Bruce Irvin

[Oly]

That guy has caught a lot of flak around here and other boards, but give him his due. He was excellent last night. He was consistently in the backfield, forcing Cousins to move or throw early. But more than that, he was unusually good in the running game. That's been his main trouble for a long time, and he showed well last night. Sure, the TEs blocking him weren't great, but he wasn't even that challenged by them most of the night, which you couldn't say about his performance in the past couple of seasons.

For the first time, I'm starting to get some faith that he might develop into the LEO of the future.

[FolkCrusader]

He was fairly dominant in his role, but it does appear they will continue to platoon him. He looks much stronger at the point of attack than he has in the past, if he stays healthy and continues to develop the parts of his game that lack he could have a great last half of his career ala Chris Clemmons.

[HumanCockroach]

Last half? He is still just scratching the beginning of his career ( third year) He will continue to develop his pass rushing, but he is a LB and will continue to remain in that role for the forseable future.

[mykc14]

That guy has caught a lot of flak around here and other boards, but give him his due. He was excellent last night. He was consistently in the backfield, forcing Cousins to move or throw early. But more than that, he was unusually good in the running game. That's been his main trouble for a long time, and he showed well last night. Sure, the TEs blocking him weren't great, but he wasn't even that challenged by them most of the night, which you couldn't say about his performance in the past couple of seasons.

For the first time, I'm starting to get some faith that he might develop into the LEO of the future.

I would also add that he did very well against the run. He was able to string the RB out all the way to the sideline a few times, very impressive for a guy his size.

[HumanCockroach]

He ALWAYS does excellent against the run. Full yard less per carry with Irvin on the feild as opposed to Smith.

Some get confused with the tackle totals, and claim someone isn't good against the run without them, and last nights game is a PRIME example of how rushing defense actually works.

[obiken]

He was not a good 1st rounder, River, and I will not back off that point. We'll see on the rest.

[Oly]

He ALWAYS does excellent against the run. Full yard less per carry with Irvin on the feild as opposed to Smith.

Some get confused with the tackle totals, and claim someone isn't good against the run without them, and last nights game is a PRIME example of how rushing defense actually works.

Given how they sub him and the rest of the front 7, I would need to see more of a breakdown of game situation and Irvin's role before saying that he is the difference maker in that stat.

I based my opinion on watching games, not on stats (didn't even look at them before this), and prior to this year, the gap between his run defense and Clemons' was huge to my eyes. I know I'm not the only one, as a bunch of pretty knowledgable posters were wondering last year if he would need to switch to SAM permanently to thrive because of his difficult time sealing the edge. But even if we disagree about how good he was before this year, we definitely agree that he's playing well against the run now.

[Oly]

He was not a good 1st rounder, River, and I will not back off that point. We'll see on the rest.

River didn't post here (and IIRC, he has been very critical of Irvin in the past).

But on the subject of your post, I think you care much more about perceived value than I do. You have always said that he could have been had later, whereas I saw his performance last night as good for a 1st rounder which is all I care about.

[monkey]

I tend to agree a little with both sides of this one, as I agree that Irvin hasn't really performed quite up to the expectations we would normally have for a first round pick...well at least he hasn't recently, though he led all rookies in sacks his rookie season, which we MUST not forget! That still counts!

At the same time, I feel that it's us fans who are placing those expectations on him more than the coaching staff is. The coaching staff drafted him because of his unique skill set, and has always wanted him to be more of a specialist than what we fans feel a first round pick ought to be.
Remember, the way that Pete and John draft is NOT by the old book, they've gone completely off that program, and written a whole new book for themselves. Their expectations of the draft are MUCH different than what the Mel Kipers of the world think they ought to be.

Since that is the case, we fans need to judge him differently as well IMO. He may not be doing what we think he ought to be doing, but for the most part, (except when he's hurt) he's been the player Pete and John thought they were getting when they drafted him.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Forget Kiper I go by MY expectations of what a mid first rounder should be and Irvin has been a disappointment in that regards. He was a huge over reach and should have been a 3rd. rounder at best. But, he has been doing better this season and has found a place on the team. But, unless he becomes JT Superstar before the end of the season he is NOT going to get the BIG pay day a former first rounder would be expectations in the upcoming off season.

[RiverDog]

I thought Irvin had a pretty decent game Monday. He got some good pressure on the QB and actually stuffed a running play or two. It's a step in the right direction, although like Obi, it's going to take a whole lot more than one decent, slightly above average performance for me to back off from my tired, often stated position that he was not a good use of a #15 overall selection.

[HumanCockroach]

Ol', I've provided the stats before by PFF for everyone to peruse. The guy SHOULD be a Sam which is why he continues to draw starts in that position, ahead of Smith, he is a LB with pass rush ability. Overall he has graded out as a well above average LB, led the league in sacks for rookies, finished third in DROTY voting, has been placed in the top hundred inpact defensive players by ESPN. Overall he has had an impact, and while he isn't Lawrence Taylor, he is a far cry from underperforming or a bust that so many on this board continue to insist he Is.

[Seahawks4Ever]

I am SICK of people dredging up Irvin's sack numbers as a rookie. Chandler Jones was in the same draft as Irvin but drafted several picks AFTER Bruce. He is leading his team in sacks THIS season and NOBODY cares what he did as a rookie. PC could have drafted Jones but he didn't, did he?? Jones and Irvin have similar body styles but Jones has worked on his pass rushing skills and strengthened his upper body since being drafted 3 years ago, what has Irvin worked on? I hope Irvin does work in to a starter(he hasn't yet) at either the SAM or DE position but he has to do a lot more to justify that whopping pay day you know he has been dreaming about since he was drafted.

[kalibane]

I hope Irvin does work in to a starter(he hasn't yet) at either the SAM or DE position but he has to do a lot more to justify that whopping pay day you know he has been dreaming about since he was drafted.

What does this have to do with anything? He doesn't have a big contract now and thus, isn't overpaid. He won't be overpaid unless Pete and John decide to overpay him. This is completely irrelevant.

And give me a break about Chandler Jones. He's on pace for 8 sacks as a full time starter. If your beef with Irvin is inconsistancy you shouldn't be looking at Jones as your greener grass. He isn't exactly a force to be reckoned with on a week to week basis either.

Irvin hasn't been a home run by any stretch but he is a solid contributor in what is turning out to be (aside from Luck and Kuechly) a pretty piss poor draft in the first round. Whether you care to admit it or not you can make a pretty strong case that Irvin is the 4th or 5th best player to come out of the first round.

[HumanCockroach]

What are you talking about? Irvin has been, and will continue to be the starter at his position, as for the sacks, you are lost, look up how many times Seattle blitzed him last season, and get back to me. With his hand in the dirt against Washington he showed his pass rush skills ( making Williams look feeble multiple times, you know ALL PRO Williams), people claiming he hasn't improved, hasn't been at the minimum solid, are clueless.

[NorthHawk]

We all want all of our 1st round picks to be All Pro's, but the reality is a large number of 1st rounders never play for the team they were drafted after their first contract. If we can get 2 full contracts out of Irvin with him being a solid player for this team while used as Monkey above described, he will have proven to be a solid choice. And really, that's what teams want from their drafts - solid players that play for the better part of a decade. Anything more is a bonus.

[RiverDog]

What are you talking about? Irvin has been, and will continue to be the starter at his position, as for the sacks, you are lost, look up how many times Seattle blitzed him last season, and get back to me. With his hand in the dirt against Washington he showed his pass rush skills ( making Williams look feeble multiple times, you know ALL PRO Williams), people claiming he hasn't improved, hasn't been at the minimum solid, are clueless.

Irvin isn't a starter. It may only be a formality, but there can only be 11 starters on defense, and our starting LB's were listed Monday as Wright, Wagner, and Smith. He's a situational player.

[jshawaii22]

... to continue OBS's comment, here's the quote from Pete on the Redskins game:

6. Carroll said Super Bowl XLVIII MVP linebacker Malcolm Smith did not play a defensive snap on Monday against the Redskins because the team liked what they saw from Bruce Irvin, "We felt really good about his contribution." Opportunity was there for a Smith-Irvin split of reps at weakside linebacker, but Carroll said Irvin was playing so well they decided to keep him in.

[monkey]

Irvin isn't a starter. It may only be a formality, but there can only be 11 starters on defense, and our starting LB's were listed Monday as Wright, Wagner, and Smith. He's a situational player.

Actually, last season Irvin was listed as the starter more often than Smith, who mostly came in on third downs and or obvious passing situations.

It would be most accurate to say that the two share snaps at the position, and that there isn't always a clear starter there, though Irvin was listed as the starter far more often.

Except when he isn't healthy (which was the case with Irvin earlier and which is why he wasn't listed as the starter like he was most of last year) Irvin is in fact the starter, though he SHARES the position with Smith quite a bit.

[HumanCockroach]

Grasping at straws here RD. He was the starter game one, and is coming off an injury. Irvin is indeed the starter, no matter your feelings on him, he has been the starter, and will continue to be so moving forward ( as he has been, baring injury or suspension). Not only that, he had more snaps than your listed starter Smith ( and honestly I'm not even sure he even took the first defensive snap, as he was invisible for the entire game).

[RiverDog]

Then write to ESPN or who ever they get their starting lineups from, because they announced Malcom Smith as the starter, not Irvin.

But I do agree, Irvin had a pretty fair game, probably the best one I've seen out of him as a LB with the possible exception of the first Rams game last season.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL, so it's ESPN's problem that Irvin was on the field? ESPN muffs starting lineups all the time, you watched the game who was starting and who played more? Who has been starting when not injured or suspended for the last season and a half? It isn't Smith RD.In fact last season Smith was the situational pass defender, and played the bulk of his snaps when a LB was injured/ suspended or the were playing a pass happy team. You know that, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge it.

[c_hawkbob]

In today's NFL being a 'starter' is almost a n honorary designation. Too much is made of whether a player is actually starting or not. What matters is how much they contribute. Bruce had a great game, starter or not.

[monkey]

In today's NFL being a 'starter' is almost a n honorary designation. Too much is made of whether a player is actually starting or not. What matters is how much they contribute. Bruce had a great game, starter or not.

I agree, the starter label in today's game of specialists, is more of an honorary title than anything now. Especially on defense.

[RiverDog]

In today's NFL being a 'starter' is almost a n honorary designation. Too much is made of whether a player is actually starting or not. What matters is how much they contribute. Bruce had a great game, starter or not.

While noting that it was only a "formality", the only reason I mentioned the designation of starter was in response to HC's claim that Irvin was a starter at his position. I suggest that we dispense with the term, at least as it relates to the front 7, running backs, and wide receivers as they rotate in and out so frequently.

[HumanCockroach]

I wasn't the only one who caught you on whether Irvin was the starter or not, Irvin is the starter ( you know that whole Smith didn't play a single snap on defense thing really kind of hammers that home pretty clear) you were the one claiming he was a "situational player" which he isn't, and hasn't been when healthy since his rookie year. This is just a continuations of the Irvin is a bust train and nothing more.

[Oly]

One of my thoughts with the original post, which I didn't make very clear, was about him as a LEO. I know he's been spending most of his time at LB, and that's because in the last few years (1) we had Clemons, and (2) he didn't look great with his hands on the ground. He has been solid as a LB, and especially in the run game there, but he has struggled at LEO, and especially run defense at that position. IMO, at least.

What I liked on Monday was Irvin's performance when lined up on the DL. I saw hints that when Avril leaves Irvin might develop into the LEO of the future. Sure, he could be the SAM of the future as it is right now, but I think that the LEO is a more important position, one that is harder to fill, and ultimately the one for which Irvin's ceiling is higher.

[c_hawkbob]

The problem with him at Leo was that he got moved off the ball too easily, I didn't see that in this game, he was setting the edge quite well even on running plays.

[Oly]

The problem with him at Leo was that he got moved off the ball too easily, I didn't see that in this game, he was setting the edge quite well even on running plays.

Much, much more succinct version of what I was trying to say.

[c_hawkbob]

I was nodding my head in agreement with you as I wrote that post.

[RiverDog]

I wasn't the only one who caught you on whether Irvin was the starter or not, Irvin is the starter ( you know that whole Smith didn't play a single snap on defense thing really kind of hammers that home pretty clear) you were the one claiming he was a "situational player" which he isn't, and hasn't been when healthy since his rookie year. This is just a continuations of the Irvin is a bust train and nothing more.

He was most certainly a situational player last year as he came out on most third down situations. Don't you recall the debates we had on his diminishing snap counts? I think he only saw 17 in the SB. If that isn't situational, I don't know what is. About the only time he got 3 down playing time last season was when KJ was hurt.

But I will admit that I didn't realize that he saw as much action as he did last Monday, and I do want to remind you that I said I thought he had a pretty fair game. Not once have I ever said he was a bust, so let's dispense with this bust train crapola.

[obiken]

Hey look, I hated Bruce Irvin, from the very beginning, and nothing is going to change my mind!!!! Seriously, he had transitioned nicely to Outside Linebacker. There is a good article on him in the Times today. I love being to the good, I really do. Now if Hillary becomes a way better President than I think she can, I will be batting 1000!!

[HumanCockroach]

I'm done with this, there is words for Lb's that play first and second down and SOMETIMES they come off the field if a team has a better defensive option on passing downs, those words are starting LB, using your SAME reasoning I could claim Wagner is a situational backer because he came off the field in goal line situations, or Wright was situational because Kam played in the LB spot instead of him two seasons ago, or that every single one of the defensive lineman were because of the rotation, including the entire starting front four, or that Lynch is because he wasn't the third down back, or that Baldwin, Kearse, Lockette,Harvin etc all are because the sub in different packages based on what they are running. NONE of those situations are ANY different, the staff is making decisions based on players strengths and opponent strengths.

Irvin is not unique in that , he does sub in in passing downs, and yet he doesn't always, does he ( Washington being a prime example) this stems strictly and solely from your dislike of the pick and some sort of silly perceived lie to you by Carroll because of how many snaps he said he would get ( as if he could actually give anyone an accurate number prior to a player stepping on to a practice field in the first place) You have taken every and all opportunities to attempt this same silly argument, and have been called on it repeatedly, I'm not the first, I won't be the last.

Thing is, no matter how hard you attempt to make that argument, it simply is not backed up by number of snaps ( we get it in a game or two his snaps went down) When healthy, number of starts garnered, and production when on the field ( not YOUR production, but what the COACHES want, hence the whole continuing to start him, play him, and the success with him on the field) he has gotten recognision, amongst peers, coaches and media members. I'm done debating whether Irvin is a solid LB, he is, no matter your bias towards him. Why that is so incredibly hard for you to see, I have zero idea, and am not interested in the least in finding out.

Irvin has played phenominally for a player with less than a yearat his current position. He isn't what you want, big whoop, he is what the staff wants, and has indeed made a lot of plays that have won this team games, it's unfortunate you can't recognise them, but it doesn't make those plays dissapear.

[Hawktown]

Now if Hillary becomes a way better President than I think she can, I will be batting 1000!!

Hillary, LOL!! you mean the one who HIGHLY supports GMO's (poison in you freaking food!!!) and wants to change the wording GMO to less scary sounding words. No president will be or can be good. they are all out for themselves, not the people. If you ask me, they are all FIRED!!!

[RiverDog]

I'm done with this, there is words for Lb's that play first and second down and SOMETIMES they come off the field if a team has a better defensive option on passing downs, those words are starting LB, using your SAME reasoning I could claim Wagner is a situational backer because he came off the field in goal line situations, or Wright was situational because Kam played in the LB spot instead of him two seasons ago, or that every single one of the defensive lineman were because of the rotation, including the entire starting front four, or that Lynch is because he wasn't the third down back, or that Baldwin, Kearse, Lockette,Harvin etc all are because the sub in different packages based on what they are running. NONE of those situations are ANY different, the staff is making decisions based on players strengths and opponent strengths.

Irvin is not unique in that , he does sub in in passing downs, and yet he doesn't always, does he ( Washington being a prime example) this stems strictly and solely from your dislike of the pick and some sort of silly perceived lie to you by Carroll because of how many snaps he said he would get ( as if he could actually give anyone an accurate number prior to a player stepping on to a practice field in the first place) You have taken every and all opportunities to attempt this same silly argument, and have been called on it repeatedly, I'm not the first, I won't be the last.

Thing is, no matter how hard you attempt to make that argument, it simply is not backed up by number of snaps ( we get it in a game or two his snaps went down) When healthy, number of starts garnered, and production when on the field ( not YOUR production, but what the COACHES want, hence the whole continuing to start him, play him, and the success with him on the field) he has gotten recognision, amongst peers, coaches and media members. I'm done debating whether Irvin is a solid LB, he is, no matter your bias towards him. Why that is so incredibly hard for you to see, I have zero idea, and am not interested in the least in finding out.

Irvin has played phenominally for a player with less than a yearat his current position. He isn't what you want, big whoop, he is what the staff wants, and has indeed made a lot of plays that have won this team games, it's unfortunate you can't recognise them, but it doesn't make those plays dissapear.

Irvin played 17 out of a possible 69 snaps in the Super Bowl. And since you brought up Wagner, he had 66 snaps. KJ Wright had 50. Malcolm Smith had twice the snaps Irvin had. Is being off the field on 75% of the defensive plays your definition of "sometimes comes off the field?"

No wonder you want to give up this silly argument. I would, too.

[kalibane]

You do seem to have a weirdly large investment in whether Bruce Irvin was a bad pick Riv. My problem is the whole context of it all. The question that is important is does Irvin contribute. The answer is yes. He didn't become a pro-bowler but that doesn't mean he's a bust. Here is the remainder of the first round draft choices from Irvin's draft. Please tell me who is a markedly better NFL player than Irvin right now:

Quinton Coples
Dre Kirkpatrick
Melvin Ingram
Shea McClellin
Chandler Jones
Brandon Wheeden
Riley Reiff
Dont'a Hightower
Whitney Mercilus
Reiley Reiff
David DeCastro
Kevin Zeitler
Nick Perry
Harrison Smith
A.J. Jenkins
Doug Martin
David Wilson

There isn't a single pro-bowl level player in that group. There are 3 players where I can see an argument that they are "better" than Irvin:

DeCastro - based purely on the state of the Seahawks O-Line but he has been quite inconsistant and hasn't come close to living up to his reputation coming out of Stanford.

Chandler Jones - But as I noted earlier, he has been just as inconsistant as Irvin and he doesn't really fit the Leo position that they were envisioning with Irvin.

Harrison Smith - You couldn't be making the argument that they should use a 1st round pick on a back up safety.

The players we missed out on when we took Irvin would have been just as dissapointing in that position. Would it have made you feel better if they took Quentin Coples, who has been more dissapointing but wasn't considered a reach like Irvin was on draft day? Because I really get the feeling that if they had drafted someone who wasn't seen as such a reach by yourself and the pundits that you wouldn't be revisiting this subject every few months.

I really don't get what the complaints are about at this point.

[c_hawkbob]

I really don't get what the complaints are about at this point.

He didn't like the pick on draft day, he's just trying to defend that position (I suspect as much to himself as to the rest of us).

[RiverDog]

"There isn't a single pro-bowl level player in that group."

I remember when myself and a number of others defended the Aaron Curry pick by noting other players taken in the top 10 of that 2009 draft, including guys like Jason Smith, Tyrone Jackson, and Mark Sanchez, had performed worse than Curry had. At least Curry is a starter"..."He doesn't get a lot of sacks but he does a great job of collapsing the pocket"..."Just think if we had drafted Sanchez instead", and so went the rationalizations. But the painful truth that took me 3 years to comprehend was that the fact that those players taken around Curry in that draft ended up not producing, or at least not at the time of the Curry debates, hadn't produce, did not alter the fact that Curry was a bust and thus a bad pick.

Likewise, the fact that the players you cited have yet to produce doesn't alter the fact that Bruce Irvin was not a good use of a #15 overall, which has always been my point. I never said he was a bust, that he didn't contribute, et al. My argument, whether you think it foolish, idiotic, hateful, or whatever, has always been framed in that context.

CBob is exactly right. I did not like that pick on draft day, and there hasn't been a point yet where I felt that initial judgment was wrong. At least I'm consistent.

[HumanCockroach]

It isn't an "argument" it's someone stubbornly holding a position because it's the same position he continues to regurgitate over the last several years. Limited snaps in the SB proves what exactly? Nothing? OK then.

[kalibane]

Your point is meaningless unless you have a better use of that pick in mind. Thus my post. If it was such a poor use of that pick, what should they have done instead?

In a vacuum Irvin may not have lived up to what you expect in a first round pick. But we don't live in a vacuum. In the context of his draft class he actually may have been the best use of the #15 overall pick.

Bringing up Aaron Curry is a pure D distraction from the topic. Aaron Curry was a bust. And whether or not the 2009 draft was a bad draft there are a whole bunch of players who have proven to be FAR superior to Curry:

Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, B.J. Raji, Michael Crabtree, Knowshon Moreno, Brian Orakpo, Brian Cushing, Jeremy Maclin. Even the guys who proved to be big dissapointments (Sanchez, Ayers, Malcom Jenkins, Heyward-Bey) are far superior players to Curry just by virtue of managing to stay in the league.

If you can't even play Monday Morning QB and come up with a clearly superior use of that pick with hindsight on your side, you have no point.