Nice write up on Irvin..

[HumanCockroach]

http://publications.lucapub.com/publica ... index.html

Nice write up, doesn't mislead one way or the other, places crtitisiscm and give do props for play. I know this has been a touchy subject, but this write up acknowledges success and failures, so I thought it would be a good link to post.

[RiverDog]

I take issue with the characterization of Irvin as a "gifted pass rusher." He's a gifted athlete with the physical ability to become a gifted pass rusher. If he were a gifted pass rusher, he'd be on the field more on 3rd downs. All I ever see for pass rushing moves out of him is a sprint to the edge or a bull rush. I don't see many swim or spin moves, ie the artwork of a pass rusher.

Because he hasn't mastered swim and spin moves, he doesn't do well in one-on-one, hand on the ground contests, and I was hopeful that this "spinner" role would get him moving before the snap, get him coming from different angles at different blockers, catching OL's off balance or out of position. But I didn't see him being used in that manner. What happened?

[Hawk Sista]

Interesting article/blog entry. I'm not sure it's capturing the insights that Pete and Dan have likely pin-pointed through hours & HOURS of observation, plotting and planning. Perhaps they gave Bruce experience @ OLB to help him mature into an eventual LEO role? Perhaps they have a plan that we/mr. Blogger guy doesn't see, but to say the way they are bringing him along is a disservice seems misplaced. Again, it was an interesting read, and there was some truth to it. ('Twas also nice to see 3 seahawks in the top 12 OLBs in the league - did I read that right??)

I think Pete/John/Dan et al. have a plan indeed. Whether Bruce doesn't have "it" to excel in the LEO role, he is better suited at OLB, they are morphing him into who the Hawks need him to be, or some combo therein is debatable. I do not know the impact of missing the 1st 4 games of the season and what that did to the rotation, the team's trust in him or his progress, but to me...it "feels" like Bruce is a talented kid (more than serviceable in a few roles) who is a lil too light w/ too few moves to be a shoe-in to come in & have the success Pete envisiond at Leo.

[HumanCockroach]

I don't know, but if he isn't a gifted pass rusher, ranking 7th in pass rushing effectiveness out of 64 DE's is a solid contribution. Maybe the "disservice" they are referring to is the talent they see, not being used. I haven't the foggiest, but to me it seemed to do a nice job of avoiding simply judging out of hand the "bad" ( that it seems some can only see) and the "good" ( that others only see). That's the reason I posted it. It was a "fair" representation IMHO.

[Hawk Sista]

I agree. Glad you took the time. Thanks!

[Seahawks4Ever]

This blog reads as if it was written by Bruce Irvin's agent. There were many Irvin/Hawk fans in here last season that also kept ballyhooing how "great" Bruce was as a rookie, well his rookie year is long gone and if he could play the LEO position as good as Clemons or Smith he would have won that position. The sad fact is that Pete screwed the pooch when he drafted Bruce Irvin and has been trying to find a position he can adequately fill ever since.

One thing that is beyond question is that DC Quinn and HC Pete Carroll know how to put together an NFL defensive roster and make it work. Blaming the Seahawk coaching staff for Irvin not living up to the "potential" PC thought he saw in him is the real disservice. This Blog reminds me of those who kept saying that the only thing wrong with Aaron Curry was the Seahawk coaching staff. Many bought into that B.S. until Curry finally admitted a couple of years after he retired that he had not worked very hard when he was in Seattle.

This Blog has several factual errors, one glaring error was to state the Irvin was playing great in his role as an OLB last season. What balderdash, he was rarely around the ball when tackles were made. I didn't witness any great pass coverage ability except for that one interception he had.

The FACT is if Irvin was as good as this blogger (and some hawk fans) believe he is then Pete and Dan would play him more, and at a position where he would excel.

What possible reason would both the Seahawk HC and the DC have to sit Irvin on the bench if he is a better player than those that are getting the snaps this Blogger thinks Irvin should be getting??? I mean, Pete went waaaay out on a limb to draft Bruce Irvin and I have to believe that no one on the team wants Bruce to succeed more than Pete Carroll.

The real fact is that Bruce Irvin has one more season to get his head together and become the player PC thought he was drafting.

[RiverDog]

I don't know, but if he isn't a gifted pass rusher, ranking 7th in pass rushing effectiveness out of 64 DE's is a solid contribution. Maybe the "disservice" they are referring to is the talent they see, not being used. I haven't the foggiest, but to me it seemed to do a nice job of avoiding simply judging out of hand the "bad" ( that it seems some can only see) and the "good" ( that others only see). That's the reason I posted it. It was a "fair" representation IMHO.

Most of that 'solid contribution' came in 2012, and most of those came in the first half of the season. His contribution this season was rather minimal.

But I do agree that it was a fair article. I'll be the first to admit that I carry somewhat of a bias as I didn't like the pick and even in his rookie year I wasn't as impressed as others were with the 8 sacks. Heck, the expectation we were given was double digit sacks in his rookie season.

[HumanCockroach]

I think the article was fair. Beyond that, just not interested in attempting to show success' or again calling out people for false statements. Irvin was the starting LB on this defense last year, that is simply the fact of the matter, whether people feel like they are able to judge fairly what that means for tangible stats is for them to decide. Irvin was the 7th most effective in the NFL his rookie season, that is simply a fact, it doesn't absolve him from having to learn to use an effective counter move, it is just what his production was ( no different than reading a stat line).

I felt it was an article that called into question what they were doing with the guy, while not absolving him from poor performances or blown chances that he has had ( the Atlanta game was specifically discussed) . Sorry if even keel info somehow is viewed as being put out by Irvins agent as a promotional add, it most definitely didn't in the least come across that way to me...

[Zorn76]

I dunno.

For as nice as those stats sound mentioned in the article, Irvin's impact remains to be seen. He contributes, but in the context of being a 1st round pick, I see him as merely average. His PT being lessened last year isn't exactly a vote of confidence, either.

I think it's questionable if he sticks long term with the team. He shows flashes here and there, and was decent in pass coverage, but he's gonna have to show much more to earn the benefit of the doubt moving forward. At the very least, I think Carroll would be wise to start formulating a plan B to hedge the Bruce bet.

[RiverDog]

I dunno.

For as nice as those stats sound mentioned in the article, Irvin's impact remains to be seen. He contributes, but in the context of being a 1st round pick, I see him as merely average. His PT being lessened last year isn't exactly a vote of confidence, either.

I think it's questionable if he sticks long term with the team. He shows flashes here and there, and was decent in pass coverage, but he's gonna have to show much more to earn the benefit of the doubt moving forward. At the very least, I think Carroll would be wise to start formulating a plan B to hedge the Bruce bet.

We must keep in mind that those stats were rather skewed as the lion's share were accumulated in Irvin's first 8-10 games of his rookie season. Since then, they've been rather bland.

I, too, thought he looked pretty decent in pass coverage. That pick he made against the Rams was a thing of beauty. But he's not a cover guy, he's a pass rush guy. They're gonna have to find a place for him where he's utilized on third downs and in other situations calling for a pass rush so he can work on developing those skills. Otherwise, he's not going to make it. Right now, he's average at best. There's a lot of up and comers that will be angling for his job, and all it will take is for one player to come along that the coaches really like and that excels in other things such as special teams and Bruce becomes expendable.

We'll see what happens this season. Irvin shot himself in the foot last year by getting himself suspended for PED's so he started out behind the 8-ball. Unless we see a near Pro Bowl season out of him, I can't imagine us picking up his 5th year option.

[HumanCockroach]

Personally, I have little doubt if Irvin is left in a role, he will improve. The LB role he currently resides in is a good one, and one I advocated when they drafted him originally. The talent level is solid, and the numbers back that up. Curry's numbers didn't, so the two are not comparable IMHO. If he continues at the pace he is, the numbers will continue to climb. People want to dismiss the actual performances that the guy put out on the field ( unless of course they were not good), but IMHO he has ranked in the top ten overall as an OLB and a pass rusher, he IS going into his second season at the position he currently plays, so personally I expect a jump, he may not, I can't say for sure, but I feel he has only just started learning the position, and that gives me optimism that he hasn't come CLOSE to reaching his ceiling in that regard.

He is an incredibly gifted athlete, and has performed at a high level ( again just the FACTS of the matter) people can debate his consistency, and his ceiling, but IMHO those stats say something about his in game performance pretty well. He may not make it, it's definitely a possibility, but I certainly haven't seen a stupidity about his play on the field ONCE in his game. He's missed plays ( everyone does) he's been outperformed ( every one does) he's been man handled ( Atlanta game) but stupid play? Nope.

[NorthHawk]

There is a matter of perspective in these types of articles.
If Irvin was on another team with a bad Defense and he got 8 sacks as a rookie, people would be asking how high his ceiling is.
On this Defense with all of the other contributors, all those sacks are considered not good enough by us fans.

I just hope he has found a place and gets to settle in to develop as a player.

[HumanCockroach]

Good point North. I find myself leaning towards defending players more, even though there are a lot of players I want to see improvement in. Irvin is one of those players, I recognise the talent that is there, I can see it, but I feel like sometimes peoples expectations are off the charts, or are so out of whack with what should be expected, that I continually point out the positives, regardless of whether I feel there is something to improve upon. At no point did I feel Irvin was a polished pass rusher, but I DID see the flashes of truly dominant play at times, and while I might have wanted to post that he needed to develop secondary moves, some felt that they had to say he was basically a wasted pick, and rubbish, so I simply couldn't post it ( just like some want to say he was ineffective for a OLB that had never played the position, when looked at objectively, he was more productive than guys that had played the position for 15 or 20 years)

Irvin still has work to do, that is obvious, but, he isn't CLOSE to as bad as many want to paint him. He isn't a "bust" or even close to one IMHO at this point, he has indeed shone what he can do on a football field, not sure why people were expecting the next LT or Reggie White, and the thought that he isn't even starting caliber is WAY off track IMO.

( well that, or it's one of those long drawn out bias' because they didn't like the pick, which at this point is how they will feel every draft, so I just don't see the point in doing so. I didn't like the Micheal's pick for instance, but after giving it some time warmed to it, barring somsome sort of horrid production, I won't hold that against him.)

[RiverDog]

There is a matter of perspective in these types of articles.
If Irvin was on another team with a bad Defense and he got 8 sacks as a rookie, people would be asking how high his ceiling is.
On this Defense with all of the other contributors, all those sacks are considered not good enough by us fans.

I just hope he has found a place and gets to settle in to develop as a player.

Let's not get carried away by blaming us spoiled rotten Seahawk fans. Pete himself said to expect double digit sacks and 550-600 snaps in Irvin's first season, and he didn't achieve either one of those goals. Second season? 2 sacks in 15 games and just 40 snaps in the last two games, the two biggest games in franchise history. He said that Irvin was going to be Chris Clemmon's replacement at Leo, and all we saw of him there was one really bad game vs. Atlanta in the playoffs and now we're off to Plan B. So excuse me if I'm expecting too much.

I don't care how you want to spin it, Irvin is behind the curve. Perhaps it's because the expectations were unreasonably high, but who's fault was that? He was a #15 overall, for crying out loud. IMO Pete was put on the defensive immediately after that draft as our selection of Irvin at #15 was by far the biggest reach in the first round, so he started saying things about his goals for Irvin that might have been a little high in order to justify his selection and get people off his back. That and Pete has a natural tendency to pour on the bullchit when he starts talking about his players, even underperforming ones like TJack. Now the chickens are coming home to roost on those lofty expectations that he gave us, so please, don't blame me for being unreasonable in my expectations for Irvin.

[HumanCockroach]

RD link? I remember snap counts being discussed, sack totals? Not so much. I remember US talking about double digit sacks, however.

[NorthHawk]

I don't believe you can say any player the Seahawks draft could be considered a reach.
By the very nature of how they rank players and what they look for a so called "reach" is not possible.
Errors in judgement and flat out mistakes do happen, however.

They might have been able to get him a few spots later - maybe the next round, or maybe the next team looking at a pass rusher would have taken him. We will never know unless we can see all of the teams draft boards, and that's not going to happen.

[HumanCockroach]

Stuck on a meaningless number.

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php/pick/15

[RiverDog]

RD link? I remember snap counts being discussed, sack totals? Not so much. I remember US talking about double digit sacks, however.

Sorry, HC, I couldn't find a direct quote from Pete. I found all sorts of other stuff talking about double digit sacks, including Irvin himself making that prediction, but nothing that provided a direct quote from PC. Perhaps it was an indirectly mentioned, like agreeing with Irvin's goal or something. I was under the impression that he had said or implied something about double digit sacks, and I'll take it back if you like. The point is that it wasn't something that was made up by us fans or by the media, it was an expectation that was given to us by someone within the Hawks organization.

North Hawk, I'm not going to argue with you about semantics as to what's a reach and what's not a reach. The fact is that nearly all of the talking heads had Irvin going in the 2nd or 3rd round and that the selection of him at #15 raised more eyebrows than any other pick in the first round. Whether he would or wouldn't have been there had we not pulled the trigger at #15 wasn't my point. My point was that because of the controversial nature of the selection, Pete was a bit defensive, or at least that's the impression I had when listening to him explain his rationale.

[NorthHawk]

"North Hawk, I'm not going to argue with you about semantics as to what's a reach and what's not a reach."

It's not semantics. The term reach is a pejorative that is thrown around like seed on a bare patch of lawn.
A reach means he was selected too soon and it's quite presumptuous of anyone to make that assertion without knowing the facts.
Those facts are not readily available to anyone, therefore the statement of any player being a reach is unprovable.

That being said, I heard Gil Brandt on NFL Radio saying that there are only 13 first round players in the Hall of Fame - and 15 Undrafted Free Agents.
I found that hard to believe considering we have Walt and Cortez in the hall.
If true, what that says to me is what we should be hoping for in the 1st round is a player that can contribute regularly for the better part of a decade.
We can hope for a future Hall of Famer, but anything more than regular starter would be a bonus.

Irvin was selected half way through the 1st round. He was in a rotation on the DL and now moved to LB. I don't know what they have in mind for him this year, but I hope he gets settled into a position where he can develop and be able to let his athleticism take him to a higher level. Once he can play without thinking first he could be a real asset.

[RiverDog]

"North Hawk, I'm not going to argue with you about semantics as to what's a reach and what's not a reach."

It's not semantics. The term reach is a pejorative that is thrown around like seed on a bare patch of lawn.
A reach means he was selected too soon and it's quite presumptuous of anyone to make that assertion without knowing the facts.
Those facts are not readily available to anyone, therefore the statement of any player being a reach is unprovable.

That being said, I heard Gil Brandt on NFL Radio saying that there are only 13 first round players in the Hall of Fame - and 15 Undrafted Free Agents.
I found that hard to believe considering we have Walt and Cortez in the hall.
If true, what that says to me is what we should be hoping for in the 1st round is a player that can contribute regularly for the better part of a decade.
We can hope for a future Hall of Famer, but anything more than regular starter would be a bonus.

Irvin was selected half way through the 1st round. He was in a rotation on the DL and now moved to LB. I don't know what they have in mind for him this year, but I hope he gets settled into a position where he can develop and be able to let his athleticism take him to a higher level. Once he can play without thinking first he could be a real asset.

If you don't like the term 'reach', fine. I don't want to get hung up on it. My point was that the Irvin selection was the most controversial pick in the first round of that draft. We debated to great lengths the wisdom of drafting a specialist that high, and I was assured by many posters that he wasn't a specialist. Now his snap count is diminishing, down to 23 in the NFCCG, 17 in the SB. That's not a good trend for any player, first round pick or not.

The key phrase in your opinion of expectations is "contribute regularly". I'm not expecting HOF or even a Pro Bowl season out of our first round draft choices. I'd be delighted if Irvin could get to 50-60 snaps a game. Heck, at this point, I'll be satisfied if he can live up to Pete's original projection for him as a rookie, ie 35-40. Is that too much to ask for out of a top half of the first round player? Christ Almighty, we only have two players on our roster that were selected that high.

[NorthHawk]

It was the most controversial pick in the first round because the media and most of us fans didn't understand how our FO ranked players.
You can't take us fans to task because many of us including me didn't understand how differently the FO works from most others in the NFL.

We seem to know more now (as does the media), but considering they look for a special quality in a player like Irvin, there is also a higher risk.
Maybe that's why we question the higher picks more than we used to on this team and why the later picks do well.

Regarding contributing regularly, in a rotation it's going to be difficult to get a lot of snaps. It's part of the theory for keeping the players fresh and having the right personnel on the field when facing particular teams and their tendencies. I can see where some games his skills might not match up well at all and other games he may play quite a lot.

I'm beginning to doubt we can look at how our players are used and compare them to others that came before or who are on other teams - at least on Defense.
It's about results, and so far it's worked out pretty well on the D side.

[HumanCockroach]

Smith is better than any OLB in pass coverage ( at least amongst qualifiers) Irvin ranks in the top 12 hence Smith is on the field against passing teams ( see Denver,NO) Irvin isn't "bad" in coverage, in fact he is pretty good, but he is DRASTICALLY better than Smith in run defense, hence he is the starter.

That said, something HAS to be acknowledged in regards to the position switch ( which you refuse to do RD) and something HAS to be acknowledged in regards to the amount of pass rush attempts that continue to be mitigated. Would you rather have pass coverage or rush ability from that spot? That question has to be considered carefully. Obviously, the Hawks coaching staff felt that they could provide adequate pass rush, with their front four, and an extra LB wasn't needed to put pressure, hence they CHOSE to play the better pass cover player, and pull the extra rusher.

It isn't difficult to see, if one is so inclined to LOOK. I just don't think some are willing to do so, at least not in any way shape or form objectively.

[RiverDog]

It was the most controversial pick in the first round because the media and most of us fans didn't understand how our FO ranked players.
You can't take us fans to task because many of us including me didn't understand how differently the FO works from most others in the NFL.

We seem to know more now (as does the media), but considering they look for a special quality in a player like Irvin, there is also a higher risk.
Maybe that's why we question the higher picks more than we used to on this team and why the later picks do well.

Regarding contributing regularly, in a rotation it's going to be difficult to get a lot of snaps. It's part of the theory for keeping the players fresh and having the right personnel on the field when facing particular teams and their tendencies. I can see where some games his skills might not match up well at all and other games he may play quite a lot.

I'm beginning to doubt we can look at how our players are used and compare them to others that came before or who are on other teams - at least on Defense.
It's about results, and so far it's worked out pretty well on the D side.

Here's the defensive snap counts from the SB. I assume it does not include special teams snap counts:

E Thomas 69, B Maxwell, 69 B Wagner, 66 K Chancellor, 61 R Sherman, 55 W Thurmond, 51 K Wright, 50 M Bennett, 47 C Clemons, 46 C McDonald, 45 C Avril, 41 M Smith, 34 B Mebane, 23 O Schofield, 20 T McDaniel, 19 R Bryant, 18 B Irvin, 17 J Lane, 14 D Shead, 8 M Morgan, 3 H Farwell, 3.

The point is that Irvin's lack of snap counts doesn't seem to be the result of his being in a rotation. He's healthy, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be up in the 35-40 snap a game region like the other regular LB's and DL's are.

As far as HC's point that Denver being a passing team, pass defense, or more specifically rushing the passer, was supposed to be Irvin's long suit and the reason we drafted him. Secondly, Irvin got only 23 snaps in the NFCCG vs. the Niners, a predominantly running team. It would appear that despite what they've been telling us, the coaching staff is losing confidence in Irvin, at least losing confidence in the position he was being asked to play.

IMO there's no reason why Irvin isn't getting more snaps than he has towards the end of the season. He was healthy and we were playing a variety of teams with varying offenses.

[NorthHawk]

It was the most controversial pick in the first round because the media and most of us fans didn't understand how our FO ranked players.
You can't take us fans to task because many of us including me didn't understand how differently the FO works from most others in the NFL.

We seem to know more now (as does the media), but considering they look for a special quality in a player like Irvin, there is also a higher risk.
Maybe that's why we question the higher picks more than we used to on this team and why the later picks do well.

Regarding contributing regularly, in a rotation it's going to be difficult to get a lot of snaps. It's part of the theory for keeping the players fresh and having the right personnel on the field when facing particular teams and their tendencies. I can see where some games his skills might not match up well at all and other games he may play quite a lot.

I'm beginning to doubt we can look at how our players are used and compare them to others that came before or who are on other teams - at least on Defense.
It's about results, and so far it's worked out pretty well on the D side.

Here's the defensive snap counts from the SB. I assume it does not include special teams snap counts:

E Thomas 69, B Maxwell, 69 B Wagner, 66 K Chancellor, 61 R Sherman, 55 W Thurmond, 51 K Wright, 50 M Bennett, 47 C Clemons, 46 C McDonald, 45 C Avril, 41 M Smith, 34 B Mebane, 23 O Schofield, 20 T McDaniel, 19 R Bryant, 18 B Irvin, 17 J Lane, 14 D Shead, 8 M Morgan, 3 H Farwell, 3.

The point is that Irvin's lack of snap counts doesn't seem to be the result of his being in a rotation. He's healthy, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be up in the 35-40 snap a game region like the other regular LB's and DL's are.

As far as HC's point that Denver being a passing team, pass defense, or more specifically rushing the passer, was supposed to be Irvin's long suit and the reason we drafted him. Secondly, Irvin got only 23 snaps in the NFCCG vs. the Niners, a predominantly running team. It would appear that despite what they've been telling us, the coaching staff is losing confidence in Irvin, at least losing confidence in the position he was being asked to play.

IMO there's no reason why Irvin isn't getting more snaps than he has towards the end of the season. He was healthy and we were playing a variety of teams with varying offenses.

Me and the rest of the posters on this forum can't speak for what they are trying to do with him. We can only try to understand it after the fact.
All I know is they look for specific skills then find a spot for them to be used or make changes to the Defense to exploit those skills.
Pete demands mistake free football. I suspect that includes playing your position properly as well as not turning over the football. It might be that they don't think he was fully ready at LB last year to not get caught out of position. LB still is new to him after all and with his athleticism, he could be a good player for a number of years - if he's given the chance to learn it and takes advantage of it.

I wish he was a dominant player right now - but even if he ends up to be a role player, the results have still been pretty good the last couple of years on Defense.
It's not like he has to be a big piece of the puzzle for the Defense to be successful. That part is already done.

[HumanCockroach]

It was the most controversial pick in the first round because the media and most of us fans didn't understand how our FO ranked players.
You can't take us fans to task because many of us including me didn't understand how differently the FO works from most others in the NFL.

We seem to know more now (as does the media), but considering they look for a special quality in a player like Irvin, there is also a higher risk.
Maybe that's why we question the higher picks more than we used to on this team and why the later picks do well.

Regarding contributing regularly, in a rotation it's going to be difficult to get a lot of snaps. It's part of the theory for keeping the players fresh and having the right personnel on the field when facing particular teams and their tendencies. I can see where some games his skills might not match up well at all and other games he may play quite a lot.

I'm beginning to doubt we can look at how our players are used and compare them to others that came before or who are on other teams - at least on Defense.
It's about results, and so far it's worked out pretty well on the D side.

Here's the defensive snap counts from the SB. I assume it does not include special teams snap counts:

E Thomas 69, B Maxwell, 69 B Wagner, 66 K Chancellor, 61 R Sherman, 55 W Thurmond, 51 K Wright, 50 M Bennett, 47 C Clemons, 46 C McDonald, 45 C Avril, 41 M Smith, 34 B Mebane, 23 O Schofield, 20 T McDaniel, 19 R Bryant, 18 B Irvin, 17 J Lane, 14 D Shead, 8 M Morgan, 3 H Farwell, 3.

The point is that Irvin's lack of snap counts doesn't seem to be the result of his being in a rotation. He's healthy, so there's no reason why he shouldn't be up in the 35-40 snap a game region like the other regular LB's and DL's are.

As far as HC's point that Denver being a passing team, pass defense, or more specifically rushing the passer, was supposed to be Irvin's long suit and the reason we drafted him. Secondly, Irvin got only 23 snaps in the NFCCG vs. the Niners, a predominantly running team. It would appear that despite what they've been telling us, the coaching staff is losing confidence in Irvin, at least losing confidence in the position he was being asked to play.

IMO there's no reason why Irvin isn't getting more snaps than he has towards the end of the season. He was healthy and we were playing a variety of teams with varying offenses.

Your OWN snap count actually SHOWS my point RD, or are we to infer that Mebane and McDaniel, Bryant, ALSO lost the coaches confidence? I said that Irvin garnered less snaps against pass heavy teams, and guess what, the three mentioned ALSO received less snaps, why do you think that is? Seattle ran the NASCAR package almost EXCLUSIVELY which removes Irvin ( and in fact he took more snaps on the line to spell Avril and Clemmons, than at LB), why? If you answer that question any other way than they were facing a pass oriented/ heavy team, you are lost.

As for SF, take a look at WHEN Irvin got his snaps, it isn't coincidence that Kap had issues shredding the D after half time with his legs ( and has had articles written about WHY that occurred, and the dudes name was Irvin, who SPIED him for the bulk of the secon half, minus obvious passing downs).

You want to know why I NEVER agree with points you make about necessary improvements Irvin needs to make? It's because you are INCAPABLE or UNWILLING to look at the situation, with ANY objectivity or realistic eexpectations, based on a WORTHLESS number in a auction, that means absolute d!ck after they step off that stage. You expect Reggie White, or LT numbers, because he was selected 15th, good lord. The dude finished top 3 in the NFL for DROTY and you moan, he proceeds to OUTPERFORM every pass rusher in the draft, not good enough, he finishes ranked in the TOP 10 ( out of 64) OLB his FIRST year ever playing the position, at the HIGHEST level possible, and STILL you quibble.

He HAS performed, at the VERY LEAST Adequately for his draft position, and yet, you simply can't acknowledge it.

He HAS work to do, but MOST realistic people don't expect, what YOU are. He IS the starting OLB ahead of Smith ( why you might ask? Because he is BETTER than him).

[RiverDog]

Your OWN snap count actually SHOWS my point RD, or are we to infer that Mebane and McDaniel, Bryant, ALSO lost the coaches confidence? I said that Irvin garnered less snaps against pass heavy teams, and guess what, the three mentioned ALSO received less snaps, why do you think that is? Seattle ran the NASCAR package almost EXCLUSIVELY which removes Irvin ( and in fact he took more snaps on the line to spell Avril and Clemmons, than at LB), why? If you answer that question any other way than they were facing a pass oriented/ heavy team, you are lost.

As for SF, take a look at WHEN Irvin got his snaps, it isn't coincidence that Kap had issues shredding the D after half time with his legs ( and has had articles written about WHY that occurred, and the dudes name was Irvin, who SPIED him for the bulk of the secon half, minus obvious passing downs).

You want to know why I NEVER agree with points you make about necessary improvements Irvin needs to make? It's because you are INCAPABLE or UNWILLING to look at the situation, with ANY objectivity or realistic eexpectations, based on a WORTHLESS number in a auction, that means absolute d!ck after they step off that stage. You expect Reggie White, or LT numbers, because he was selected 15th, good lord. The dude finished top 3 in the NFL for DROTY and you moan, he proceeds to OUTPERFORM every pass rusher in the draft, not good enough, he finishes ranked in the TOP 10 ( out of 64) OLB his FIRST year ever playing the position, at the HIGHEST level possible, and STILL you quibble.

He HAS performed, at the VERY LEAST Adequately for his draft position, and yet, you simply can't acknowledge it.

He HAS work to do, but MOST realistic people don't expect, what YOU are. He IS the starting OLB ahead of Smith ( why you might ask? Because he is BETTER than him).

Not really. I could care less what you think of me or my opinions.

The fact is that Irvin's snaps are way down. You can rationalize it by claiming that it's just a natural part of the rotation or that it has to do with the opponent we are facing, but they're way down and it has nothing to do with his health. I refuse to believe that our coaching staff is content with Irvin's role in this defense as we've seen in the latter part of last season.

I still want to know what the heck happened to this 'spinner' role for Irvin that they trotted out about this time last year. Did we ever see it or something like it?

[HumanCockroach]

No, per your provided stats, you rationalised it. Irvin snaps went down against passing teams while Smith's went up, and vice versa. It ain't rocket science. And you have spent two years "rationalising" you bias, so there isn't much to be gained in that regard either. Whether you care what I think about you or not, continuing to hammer something because you don't like it, even though you have been proven wrong, again, and again, and again simply doesn't strengthen the platform or opinion you continue to regurgitate. Irvin is a top 10 OLB in the NFL and he was a top ten pass rusher in the NFL the season before, the stats, and facts are there, but you continue to insist otherwise. It shows clearly what your "opinion" is based on, and it simply isn't anything resembling accurate in any way shape or form.

You hated him from the word go, and are one of those fans INCAPABLE of accepting you might not know best. Irvin IS a top three defensive rookie,how did the guy you wanted do? You wan "x" from pick "x" and if you don't get it, you can't adjust and actually SEE what is happening right in front of your eyes.

Irvin is never going to be a HOF, player, course there has been what 2 in the ENTIRE history of the NFL selected with that pick, but whatever, Irvin should be,because well, RD said so.

LMFAO and SMFH.

[RiverDog]

No, per your provided stats, you rationalised it. Irvin snaps went down against passing teams while Smith's went up, and vice versa. It ain't rocket science. And you have spent two years "rationalising" you bias, so there isn't much to be gained in that regard either. Whether you care what I think about you or not, continuing to hammer something because you don't like it, even though you have been proven wrong, again, and again, and again simply doesn't strengthen the platform or opinion you continue to regurgitate. Irvin is a top 10 OLB in the NFL and he was a top ten pass rusher in the NFL the season before, the stats, and facts are there, but you continue to insist otherwise. It shows clearly what your "opinion" is based on, and it simply isn't anything resembling accurate in any way shape or form.

You hated him from the word go, and are one of those fans INCAPABLE of accepting you might not know best. Irvin IS a top three defensive rookie,how did the guy you wanted do? You wan "x" from pick "x" and if you don't get it, you can't adjust and actually SEE what is happening right in front of your eyes.

Irvin is never going to be a HOF, player, course there has been what 2 in the ENTIRE history of the NFL selected with that pick, but whatever, Irvin should be,because well, RD said so.

LMFAO and SMFH.

I wish you would cease with the personal slights and mischaracterizations. Never once have I framed any of Irvin's goals as attaining some form of stardom or highlight reel player like Earl or Sherman. I simply want to see him live up to what Pete said he was going to be, ie a guy that's going to improve our pass rush and play 35-40 snaps a game....every game, not just the games vs. running teams. Besides, he was brought in here to rush the passer, not to be a run stopper. If being used exclusively on running downs or against running teams is his ultimate role, he's in trouble IMO.

Irvin was penciled in as an eventual Leo. That plan was aborted after playing just one game at that position. Why? Was it that bad? Did he show so little promise that they gave up on him after just one game? And if he was that bad that they threw in the towel on him as a Leo so quickly after having drafted him with that in mind, what give us hope that he'll succeed at Sam? He was supposed to play this "spinner" role, of which despite repeated requests for comment or analysis, neither you nor anyone else have even attempted to tell me what happened with that plan.

Bruce Irvin said that the move to linebacker "saved my career". Why would he say such a thing? Was he that disappointed in his performance at DE in his rookie season?

[RiverDog]

No, per your provided stats, you rationalised it. Irvin snaps went down against passing teams while Smith's went up, and vice versa. It ain't rocket science. And you have spent two years "rationalising" you bias, so there isn't much to be gained in that regard either. Whether you care what I think about you or not, continuing to hammer something because you don't like it, even though you have been proven wrong, again, and again, and again simply doesn't strengthen the platform or opinion you continue to regurgitate. Irvin is a top 10 OLB in the NFL and he was a top ten pass rusher in the NFL the season before, the stats, and facts are there, but you continue to insist otherwise. It shows clearly what your "opinion" is based on, and it simply isn't anything resembling accurate in any way shape or form.

You hated him from the word go, and are one of those fans INCAPABLE of accepting you might not know best. Irvin IS a top three defensive rookie,how did the guy you wanted do? You wan "x" from pick "x" and if you don't get it, you can't adjust and actually SEE what is happening right in front of your eyes.

Irvin is never going to be a HOF, player, course there has been what 2 in the ENTIRE history of the NFL selected with that pick, but whatever, Irvin should be,because well, RD said so.

LMFAO and SMFH.

I wish you would cease with the personal slights and mischaracterizations. Never once have I framed any of Irvin's goals as attaining some form of stardom or highlight reel player like Earl or Sherman. I simply want to see him live up to what Pete said he was going to be, ie a guy that's going to improve our pass rush and play 35-40 snaps a game....every game, not just the games vs. running teams. Besides, he was brought in here to rush the passer, not to be a run stopper. If being used exclusively on running downs or against running teams is his ultimate role, he's in trouble IMO.

San Francisco is a running team, and Irvin saw just 23 snaps against them in the NFCCG. Why? If we are to believe you, they should have been up into the 40's. Or was it maybe that KJ Wright returned to the lineup?

Irvin was penciled in as an eventual Leo. That plan was aborted after playing just one game at that position. Why? Was it that bad? Did he show so little promise that they gave up on him after just one game? And if he was that bad that they threw in the towel on him as a Leo so quickly after having drafted him with that in mind, what give us hope that he'll succeed at Sam? He was supposed to play this "spinner" role, of which despite repeated requests for comment or analysis, neither you nor anyone else have even attempted to tell me what happened with that plan.

Bruce Irvin said that the move to linebacker "saved my career". Why would he say such a thing? Was he that disappointed in his performance at DE in his rookie season?

[NorthHawk]

RD, I think you have to forget about what Pete said.
I think it's part of his enthusiasm or maybe one of his ways to motivate by overstating expectations.

You might be right and in a few years Irvin won't be playing in the NFL, but if we accept what the scouts have said about how they draft and what they look for, you will see that they look for special talent or ability then find a way to use it even if it means changing the Defense to make it fit - if it makes the Defense better.
At this point, they may still be looking for the right key to unlock his potential and what they saw in him in College.
Maybe they won't find it, but if they do find it he might just be able to meet or exceed all of our expectations.

[HumanCockroach]

No, per your provided stats, you rationalised it. Irvin snaps went down against passing teams while Smith's went up, and vice versa. It ain't rocket science. And you have spent two years "rationalising" you bias, so there isn't much to be gained in that regard either. Whether you care what I think about you or not, continuing to hammer something because you don't like it, even though you have been proven wrong, again, and again, and again simply doesn't strengthen the platform or opinion you continue to regurgitate. Irvin is a top 10 OLB in the NFL and he was a top ten pass rusher in the NFL the season before, the stats, and facts are there, but you continue to insist otherwise. It shows clearly what your "opinion" is based on, and it simply isn't anything resembling accurate in any way shape or form.

You hated him from the word go, and are one of those fans INCAPABLE of accepting you might not know best. Irvin IS a top three defensive rookie,how did the guy you wanted do? You wan "x" from pick "x" and if you don't get it, you can't adjust and actually SEE what is happening right in front of your eyes.

Irvin is never going to be a HOF, player, course there has been what 2 in the ENTIRE history of the NFL selected with that pick, but whatever, Irvin should be,because well, RD said so.

LMFAO and SMFH.

I wish you would cease with the personal slights and mischaracterizations. Never once have I framed any of Irvin's goals as attaining some form of stardom or highlight reel player like Earl or Sherman. I simply want to see him live up to what Pete said he was going to be, ie a guy that's going to improve our pass rush and play 35-40 snaps a game....every game, not just the games vs. running teams. Besides, he was brought in here to rush the passer, not to be a run stopper. If being used exclusively on running downs or against running teams is his ultimate role, he's in trouble IMO.

Irvin was penciled in as an eventual Leo. That plan was aborted after playing just one game at that position. Why? Was it that bad? Did he show so little promise that they gave up on him after just one game? And if he was that bad that they threw in the towel on him as a Leo so quickly after having drafted him with that in mind, what give us hope that he'll succeed at Sam? He was supposed to play this "spinner" role, of which despite repeated requests for comment or analysis, neither you nor anyone else have even attempted to tell me what happened with that plan.

Bruce Irvin said that the move to linebacker "saved my career". Why would he say such a thing? Was he that disappointed in his performance at DE in his rookie season?

[Eaglehawk]

Definitely a good article.
Not too bad not too good. I'd say just right.

[RiverDog]

RD, I think you have to forget about what Pete said.
I think it's part of his enthusiasm or maybe one of his ways to motivate by overstating expectations.

You might be right and in a few years Irvin won't be playing in the NFL, but if we accept what the scouts have said about how they draft and what they look for, you will see that they look for special talent or ability then find a way to use it even if it means changing the Defense to make it fit - if it makes the Defense better.
At this point, they may still be looking for the right key to unlock his potential and what they saw in him in College.
Maybe they won't find it, but if they do find it he might just be able to meet or exceed all of our expectations.

I don't think we should "forget about what Pete said." Take it with a grain of salt might be a better term. I fully realize that Pete tends to overstate expectations, and IMO it is understandable that he did so with Irvin as he was under a bit of fire for what the media perceived as going off the reservation in spending such a high draft pick on someone they did not hold in as high a regard.

But like it or not, they are still expectations, ones that Pete contributed to, and we're constantly rating players as to their worth to our team relative to where they were selected in the draft. How many times have we mentioned Russell Wilson's worth vs. his 3rd round draft slot? Or Richard Sherman? Or Cam Chancellor? It's a subject that's frequently discussed with our better players that we view as great bargains or insightful selections, and I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same thing with marginal players that were taken with higher picks such as Irvin and Carpenter and to be able to do so without telling each other we're some sort of lunatic for expressing our doubts.

Oh, and by the way, I have never said that Irvin would be "out of the NFL in a few years", although that's definitely a possibility. My argument has always been geared towards his draft slotting vs. his on field contributions.

[HumanCockroach]

His draft slot ceases to matter the second he walks of that podium.

[c_hawkbob]

His draft slot ceases to matter the second he walks of that podium.

As it applies to earning a spot on the field I agree. Financially though, as it applies both in their first contract and their signability on their second go-round, not so much.

[RiverDog]

His draft slot ceases to matter the second he walks of that podium.

Perhaps to you it ceases to matter. But I can assure you that it matters to Pete and John. Every good manager, and I consider Pete and John to be included as such, are constantly reviewing their past decisions, examine what went wrong, what misjudgments they made, etc., to see how they can improve on future decisions. Did they put too much weight on combine performances? What school they came from? Certain scouts recommendations? Did they ignore the 'red flags'?

And if it matters to the head coach and GM, it matters here in this forum, as that's what we do: Second guess coaching decisions, Monday morning quarterbacking, and dime store general managers.

[HumanCockroach]

His draft slot ceases to matter the second he walks of that podium.

Perhaps to you it ceases to matter. But I can assure you that it matters to Pete and John. Every good manager, and I consider Pete and John to be included as such, are constantly reviewing their past decisions, examine what went wrong, what misjudgments they made, etc., to see how they can improve on future decisions. Did they put too much weight on combine performances? What school they came from? Certain scouts recommendations? Did they ignore the 'red flags'?

And if it matters to the head coach and GM, it matters here in this forum, as that's what we do: Second guess coaching decisions, Monday morning quarterbacking, and dime store general managers.

Sure it matters to them, up until they walk off that podium, after that, the ONLY thing that matters is their performance on the field, and since they continue to put Irvin on the field, and he continues to start, play well and work, they as a whole would feel what exactly? Dissapointment? I kind of doubt it. This team PERFORMANCE matters, how many times do you need examples of it?

[RiverDog]

His draft slot ceases to matter the second he walks of that podium.

Perhaps to you it ceases to matter. But I can assure you that it matters to Pete and John. Every good manager, and I consider Pete and John to be included as such, are constantly reviewing their past decisions, examine what went wrong, what misjudgments they made, etc., to see how they can improve on future decisions. Did they put too much weight on combine performances? What school they came from? Certain scouts recommendations? Did they ignore the 'red flags'?

And if it matters to the head coach and GM, it matters here in this forum, as that's what we do: Second guess coaching decisions, Monday morning quarterbacking, and dime store general managers.

Sure it matters to them, up until they walk off that podium, after that, the ONLY thing that matters is their performance on the field, and since they continue to put Irvin on the field, and he continues to start, play well and work, they as a whole would feel what exactly? Dissapointment? I kind of doubt it. This team PERFORMANCE matters, how many times do you need examples of it?

Draft status shouldn't, and in PC's case, doesn't matter one little bit when it comes to who plays and who doesn't. Same goes for a player's popularity, background, ethnicity, bloodlines, etc. A good coach screens out all that static, and Pete has that ability in spades.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about evaluating past decisions. All coaches and GM's are constantly revisiting their decisions, good and bad. The fact that Pete and John have, to what at this point appears to have been an under utilization of a major asset, ie a top half of the first round draft choice, is not lost on them.

[NorthHawk]

They selected him when they did because they didn't think he would be there later.
Sure, they would loved to have been able to wait until the 4th round, but they saw something in him that they thought/think they can use.
At some point you have to make a 1st pick of the draft - they obviously thought he was worth it at the time and that he wouldn't last much longer.
We'll never know how other teams rank the players Seattle takes, so unless he washes out, it's not a bad pick. And we won't know that for a couple more years.

[I-5]

Couldn't everything that is said about Irvin not living up to expectations be said of James Carpenter? Carp was our top pick 1 year before Irvin, and as far as I know Pete is more excited about him than most of us are. Maybe both Irvin and Carp will turn out to be mistakes....but so what? This Seahawks regime has earned my trust as an organization that drafts with a purpose and a vision. It doesn't mean they will hit on every pick. I think that's part of the vision, too.

If both Irvin and Carp make the roster this year, then it means that Pete sees something worth developing to its potential, regardless of whether we think it's early, late, or right on time. And if it doesn't work out at all, that's life.

I personally think of the 2, Carp will have the breakout year over Bruce, but you can never undestimate Coach Norton and Coach Quinn.