Zorn76 wrote:I'm a bit puzzled by our first 3rd round selection (Prosise), and very surprised that we drafted 3 RB's overall. Definitely a need, but didn't see us dedicating that many choices to the position. I think Michael still has a legit shot at staying, but will need a solid TC and preseason to ensure it.
I would've liked to draft a CB somewhere in the 3rd.
The focus on RB's and the TE we selected are clearly insurance towards Rawls and Graham.
I'm also encouraged by the "C" grade we've received from PFF. I know they're a reputable site, but our recent drafts have graded out higher after a couple of years have passed.
HumanCockroach wrote:Who was the back Collins reminds you of from last season? Smith? I don't see that at all. ( or did you mean Ware from two years ago? I don't see that at all either as he was slow footed and pretty pedestrian as a back). Did I miss someone somehow?
monkey wrote:Here's some tape on the guy who I personally think has the best chance to make the team as UDFA. He's an absolute MONSTER and extremely ahtletic and quick twitch off the line. I'm surprised he didn't get drafted...no clue why.
Brandin Bryant for your viewing pleasure
https://youtu.be/8M5LKx5-Kp4
NorthHawk wrote:As well, I heard someone on NFL Radio say that Connor McGovern was a "Goon Guard" meaning he was a tough guy. Pete has stated he wants to get back to being the bully, so why didn't they take him with one of their 3rds? He would fit the bully part much more than Odhiambo. I don't dislike the Odhiambo pick, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria of what their stated goal is.
Funny you mention that as Odhiambo won his teams "Goon award" and has incredible natural strength!
Odhiambo easily fits the bully role, even more than McGovern who is admittedly off the charts athletic and likely would also have fit that role to a certain degree, but it was precisely because of his strength that Cable like Odhianbo so much..
Odhiambo is a super, super strong player, from all reports, even more than McGovern is.
Zorn76 wrote: It wouldn't surprise me at all if, in fact, they knew there would be any number of viable DB's go undrafted that would fit our system. Perhaps that was part of the thinking there.
NorthHawk wrote:
But does he bring the nasty attitude that we have been missing since Breno left? That's what bullies do, and I've never read any comments to suggest he does.
Collins has a highlight real of making the first defender miss in the backfield, setting up a linebacker with a quick first step, and then diving forward for 5 yards.
monkey wrote:That, right there, is why powerful runners like Marshawn Lynch,Thomas Rawls, and now Alex Collins are looked at as fits for our offense while another powerful runner like Derrick Henry is not a fit at all.
Collins has that same ability that made Lynch such a force, and that Rawls showed in his limited time last year. The ability to get yards AFTER contact in the backfield.
Where Derrick Henry averaged less than a yard after backfield contact, Collins consistently found ways to make guys miss, and then drive forward to make something out of nothing. Just like Lynch, and just like Rawls.
He fits. It's my opinion he's now the primary bell cow backup, with Prosise as the primary change of pace/third down back backup to Rawls, and I REALLY couldn't be happier!
Think about the backfield we'll be trotting out next year. We'll start with Rawls, who is quite likely going to be one of the leagues leaders in yards and touchdowns. Then when Rawls needs a breather, we'll bring in someone just like him basically, in Collins, who will just continue to POUND defenses into submission. On third downs, and situationally, we'll bring in Prosise whose speed and terrific route running and hands, make him a deadly change of pace guy who can be moved out of the backfield to create instant match up advantages.
Our RB corps just went from a state of "What do we do now without Beastmode?", to "Holy CRAP we've got awesome running backs!"
obiken wrote:So when do you think he will he be back at 100% River?
c_hawkbob wrote:I ain't Riv but I say next season.
I don't think all torn ligaments require surgery.
Don't partially torn ones heal with time?
The concern I would have is whether the ligament ever regains it's strength and elasticity to be like it was before the injury.
I ain't Riv but I say next season.
burrrton wrote: I don't think all torn ligaments require surgery.
Don't partially torn ones heal with time?
obiken wrote:I think they know and thats why all the RB's taken in the draft. Its the only logical conclusion.
HumanCockroach wrote:Rawls did NOT have surgery with ligament damage ( ie only bone setting) without ligament damage 4-8 week recovery time standard broken bone healing time followed by PT. He should be 100% prior to the season, quite possibly prior to training camp ( though I would expect them to use him sparingly).
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00391
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00391
c_hawkbob wrote:It's always about competition, but I think Rawles' injury has to factor into it. It'd be irresponsible (and therefor totally uncharacteristic) of Pete not to be prepared for any possible outcome WRT that ankle.
Speaking Tuesday, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said there's no official timeline for Thomas Rawls' (ankle) return.
"Everything’s going well, yeah," Carroll said. "It’s just when (he pushes) to get back we are going to have to see what the timeline is, you know, so we can tell. It’s going good." Rawls' December injury didn't require surgery, but the Seahawks have consistently been vague on his timeline. Per reporter Bob Condotta, the "general feeling" is that Rawls will be ready for Week 1, but could be limited in the preseason. Rawls flashed massive upside as a rookie, but his injury leaves him as a risk/reward RB1/2, at least until we get more information on his recovery. Apr 26 - 7:10 PM
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 106 guests