Old but Slow wrote:Another factor in the running back situation is that McIntosh has been described as the best pass catching RB in the class. He was regularly split out like a WR at Georgia and can be nifty in the open field despite his lack of top end speed. He could be used as a Swiss army knife, at running back on one play and wide receiver the next.
Also true of Charbonnet and McIntosh is the tendency to seek contact rather than being ushered out of bounds on edge plays. It reminds me of Marshawn and Thomas Rawls.
Old but Slow wrote:McIntosh was the steal of the draft. I did not even include him in my draft prediction because I knew he would be gone by the end of the 3d round. When he was selected I ripped off my clothes and danced all over the house. Well, actually I smiled, raised my glass, and mentally danced, etc.
govandals wrote:I'll go out on a pretty sturdy looking limb and say this is the most talented RB/WR group in Seahawks history. Lots of frontline talent and lots of depth.
RiverDog wrote:If you toss in running backs as you have, I'd agree, but Lockett and Metcalf can't top Largent and Blades.
RiverDog wrote:If you toss in running backs as you have, I'd agree, but Lockett and Metcalf can't top Largent and Blades.
Oly wrote:My initial reaction was to agree, but I went back and looked and the stats don't back that up. Sure, it was a different era and comparing stats is tough, but their two years together were before Blades' peak and after Largent's.
Combined stats in 88 and 89:
1988: 79 catches, 1327 yards, 10 TD (pretty evenly split production)
1989: 105 catches, 1466 yards, 8 TD (2/3 of this was from Blades)
If you ignore where they were at in their careers and think of their talent level in the abstract, then those years of Largent/Blades/Warner/Williams (with Skanski as WR3) were probably the most talented WR/RB combos in team history.
I don't think it would take much for this year's group to be more talented though, and I can see why vandal would go out on that limb. I can easily see this year being more talented. Last year both DK and Tyler were over 1k yards and Fant had more production than the TEs in 88 and 89. And Walker's production last year matched Warner's best year in 88/89. For me, it's the under-appreciated JL Williams that gives those 80s offenses the edge. But if JSN can be as productive in the slot as I think he'll be, that will push this group over that 80s group.
This was a fun trip down memory lane. It's been a long time since I thought about Paul Skanski.
tarlhawk wrote:Dareke Young has immense athleticism coupled with LB size (like DK). Tariq (the Freak) is a converted WR while Dareke is a WR blend of DK/Riq in his athleticism/size.
DK (6'3" 228) 34.9" arm length with 4.33 speed (40 yd dash)/ 40.5"(vert)/ 1.48 (10 yd split) with 4.5 (shuttle) and 7.38 (3 cone).
Dareke (6'2" 224) 32 5/8" arm length with 4.44 speed (40 yd dash)/ 37"(vert)/ 1.54 (10 yd split) with 4.19 (shuttle) and 6.88 (3 cone).
Woolen (6'4" 205) 33 5/8" arm length with 4.26 speed (40 yd dash)/ 42"(vert)/ 1.47 (10 yd split) with 4.3 (shuttle) and 7.10 (3 cone).
DK also had 27 reps of 225lbs in bench press while Dareke had 22 reps compared to Tariq who had 12 reps.
Dareke is waiting in the wings while being a ST demon (as if DK/Tyriq were playing on ST) Go Hawks
RiverDog wrote:I'm not too enamored with a player's physical metrics, especially when it comes to WR's pumping iron. There's an argument that being too muscular compromises a player's flexibility, an especially important attribute for a WR.
NorthHawk wrote:I think it's better to look at actual production relative to their peers than physical traits. The new Offense might give us a better handle on how good our receiving corps is. And with Lockett passing 30, his best years are past him even if he is still productive but at a lesser level.
Potential doesn't mean much if it doesn't produce results.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not too enamored with a player's physical metrics, especially when it comes to WR's pumping iron. There's an argument that being too muscular compromises a player's flexibility, an especially important attribute for a WR.
tarlhawk wrote:Upper body strength in a tall guy adds to their ability to make contested catches. His shuttle time reflects flexibility/burst and balance while the 3 cone reflects agility and change of direction.
His transforming potential into actual production is more a limit of who he plays behind rather than his actual development. In the NFL its all about opportunity...in a star studded WR room he must bide his time while excelling on special teams. His great athletic traits coupled with having WR coach Sanjay Lal as a mentor is how a 7th rd pick from a small collage even gains the opportunity to wait while claiming a spot on the 53 man roster. Shane Waldron has been finding ways to get more plays for Dareke. My point in discussing him was merely to show the real depth in our WR room (part of the focus in this post) Go Hawk
RiverDog wrote:Here's a great example of why I don't like comparing players from different eras, especially when you use raw stats as your primary method of measurement.
As we all know, the game has changed dramatically over the past 35 years when Largent and Blades played. The league is much more pass happy than it was in the 80's, and in 2022, DK, Tyler, and Fant were beneficiaries of a 17 game season. making statistical comparisons apples vs. oranges. Heck, there are some stats kept today, like targets, that they didn't track back in the 80's.
If you're going to compare receivers statistically, you need to use their standing vs. their contemporaries. In 1989, Blades was the 8th ranked receiver in yardage. Last season, neither Metcalf or Lockett were in the top 10 in receiving yardage and neither were selected to a Pro Bowl. Blades was selected to a Pro Bowl in 1989, the only year he and Largent played together.
In addition, catching passes is just one aspect of the WR position. Largent in particular was a much better blocker than either Lockett or Metcalf.
With regards to Curt Warner, he was never the same back after he returned from knee surgery. Had he been the beneficiary of today's surgical procedures, he might have had a more productive career.
Oly wrote:I certainly won't argue about the apples-to-oranges comparison, especially for WRs. And good point about Largent's blocking. I did, after all, agree with you that as things stand now, I put that group over the current group.
But Largent went 28 catches for 403 yards and 3 TD in 1989, so if you're going to talk about Blades' #8 ranking it's going to be brought down by the season in which "Old but Slow" became more reality for Largent than joke. Sure, neither Lockett nor DK were in the top 10, but that's in large part because they were splitting opportunities. They're definitely in the top 5 most talented WR tandems in the league. So they're closer than I think you're willing to accept, close enough that they could be the best with continued growth from Walker/DK and just one of JSN/Charbonnet/McIntosh emerging as a weapon.
RiverDog wrote:I don't want to appear argumentative as you are correct, this is one of the more talented WR corps we've ever had. However, if I had to pick a single position group around which to build a championship team, it wouldn't be wide receivers. They're more of a luxury than they are a necessity. We seemed to get by pretty well with a couple of undrafted free agent WR's named Baldwin and Kearse.
RiverDog wrote:I don't want to appear argumentative as you are correct, this is one of the more talented WR corps we've ever had. However, if I had to pick a single position group around which to build a championship team, it wouldn't be wide receivers. They're more of a luxury than they are a necessity. We seemed to get by pretty well with a couple of undrafted free agent WR's named Baldwin and Kearse.
Oly wrote:We're in total agreement there. The Eskridge over Humphreys pick two years ago is the most glaring recent example of building around the wrong position group.
tarlhawk wrote:It amazes me how our fan base(well...at least some of it) ignors the value of having one of THE best WR corps in the NFL.
tarlhawk wrote:Russell benefited from Lockett and DK as deep ball threats just as they benefited from having a creative QB to be elusive enough to allow those deep passing routes to bear fruit. What happened when RW was traded? Geno gained a reputation for deep (20 yds+) passing acumen. The common element?? Our dynamic WR room. Lockett's age is often sighted as the recent reason for him being so undervalued in recent years by "expert" pundits. Tyler is still dangerous in man coverage where the opponent is bracketing DK with double coverage hedging their bet that Tyler is the lesser of two powder keg threats. Tyler has "locked on concentration" and soft hands making numerous highlight reel catches as his quickness and burst create many coverage mismatches.
RiverDog wrote: It's not necessary to refer to my opinions in the third person. I promise that I won't get upset or take offense if you call me out on my take or offer an opposing one.
At the risk of turning this into another Russell Wilson thread, a somewhat less of a risk now that HT is no longer with us, my take is that Metcalf hurt Russell as having such a big, speedy deep threat for the first time in his career cause him to look for the home run ball and bypass the short and intermediate receivers and concentrating on moving the chains. Russell himself talked openly about him and Metcalf forming a historic combo like Montana-Rice. It resulted in Russell's holding onto the ball too long, a horrible 3rd down completion percentage, and taking too many sacks.
tarlhawk wrote:Lockett and Baldwin were involved in RW's tendencies to throw deep...long before the arrival of DK. Shorter statured QB often scramble to get better passing lanes and view from outside the pocket...this scrambling in and of itself allows deeper routes to play out as opposed to your taller traditional (pure pocket) QB who releases quicker on short to mid field routes to avoid pocket collapse.
RiverDog wrote:Doug Baldwin's career yards per catch was 13.3, which would suggest that he wasn't much of a deep threat. Just picking a random year, 2015, Baldwin ranked 43rd in yards per catch amongst players with 30+ receptions.
Ironically, Tyler Lockett's career yards per catch are exactly the same as Baldwin's, 13.3.
In Metcalf's two seasons with Russell, 2020 and 2021, he averaged 15.5 and 15.7 yards per catch. Last season with Geno pitching the rock, Metcalf averaged just 11.6 yards per catch, a 25% reduction from his two year average with Russell.
I'll let you do the analysis of that information.
Old but Slow wrote:It is amusing to hear comments about how a QB and a WR have special connection. Largent had a special connection with every QB he played with, as did Baldwin and now Lockett. Why? Because those guys are precise route runners. They are where they are supposed to be all the time, so the QB can find them easily. It is also what makes a guy like Jaxon S-J so valuable despite the lack of great speed or size.
NorthHawk wrote:That 'trust' or whatever it is comes from hours in the scramble drill in practice. It doesn't just happen but some players understand it better than others.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 guests