Report on Doug Baldwin Not Good --

[jshawaii22]

Yes, some of you will scoff at the source, but actually these type of reports are usually pretty accurate. It's highly probable Doug has informed the team and the draft may represent the decision. Watch the picks.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/04/26/report-doug-baldwins-career-might-be-over/

He's been one of the greatest assets this team has had the past decade. Once in a generation can you find a UDFA at his level and preservierience.
If it's true, it was be a sad day.

[Stream Hawk]

Not happening. And I was concerned this report will come out

[RiverDog]

The fact that we took a WR in the 2nd round doesn't mean anything relative to Baldwin. We have a need with or without ADB.

Having said that, we've all realized that due to the cumulative amount of injuries that Baldwin has had to deal with that he might decide to cut his losses and retire. If he does, he'll be a prime candidate for the ROH.

[NorthHawk]

We should be able to get a slot type receiver tomorrow and maybe Doug will stick around
to help out with the kids development.
I suspect a replacement was in the plan anyway considering Doug’s surgeries this year.

[obiken]

The fact that we took a WR in the 2nd round doesn't mean anything relative to Baldwin. We have a need with or without ADB.

Having said that, we've all realized that due to the cumulative amount of injuries that Baldwin has had to deal with that he might decide to cut his losses and retire. If he does, he'll be a prime candidate for the ROH.

Right, nothing replaces a Doug Baldwin. River, who was better, Doug or Bobby Engram?

[mykc14]

Right, nothing replaces a Doug Baldwin. River, who was better, Doug or Bobby Engram?

I know this question was for River, but Doug Baldwin hands down!!

[Stream Hawk]

Thought this was coming as well since January.

Damn ADB MAY turn out to be the best Seahawk wr ever. And I’ve followed this team since my birth - and their inception of 1976. I just can’t get over his clutch catches and INSANE route quickness. I know Largent has all the records, but seriously have you ever seen bigger catches?

[RiverDog]

Right, nothing replaces a Doug Baldwin. River, who was better, Doug or Bobby Engram?

I know this question was for River, but Doug Baldwin hands down!!

I generally don't like comparing players from different eras, but the mere fact that the teams Baldwin played on had better results would be the trump card in any statistical comparison. And even though all accounts indicate that Bobby was nothing less than a great teammate, Baldwin was more of a team leader and a driving force in our two SB appearances. I agree with mykc, ADB hands down.

[RiverDog]

Thought this was coming as well since January.

Damn ADB MAY turn out to be the best Seahawk wr ever. And I’ve followed this team since my birth - and their inception of 1976. I just can’t get over his clutch catches and INSANE route quickness. I know Largent has all the records, but seriously have you ever seen bigger catches?

Yes. I can remember a graphic coming across during a game one season where Largent had something like 71 catches with 67 going for either a first down or a touchdown.

Except for the fact that Baldwin played in two SB's and more playoff games, there is no comparison between him and Steve Largent that would stand up to any sort of critical review by an objective party, and that includes big catches. When he retired, Largent held the all time record for most touchdowns scored at any position, so by definition, he had more "big catches."

I watched every single game that both Largent and Baldwin played, and as much as I like Baldwin, he's no Steve Largent.

[c_hawkbob]

Yes, some of you will scoff at the source, but actually these type of reports are usually pretty accurate. It's highly probable Doug has informed the team and the draft may represent the decision. Watch the picks.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/04/26/report-doug-baldwins-career-might-be-over/

He's been one of the greatest assets this team has had the past decade. Once in a generation can you find a UDFA at his level and preservierience.
If it's true, it was be a sad day.

Shefty's a good source, and he's basing what he's saying on what Pete said a month ago probably what John and Pete said last night (check in at about the 7:30 mark), sounds to me like they're expecting him gone but want to leave it up to him to make the announcement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKKGiie ... r_embedded

[burrrton]

Damn ADB MAY turn out to be the best Seahawk wr ever.

Maybe 2nd-best, but not *close* to the best.

[Stream Hawk]

True points by both of you. I admit I was a little kid watching Largent. Sure, Doug can be considered the 2nd best at this point.

He still hasn’t retired so maybe this is just much ado about nothing at this point in the off-season.

[burrrton]

True points by both of you. I admit I was a little kid watching Largent.

Just remember Largent was considered one of if not the best WR in *history* when he retired.

He still hasn’t retired so maybe this is just much ado about nothing at this point in the off-season.

Keeping my fingers crossed for this!

[curmudgeon]

Good God. Largent played in an era where dbs could beat the s*** out of a wr and he became a HALL OF FAMER. Baldwin? Not so much. No comparison. I’m out. Again.

[I-5]

While agreeing that Largent is the best ever WR to wear the uniform when you consider the records, how do rate them when it comes to specific skill or technique? After all, Doug picked up a lot of pointers from Steve by texting him a lot, the most memorable one for me being to look not at the ball, but the point of the ball as it’s coming to you. I find their game almost identical when it comes to clever and disciplined route running, getting in and out of breaks, being basically uncoverable, soft hands, field awareness, big catches, lack of blazing speed but surprising quickness. Identical in every way I can think of.

[burrrton]

Identical in every way I can think of.

Statistics didn't come to mind?

Look, this is no knock on Doug, who, upon retirement, I want in the ROH with all possible dispatch, but Largent was a sure-fire, first-ballot Hall-of-Famer. Again, considered one of the best of *all-time*. Doug is a frequent Pro Bowler and *money* for our team, but that doesn't set him apart from Largent.

There's no discussion here.

[edit]

After reading your post again, I see you don't disagree, I think. They did have a lot of those traits in common, but I guess I'm not sure what their individual skill sets have to do with the discussion?

[burrrton]

Largent played in an era where dbs could beat the s*** out of a wr

Yeah, it'd be funny to watch a group of 20-somethings watch a game from 1983.

[NorthHawk]

I wonder if trading back into the 7th round and giving up next years 6th round pick
means Doug is hanging them up?

[RiverDog]

Identical in every way I can think of.

Except for his performance relative to his peers.

When Largent retired, he owned every major receiving record on the books, including the most receptions, most receiving yards, and most touchdowns. His 100 touchdowns was the most for any player prior to his retirement. He also held a then record 177 consecutive games with at least one catch. He had 7 Pro Bowl appearances, 3 times an All Pro, and was on the 1980's All Decade team. He was a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Sure, they might have shared some similar characteristics, but if we are to be accurate, there has to be a firm distinction drawn between their careers and doing so would invite an analogy that would bring an undeserved disrespect to Baldwin. It's not far to him or Largent to make such a comparison.

[I-5]

Fully agree with you, Riv. That's why Largent is the greatest Seahawks WR in my book, how he fared against his peers.

I'm not arguing numbers at all, or that Baldwin is better.

My point was simply that Baldwin's game is almost a carbon copy of Largent's game, and he's done it against the best of his generation as well: Peterson, Norman, etc. Would have been fun to see him go against Sherman, who I think is the best CB of his generation.

ps: I had the privilege of meeting Largent in person when he came to my school (Whitman Middle School in North Seattle). This was during the Seahawks worst season, when they went winless at home. Somehow, I was able to be one of only 3 students accompanying him down the hallway, and I stupidly asked him how they could lose every home game that year, and not only did he not get angry or upset with my question, but he even smiled and answered that they really tried to win every game. Such a classy guy. Little did I know I was talking to a future HOF'er.

[RiverDog]

My point was simply that Baldwin's game is almost a carbon copy of Largent's game, and he's done it against the best of his generation as well: Peterson, Norman, etc. Would have been fun to see him go against Sherman, who I think is the best CB of his generation.

I'm not sure I agree with that, either. Largent was a better route runner, better at getting separation, and had better hands. Baldwin might have had some of those characteristics relative to his era, but only if you reduce it by a certain factor are they comparable or a "carbon copy" of Largent's. As far as who they went up against, as was pointed out, the rules of the game have changed in favor of the receiver/quarterback combination since Largent played. Indeed, the game itself has changed so much that comparisons of receivers from different eras is pretty meaningless.

ps: I had the privilege of meeting Largent in person when he came to my school (Whitman Middle School in North Seattle). This was during the Seahawks worst season, when they went winless at home. Somehow, I was able to be one of only 3 students accompanying him down the hallway, and I stupidly asked him how they could lose every home game that year, and not only did he not get angry or upset with my question, but he even smiled and answered that they really tried to win every game. Such a classy guy. Little did I know I was talking to a future HOF'er.

Cool! Largent was a great guy, similar in personality to Russell Wilson.

[burrrton]

ps: I had the privilege of meeting Largent in person when he came to my school (Whitman Middle School in North Seattle).

I exchanged hellos and an occasional hand-shake every day of training camp for 3 straight years.

I also played ping-pong against Easley- got skunked but he was unbeatable.

[edit]

(These are things I always brag about within 5 minutes of meeting a fellow Hawks fan!)

[I-5]

Riv, I never argued Baldwin was BETTER than Largent, though you keep saying Largent was better (and I agree Largent is the greatest). I’m saying Baldwin game is modeled on Largent’s BY DESIGN, or else Doug would have seeked out someone else to learn from. When I said ‘carbon cooy’ it didn’t mean equal in achievement - I’m talking more about STYLE.

Although, I’m not sure his Doug could improve his hands, since he already has the beat hands in the NFL since 2015, and that includes first ballot HOF’er Larry Fitzgerald (who came in third). I guess if Doug simply dropped zero passes he could be better, but he averages about 1 drop per 80 targets. That’s just crazy.

[RiverDog]

Riv, I never argued Baldwin was BETTER than Largent, though you keep saying Largent was better (and I agree Largent is the greatest). I’m saying Baldwin game is modeled on Largent’s BY DESIGN, or else Doug would have seeked out someone else to learn from. When I said ‘carbon cooy’ it didn’t mean equal in achievement - I’m talking more about STYLE.

Although, I’m not sure his Doug could improve his hands, since he already has the beat hands in the NFL since 2015, and that includes first ballot HOF’er Larry Fitzgerald (who came in third). I guess if Doug simply dropped zero passes he could be better, but he averages about 1 drop per 80 targets. That’s just crazy.

I understand that you weren't saying that Baldwin was better than Largent, and I never indicated such. But you were, IMO, considering them roughly equal or at the very least comparable by using terms like "identical" and "carbon copy". My point is that there is no way to compare the two players and still be fair to both of them as they differed greatly in terms of degree with regard to any traits they may have had in common.

I was trying to avoid using an analogy that might demonstrate those differences in degree as doing so wouldn't be fair to Baldwin as they would inevitably involve a superstar like Michael Jordan or Larry Bird and some other player that never so much as got nominated to the HOF, perhaps someone like Terry Porter, who was a solid player but not HOF material.

[I-5]

I think it's reasonable to put them in a style of play category without confusing it with achievement. At this point, Doug doesn't really have much chance to catch Largent. I looked at both of their career numbers, and can see that for a 3-year period (2012-2014), Doug equalled and outperformed Largent's numbers, but just couldn't stay on the field long enough to stay healthy. You can't be a HOF'er if you're not on the field, obviously. Largent set the bar for long term excellence, and deserves his ranking as one of the greatest ever. However, that doesn't mean that Baldwin's route-running, hands, or separation is inferior - why does one have to preclude the other? When Doug is on the field, he is consistently open against the best DB's, makes the biggest catches in the most clutch situations, and rarely drops a target. That's pretty much the most you can ask a guy to do.

[burrrton]

Largent set the bar for long term excellence, and deserves his ranking as one of the greatest ever. However, that doesn't mean that Baldwin's route-running, hands, or separation is inferior.

Correct. And? It sounds like you're trying to answer a different question than "Who's the greatest Seahawk WR ever?"

[RiverDog]

I think it's reasonable to put them in a style of play category without confusing it with achievement. At this point, Doug doesn't really have much chance to catch Largent. I looked at both of their career numbers, and can see that for a 3-year period (2012-2014), Doug equalled and outperformed Largent's numbers, but just couldn't stay on the field long enough to stay healthy. You can't be a HOF'er if you're not on the field, obviously. Largent set the bar for long term excellence, and deserves his ranking as one of the greatest ever. However, that doesn't mean that Baldwin's route-running, hands, or separation is inferior - why does one have to preclude the other? When Doug is on the field, he is consistently open against the best DB's, makes the biggest catches in the most clutch situations, and rarely drops a target. That's pretty much the most you can ask a guy to do.

The problem with analyzing Largent vs. Baldwin in the manner we are attempting is that the differences in the rules and style of plays in the two eras they played in makes it an apples vs. oranges comparison.

Largent played in an era where they did not keep track of dropped passes, but I watched every single game and he might have dropped 1 or 2 catchable balls per season, and that's with the threat of someone like Mike Hardin taking his head off. Baldwin didn't have to worry about footsteps like the WR's in Largent's era did.

We could go on and on, but I really hate it when we start trying to compare players from different eras as we are attempting to with Largent and Baldwin. The game changes too much.

[jshawaii22]

Largent played on an frickin expansion team...and made it to the H.O.F. Doug was good and as a UDFA he's exceptional, but he ain't going to the HOF, so what else is there to know?

[NorthHawk]

They are both the same type of player in a number of ways, but I think the most important are they were consistent and usually available to play.

[idhawkman]

They are both the same type of player in a number of ways, but I think the most important are they were consistent and usually available to play.

I think they both have the desire and heart but the precision that Largent put into his route running is second only to Rice in my book. (Jerry, not Sydney)

[RiverDog]

They are both the same type of player in a number of ways, but I think the most important are they were consistent and usually available to play.

I think they both have the desire and heart but the precision that Largent put into his route running is second only to Rice in my book. (Jerry, not Sydney)

IMO Largent's route running was 2nd to none, including Rice. He had this 6th sense that allowed him the ability to anticipate the exact right time to make his cut and get a DB turned around or leaning in the wrong direction. I've never seen as many plays from any other player, past or present, were a receiver was so consistently wide open. He didn't often have to contest 50/50 balls because the DB was usually several steps away. I remember Raymond Berry, himself a HOF receiver, giving a critical appraisal of Largent... slow, short, not physical, then said "except for one little problem: No one can cover him."

One of the funniest quotes I saw about Largent was from Lester Hayes, a Pro Bowl DB from the Raiders, and a notorious trash talker. He said that he tried his best to get into Largent's head but he wouldn't talk back or even acknowledge his presence, and Hayes started wondering if he was deaf....until Largent burned him for a 40 yard pass play and got up laughing.

[idhawkman]

IMO Largent's route running was 2nd to none, including Rice. He had this 6th sense that allowed him the ability to anticipate the exact right time to make his cut and get a DB turned around or leaning in the wrong direction. I've never seen as many plays from any other player, past or present, were a receiver was so consistently wide open. He didn't often have to contest 50/50 balls because the DB was usually several steps away. I remember Raymond Berry, himself a HOF receiver, giving a critical appraisal of Largent... slow, short, not physical, then said "except for one little problem: No one can cover him."

One of the funniest quotes I saw about Largent was from Lester Hayes, a Pro Bowl DB from the Raiders, and a notorious trash talker. He said that he tried his best to get into Largent's head but he wouldn't talk back or even acknowledge his presence, and Hayes started wondering if he was deaf....until Largent burned him for a 40 yard pass play and got up laughing.

So in other words, Largent had taken up residence in Haye's head without him knowing it until he got burned. Classic.

[burrrton]

I remember Raymond Berry, himself a HOF receiver, giving a critical appraisal of Largent... slow, short, not physical, then said "except for one little problem: No one can cover him."

Great quote.

[I-5]

Largent is the greatest Seahawks WR receiver - and possibly greatest Seahawk player - ever, but no receiver made bigger catches for Seattle than ADB did. Thank you for all the memories, Doug!

[Hawktawk]

Its a sad day No question ADB was one of the greatest ever to play the position here. Largent was Largent, not fast but could get to full speed one step out of his cut and great hands and he was durable with great career longevity.

But I think Baldwin was more athletic with an incredible vertical leap and probably has more circus catches, toe tappers, one handers a than any other Hawk. Its a tough day seeing him go along with the incredible Kam Chancellor. 2013 seems like a long time ago.....

[obiken]

DB will be hard to replace. I was re-watching the GB and KC games as I have Youtube TV, and the number of clutches in each game is going to be hard to make up.

[RiverDog]

Its a sad day No question ADB was one of the greatest ever to play the position here. Largent was Largent, not fast but could get to full speed one step out of his cut and great hands and he was durable with great career longevity.

But I think Baldwin was more athletic with an incredible vertical leap and probably has more circus catches, toe tappers, one handers a than any other Hawk. Its a tough day seeing him go along with the incredible Kam Chancellor. 2013 seems like a long time ago.....

I don't agree with you that Baldwin was more athletic. Steve Largent had incredible body control and made plenty of toe tappers and circus catches. As far as one handed catches go, I'll quote Kenny Easley regarding the effect modern day gloves has on today's receivers, noting that Largent played bare handed: (Speaking of Odell Beckam's much ballyhooed one handed catch)"If Steve Largent were wearing gloves, he could have caught that ball with one finger!"

[Hawktawk]

I remember in a game against Denver I think when Largent was on the end line in the back of the end zone and the DB tipped the ball and redirected it just a few feet from Largent who was running left to right. The ball redirected maybe a foot and Largent was still able to adjust in the blink of an eye and squeeze it for a TD. Amazing hands. My favorite play all time is still his crushing hit on Hardin in his final season. He knew when it was time to get out too, that last year he dropped a few more than usual and of course got hurt and missed time. I think ADB knew it was time too.

Nobody in their right mind is saying ADB is better, especially when you look at the era in which they played, their overall stats and Largents longevity. ADB has a bit higher catch ratio when targeted but then again he has had Russ throwing to him most of his career while Largent had Zorn and Krieg. ADB made some incredible catches though.

Largent is the GOAT, Baldwin is one of the greats, the second best all time Hawk and honorable mention to Brian Blades who played in a horrible era of Hawks ball and had his career shortened by Mirer throwing him into the safety ,telegraphing passes and ducking and throwing high and Blades still went after every ball knowing he would get leveled.

[RiverDog]

ADB has a bit higher catch ratio when targeted but then again he has had Russ throwing to him most of his career while Largent had Zorn and Krieg. ADB made some incredible catches though.

That's not the only difference. Style of play has allowed for a lot more and easier catches. Largent didn't catch many bubble screens. Most of his catches were made 10+ yards downfield. I remember a graphic one season that Largent had 71 receptions, with 67 being for either a first down or a touchdown. Plus there wasn't the rule protections for receivers back then. Apples and oranges.

That's not to diminish anything that Baldwin has achieved and it goes back to this not being fair to either player when making these types of comparisons.

[idhawkman]

That's not the only difference. Style of play has allowed for a lot more and easier catches. Largent didn't catch many bubble screens. Most of his catches were made 10+ yards downfield. I remember a graphic one season that Largent had 71 receptions, with 67 being for either a first down or a touchdown. Plus there wasn't the rule protections for receivers back then. Apples and oranges.

That's not to diminish anything that Baldwin has achieved and it goes back to this not being fair to either player when making these types of comparisons.

Not to mention going over the middle usually meant you lost your head especially when playing against Ronnie Lott, Hayes and the likes of them.