 yard season from your wideouts COMBINED. Even crappy offenses can get at least one guy to 1,000 yards. The Seahawks aren't a crappy offense, either. Yet they can't pass the ball at an elite level consistently. Why? It's obviously not the QB. Is it their offensive line? Or are their wideouts just not that great? I'm betting it's the latter.

NE has no one, outside of Gronk when he's healthy. Indy is Reggie Wayne and who? St. Louis has a bunch of rookies that have yet to catch a ball in the NFL. Weird how some NFL analysts were considering SEA to have the best WR corps in the NFL with a healthy Harvin. But yeah, I guess it's just because Harvin is that good and the rest are terrible.

\

Gronk + Amendola + Brady = a better passing offense than Seattle's. I guarantee that. They'll be better in almost every statistical passing category next year. Amendola is a better slot guy than Tate. Gronkowski is the best TE in the NFL when healthy. Seattle doesn't have receiver in his class right now.

Indy has Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Dwayne Allen, and Coby Fleener. And they have a QB that can carry the team by himself with almost no help from his running game or offensive line. Rather have Indy's skill personnel than Seattle's. Their offensive line and defense are nowhere near as good as Seattle's, clearly.

St. Louis has Chris Givens, Brian Quick, Lance Kendricks, and Jared Cook back from last year. Givens was a strong deep ball wideout and Quick was a high draft pick who showed flashes. With Amendola and Brandon Gibson out of town, they'll be the main guys, along with Tavon Austin (whose rookie year will be better than Golden Tate's 2012 or 2013 seasons will be, I bet.) and Stedman Bailey. IDK how much Bailey will play but he'll be a decent pro. Toss in Kendricks as an h-back and I feel confident in my assessment that St. Louis' WR corps is better than Seattle's. It's based largely on upside. Seattle's WR corps has a low ceiling in terms of upside. They simply don't have enough young players at that spot with huge talent. Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate? If we're talking upside, I'd rather have Quick + Givens + Austin + Bailey instead. If Harvin and Rice were healthy, this would be no debate, I agree. However, they are hurt. Pretend that's not a problem if that helps you sleep at night.....

You clearly know nothing about Seattle's offense. We didn't pass much in 2012 because
1) Our offense is built around running the ball, running the ball some more, and then throwing over the top.
2) Pete wanted to bring Russell along slowly, and thus limited the number of times he put the ball in the air for the first half of the season. So instead of the 25-30 attempts he got in the second half, he was only throwing 15-20 in the first 8 games.

I'm well aware that Seattle is a power running team...so is the majority of NFL fans. My question is simple: would Seattle pass more if they had better wideouts? Their scheme is dictated by their personnel. If you give Seattle better wideouts, they'll throw the ball more. That's why Atlanta became a better passing team after being very run-heavy when Michael Turner got there. They got better wideouts. Seattle's best plan of attack is to run the ball. That's because their wideouts aren't good enough to carry the team as a group.

We didn't draft Christine Michael in the 2nd round because we want to throw the ball more and aren't satisfied with our WRs. Our WRs aren't spotty at all... Tate was one of the best in YAC last year, and Rice is #10 between 2009-2011 in fewest drops per catch attempt. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... receivers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drops mean nothing to me. Is Sidney Rice better than Randall Cobb or Dez Bryant? Those guys have had drops issues and every NFL GM would rather have those two before Sidney Rice as well as every other WR on Seattle's roster- including Harvin. The Michael pick struck me as a BPA-type pick. Besides, Lynch isn't exactly young by NFL RB standards. It was a smart pick.

Again, Russell's not throwing for 300 a game because our offense is built around running the ball and punishing defenses physically. When the run game isn't producing, our WRs/TEs are more than capable of carrying the load. Russ threw for 385 in the loss to ATL because our run game was sputtering. If Russell had thrown as few attempts as Kaep, he would've thrown only 85 yards less. Yeah, real big difference.

You say that the receivers are capable of carrying the load and then cite a game they lost as proof?
What are you going to blame that loss on instead?

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Your claims are no different than mine. I used simple facts: one Pro Bowl appearance. One 1,000 yard season from your wideouts COMBINED. Even crappy offenses can get at least one guy to 1,000 yards. The Seahawks aren't a crappy offense, either. Yet they can't pass the ball at an elite level consistently. Why? It's obviously not the QB. Is it their offensive line? Or are their wideouts just not that great? I'm betting it's the latter.

My claim is that Seattle's receivers are average to good, without Harvin. Respected NFL analysts and NFL statistics sites agree. Once again, our WRs aren't going to get 1000+ yards because we don't throw the ball much, and when we do, we spread it around. We don't have only one reliable WR who is going to get 100+ balls thrown to him. Was Fitz a bad WR last year because he didn't have 1000+ yards? Put Rice, Tate, and Baldwin in the Colts offense last year and they'd have similar if not better numbers than Wayne, Hilton, et al.

Gronk + Amendola + Brady = a better passing offense than Seattle's. I guarantee that. They'll be better in almost every statistical passing category next year. Amendola is a better slot guy than Tate. Gronkowski is the best TE in the NFL when healthy. Seattle doesn't have receiver in his class right now.

Indy has Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Dwayne Allen, and Coby Fleener. And they have a QB that can carry the team by himself with almost no help from his running game or offensive line. Rather have Indy's skill personnel than Seattle's. Their offensive line and defense are nowhere near as good as Seattle's, clearly.

St. Louis has Chris Givens, Brian Quick, Lance Kendricks, and Jared Cook back from last year. Givens was a strong deep ball wideout and Quick was a high draft pick who showed flashes. With Amendola and Brandon Gibson out of town, they'll be the main guys, along with Tavon Austin (whose rookie year will be better than Golden Tate's 2012 or 2013 seasons will be, I bet.) and Stedman Bailey. IDK how much Bailey will play but he'll be a decent pro. Toss in Kendricks as an h-back and I feel confident in my assessment that St. Louis' WR corps is better than Seattle's. It's based largely on upside. Seattle's WR corps has a low ceiling in terms of upside. They simply don't have enough young players at that spot with huge talent. Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate? If we're talking upside, I'd rather have Quick + Givens + Austin + Bailey instead. If Harvin and Rice were healthy, this would be no debate, I agree. However, they are hurt. Pretend that's not a problem if that helps you sleep at night.....

So you're counting Gronk in your comparison, despite him being hurt more than Rice? Rice didn't have surgery... he could play next week if he needed to, and will be ready to go week 1. I doubt the same could be said for Gronk. LOL about Amendola being better than Tate. Tate had 20 more yards and 4 more TDs on 18 less receptions last year. Both are abysmal WRs by your standards because neither has had a 1000+ yard season or Pro Bowl.

Quick had less yards and TDs than Baldwin, our #3. Givens had the same amount of yards and 4 less TDs than Tate, our #2 Tate. Jared Cook didn't play for the Rams last year, FYI. I'd love to hear what standards you're using to declare Givens and Quick better than Rice and Tate, despite less production on a team that passed the ball more.

I'm well aware that Seattle is a power running team...so is the majority of NFL fans. My question is simple: would Seattle pass more if they had better wideouts? Their scheme is dictated by their personnel. If you give Seattle better wideouts, they'll throw the ball more. That's why Atlanta became a better passing team after being very run-heavy when Michael Turner got there. They got better wideouts. Seattle's best plan of attack is to run the ball. That's because their wideouts aren't good enough to carry the team as a group.

No, the majority of NFL teams aren't power running teams. Most are very pass heavy. Once again, you know very little about Seattle's offense. Our scheme isn't dictated by personnel. Pete and John (and Cable) found and developed personnel to fit the scheme they wanted, which was a physical, ground and pound offense that protects the football. It's not a coincidence that we have three big, very physical RBs in Lynch, Turbin and Michael, and use a FB on upwards of half our plays; Pete wants to run the ball. He's said this offseason that the offense wasn't going to become more pass heavy with the addition of Harvin.

You say that the receivers are capable of carrying the load and then cite a game they lost as proof?
What are you going to blame that loss on instead?

Obviously you didn't watch the game. We took the lead with 31 seconds left. After the return, ATL had 25 seconds to get into FG range. It wasn't our WRs' job to stop that from happening. Our D is the reason we lost the game... no pass rush (Clemons out), and a poor slot CB (Trufant).

[Vidav]

What we all need to realize is that the Seahawks are the best team to ever play in the NFL and if you disagree you are an idiot.

[rkwittem]

My claim is that Seattle's receivers are average to good, without Harvin. Respected NFL analysts and NFL statistics sites agree. Once again, our WRs aren't going to get 1000+ yards because we don't throw the ball much, and when we do, we spread it around. We don't have only one reliable WR who is going to get 100+ balls thrown to him. Was Fitz a bad WR last year because he didn't have 1000+ yards? Put Rice, Tate, and Baldwin in the Colts offense last year and they'd have similar if not better numbers than Wayne, Hilton, et al.

No, they wouldn't. Reggie Wayne is many times better than any player the Seahawks have ever had not named Steve Largent. Fitzgerald has a lengthy resume to hang his hat on as well. That's something that's missing from Seattle's wideouts.

So you're counting Gronk in your comparison, despite him being hurt more than Rice? Rice didn't have surgery... he could play next week if he needed to, and will be ready to go week 1. I doubt the same could be said for Gronk. LOL about Amendola being better than Tate. Tate had 20 more yards and 4 more TDs on 18 less receptions last year. Both are abysmal WRs by your standards because neither has had a 1000+ yard season or Pro Bowl.

Amendola is a better slot guy. Tate has been much healthier and still struggled to match Amendola's best years. And played on better teams than Amendola did too. My standard for abysmal is only partially due to their lack of a track record. In Amendola's case he hasn't been healthy enough or he would have had at least one 1,000 yard season. The rest of my "abysmal" comment are mostly due to things like how good they are with their wide receiver techniques- stuff like route-running, coverage identification, and beating press...stuff like that.

Quick had less yards and TDs than Baldwin, our #3. Givens had the same amount of yards and 4 less TDs than Tate, our #2 Tate. Jared Cook didn't play for the Rams last year, FYI. I'd love to hear what standards you're using to declare Givens and Quick better than Rice and Tate, despite less production on a team that passed the ball more.

I TOLD YOU what my standard was- they have more upside, period. That's what I said, no? Go back and re-read the post. Except the actual words this time. Not between them. If you're going to play that line with Jared Cook, then I'll remind you that Percy Harvin didn't play for the Seachickens last year either.

No, the majority of NFL teams aren't power running teams. Most are very pass heavy. Once again, you know very little about Seattle's offense. Our scheme isn't dictated by personnel. Pete and John (and Cable) found and developed personnel to fit the scheme they wanted, which was a physical, ground and pound offense that protects the football. It's not a coincidence that we have three big, very physical RBs in Lynch, Turbin and Michael, and use a FB on upwards of half our plays; Pete wants to run the ball. He's said this offseason that the offense wasn't going to become more pass heavy with the addition of Harvin.

I said the majority of NFL fans know that the Seahawks are a power running team.
Once again, you fail to read my actual post.
Every NFL coach wants to run the ball, it's simply a case of how much and what style they prefer. Yet getting more talented wide receivers has a tendency to encourage more passing. As will an improved QB. I bet they're not dead-last in pass attempts this year.

Obviously you didn't watch the game. We took the lead with 31 seconds left. After the return, ATL had 25 seconds to get into FG range. It wasn't our WRs' job to stop that from happening. Our D is the reason we lost the game... no pass rush (Clemons out), and a poor slot CB (Trufant).

Yeah I saw it. I saw a team that relied on its WRs to carry the day and lost. Isn't that the main point here. You said your wideouts could carry the team for a game (paraphrasing) and they promptly lose the game. It was your WR's job to score more points than Atlanta and they didn't. End of story. See ya next year.

[rkwittem]

What we all need to realize is that the Seahawks are the best team to ever play in the NFL and if you disagree you are an idiot.

I might need to go to Vegas and put a few $$$ on their upcoming undefeated season. Will anyone even score on them this year? The 1972 Dolphins might need to start worrying....

[Screamin_Eagle174]

STL's WRs are better than Seattle's because they have more upside, despite half of them not playing a down in the NFL, and the others having less production than Rice and Tate. Brilliant. In that case, Taiwan Jones is a better CB than Trumaine Johnson... he's got more upside.

[rkwittem]

STL's WRs are better than Seattle's because they have more upside, despite half of them not playing a down in the NFL, and the others having less production than Rice and Tate. Brilliant. In that case, Taiwan Jones is a better CB than Trumaine Johnson... he's got more upside.

You asked what standard I used to say they were better than Seattle. Then I answer the question and you get pissy. Half? Only 2 guys haven't played in the league yet. They carry 5- Givens, Quick, Austin, Bailey, Pettis. They have less production because they are far younger than any WR on Seattle's team and didn't get to play with Brett Favre early in their careers either.
Spare me the Taiwan Jones nonsense. He's never played CB in his life. Upside to me asks what his ceiling is. Are you actually suggesting that Taiwan Jones can be a top 3 CB on anyone's roster in a few years?
What's Sidney Rice's ceiling? He's already hit it, for my money. What's Harvin's ceiling? Already hit that too.
Baldwin's ceiling is what? Considering he's a #4 WR on a team that barely throws the ball, his ceiling is what...600 yards and some special teams work? What's Tate's? A thousand yards and 5ish TDs...when his teammates are injured?
Tavon Austin was a higher overall draft pick than any WR on Seattle's roster for a reason. There's a reason people compare him to Randall Cobb and Percy Harvin and Darren Sproles.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

STL's WRs are better than Seattle's because they have more upside, despite half of them not playing a down in the NFL, and the others having less production than Rice and Tate. Brilliant. In that case, Taiwan Jones is a better CB than Trumaine Johnson... he's got more upside.

You asked what standard I used to say they were better than Seattle. Then I answer the question and you get pissy. Half? Only 2 guys haven't played in the league yet. They carry 5- Givens, Quick, Austin, Bailey, Pettis. They have less production because they are far younger than any WR on Seattle's team and didn't get to play with Brett Favre early in their careers either.
Spare me the Taiwan Jones nonsense. He's never played CB in his life. Upside to me asks what his ceiling is. Are you actually suggesting that Taiwan Jones can be a top 3 CB on anyone's roster in a few years?
What's Sidney Rice's ceiling? He's already hit it, for my money. What's Harvin's ceiling? Already hit that too.
Baldwin's ceiling is what? Considering he's a #4 WR on a team that barely throws the ball, his ceiling is what...600 yards and some special teams work? What's Tate's? A thousand yards and 5ish TDs...when his teammates are injured?
Tavon Austin was a higher overall draft pick than any WR on Seattle's roster for a reason. There's a reason people compare him to Randall Cobb and Percy Harvin and Darren Sproles.

How did you get pissy out of that? What you should have gathered is that I've stopped giving any credence to your posts because your subjectivity and hypocrisy in using the criteria for evaluating WRs is laughable. First you argue that production without regard to offensive philosophy is why Seattle's WRs are "abysmal," then throw that out the window when evaluating STL's WRs who have less production than Seattle's WRs despite playing in a more pass-heavy offense. Instead, you say that STL's WRs are better because despite less production or no experience, they have more potential, while scoffing at Tate's potential. You're all over the place, because clearly you're a Lambs homer. It's okay, you don't have to admit it; anyone reading your posts can tell. For the record, I wasn't talking about production over their careers, I was talking about production from just last year. But I'm glad you saw the opportunity to come up with more excuses for them.

As for Taiwan Jones, he played CB and RB all throughout HS, and expected to be recruited as a college CB. He played CB his first year at EWU. EWU's coaches expected him to be drafted as a CB. A 6'0 natural athlete with 4.3 speed has a lot of "potential" to be a great CB, doesn't making him better than CBs who have been playing the position at the NFL level and still up and coming. http://www.raiders.com/news/article-1/T ... 45bbf47e4a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm done with your drivel.