Bruce Irvin

[NorthHawk]

RD, although I agreed with you at the time that we should have taken Cox, I've come to the realization that PC goes after specialists in the sense they have a special quality or skill. So selecting Irvin is completely in character and we have to get used it as I doubt he will change on account of us even for higher selections. It's what the FO does - looking for unique skills that can make the team better even if it doesn't look to be a good fit for what they are currently running.

[obiken]

He is a bust IMHO as a first rounder. AS a 5th rounder he would have been a good pickup. So If you give Pete a c- for Irvin and an A+ for Sherman, he is just fine. He is not a total bust maybe that's where I have always gotten into trouble on this issue. IS he going to be a great edge pass rusher, jury is still out.

obi

[RiverDog]

RD, although I agreed with you at the time that we should have taken Cox, I've come to the realization that PC goes after specialists in the sense they have a special quality or skill. So selecting Irvin is completely in character and we have to get used it as I doubt he will change on account of us even for higher selections. It's what the FO does - looking for unique skills that can make the team better even if it doesn't look to be a good fit for what they are currently running.

Except that Pete said he wasn't taking Irvin as a specialist. When asked to explain his selection, he said that he was projecting Irvin to play Leo. However, I'm not sure if he was being up front about it or not. He's only used Irvin at Leo once in two years even though the incumbant had major knee surgery during the offseason. The Irvin pick was the biggest first round reach that year and he might have been just saying that to get the press and other critics off his back, which is totally understandable.

[Vegaseahawk]

2013 was a year of transition for Irvin. Look at his stats. Sacks were down from 8 to 2 over 2012, but he had an active role in pass defense, & linebacker duties. His numbers reflect that in his 2013 role. I think he'll be around a while. Especially since he's still so affordable.

[url]http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/14946/bruce-irvin[/url]

[briwas101]

With so many unrestricted FA's to sign Bruce Irvin WILL be a casualty. But face it, he WAS a monumental REACH and IS a HUGE BUST. Our #1 defense was essentially playing with 10 men on the field when ever Irvin was in the line up.

The Seahawks just can't afford to wait and see if Irvin might someday develop, face the TRUTH Pete, you BLEW IT with this guy and move on.

I was against the pick from day 1 but even I can see that he isn't quite a bust.

Did the Seahawks underestimate how much work Irvin would need to be an every-down DE? Probably. I could see in Pete's face after the playoff loss to the Falcons a year ago that he knew Irvin could not handle the job and they would need to go out and get some real DEs. But Irvin was not just given a LB job this year, he had to play for it. Is he one of the top 3 LBs on the team? No i don't think so. Is he one of the best BACKUP lb/leo in the NFL? Yes he is.

Do teams use mid-1st round picks on players that they hope will only be a super-sub? No they don't, but being a super-sub is also what saves Irvin from being a bust.

He will never be a great part of the team but he is a part of a great team.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Super sub??? You are delusional. First of all, he was drafted to be a QB killer and has NOT developed in to one after 2 full seasons. At LB he is a LIABILITY not a "super sub. Oh, and we could have had Fletcher Cox or 2-3 other DE's that were picked after Irvin that have all developed in to the players they were projected as.

I love Pete Carroll for bringing the Lombardi to Seattle but come on folks, he screwed to pooch on Bruce Irvin, OK quit rationalizing and be honest with your self for once in your life. He was a #1 pick and he is not even a starter after 2 seasons and he isn't even as good as Aaron Curry who we all now accept as the Seahawks WORST BUST #1 pick. Oh, and someone said he was a "spy" and is the one responsible for the win against SF in the NFC Championship game. MORE DELUSIONS!!! Colin Kaepernick ran for more than 130 yards in that game so what does that make Bruce Irvin? A blind spy??? Face it, when ever Pete wakes up and gets rid of Irvin many of you Irvin lovers are going to look silly. Oh, and I bet you will claim you thought he was a bust all along like many of the Aaron Curry lovers did after he was booted to Oakland. Oh, and some of you were still making excuses for that bum even then.

[Seahawks4Ever]

To Human Cockroach; BTW after all the years Chris has been on the team why oh why have you not figured out that his last name only has 1 "m" in it??? It is CLEMONS not Clemmons. It is that inattention to detail that makes many of your observations about B-I so suspect. You want to "wait" and see if Irvin develops go right ahead, it is your choice but when he does turn out to be a bust just remember you are going to have your nose rubbed in it. Oh, and, of course if he turns out to be the second coming of Justin Tuck(which is what many said at the time) feel free to rub my nose in it. Up until that time we will have to agree to disagree unless you want to keep a war going by continually saying people who disagree with you are wrong.

[monkey]

Oh, and someone said he was a "spy" and is the one responsible for the win against SF in the NFC Championship game. MORE DELUSIONS!!! Colin Kaepernick ran for more than 130 yards in that game so what does that make Bruce Irvin? A blind spy???

I'm delusional? At least I don't have a reading comprehension problem. You need to learn to freaking READ before even trying to call me delusional!

Of those 130 yards, how many came in the second half?
Huh??
That's right, EXACTLY what I said happened, is what happened.
Only a few of those yards came in the second half, because they moved Irvin to a spy role, and forced Kaepernick to throw the ball resulting in THREE turnovers in the fourth quarter.
I can PROVE what I said, because it's all on FILM. Check out sound fx for that game, you can see and hear the adjustment Quinn made coming out in the second half, when he is ON FILM telling Irvin to just spy Kaepernick. Then when you're done watching that, go to the all 22 of the game and watch Irvin spy Kaepernick, giving him no place to run. The go to the box score and break it down by the quarter, or by the half, and you'll see that nearly all of those yards came in the FIRST half, BEFORE using Irvin as the spy.
You'll clearly see that once Irvin was the spy, the Niners had nothing left. They couldn't get Gore on-track (and never did, he did nothing all game), and using Irvin as the spy took Kaepernick's run ability away, so all they had left was Kaep's sorry decision making to try to win that game.
Seattle spotted them a 10 point lead, then came back from there and dominated them, outscoring them 23-7 the rest of the way, and a big part of that was because they moved Irvin to spy Kaepernick.

So you want to try saying that I am wrong again, only this time using actual "FACTS"?!?
You know what those are right? They are those crazy numbers, which you have yet to find, that backs up what you're saying.

You call me delusional? Get that weak crap out of here! Go find some numbers that back up what you're saying!

[kalibane]

I avoided this thread for a long time because I knew this would be the crux of it. In the first half when Kaep racked up all those yards there was either no spy or K.J. Wright was the spy. Attributing those to Irvin blowing his assignment doesn't fly.

Clearly Irvin is not what they'd hoped he'd be but he's been pretty solid at LB, and much better in coverage than I ever thought he'd be. Keep in mind also that coming into camp they originally were talking about having Cliff Avril play the role that Irvin is now playing. Irvin playing there has allowed Avril to stay on the Defensive line where he was big time down the stretch.

I wish Irvin was more but he's not a bad player by any means. I don't know why someone would be so focussed on Fletcher Cox. That wasn't the type of lineman they were looking for.

[monkey]

BTW can everyone quit pretending to know what Pete was thinking when he drafted Irvin when you OBVIOUSLY haven't been listening to what he's actually said, TIME AFTER TIME?!?

He has said more times than I can count that what he is looking for is players that have something special about their game that he can use. Irvin has that and then some.
He looks for special attributes, then looks for ways to use those attributes.
STOP thinking like stupid Mel Kiper about the draft. This is not your grandfather's way of drafting football players.
Get those stupid and outdated ideas of "value" out of your head.
Pete is looking for players with unique abilities who will comPETE. When he find that player he will take that player in whatever round he feels he has to, so he doesn't miss him, even if it goes against what everyone else says that players value really was.
Pete has his OWN draft board he follows, he and John figure out what value THEY place on certain players, and on certain players unique abilities, if you don't agree, then please feel free to explain to our SUPERBOWL WINNING COACH AND GM, who have taken a crappy roster, and completely turned it over in just four years, just how stupid they are according to you!

I'd pay to hear that conversation.

[Long Time Fan]

One week as Superbowl Championship fans and panties are in a bunch. Is this how a fan forum operates? I started posting here because there seemed to be solid information and well thought out opinion. So a few of you differ in opinion to the point of becoming spelling police and name calling?

Maybe Irvin works out, maybe he doesn't. PC and JS are stilling hitting on these risk picks better than anyone else. Of course mistakes are going to be made. Its the philosophy of targeting special players that has put the Seahawks in the position that they are in. How can a marginal miss discount the overriding philosophy that is at the heart of separating the Seahawks from their competition.

Side note that I thought was humorous or telling depending on your perspective. At the Clink victory celebration, Sherman spoke about the LOB being more than members of the secondary and went to begin naming players, including Malcom Smith, Bobby Wagner, and Wright; he didn't name Bruce. I don't think it was anything more than not being able to name all on defense. Still, some of you may think this is telling.

Don't mind me, happy to be continuing to feel good about our most recent game.

[monkey]

Is this how a fan forum operates?

Uhhh, yeah ROFL! Where have you been?

When someone not using ANY facts whatsoever, who CLEARLY didn't read my entire comment calls me delusional though...well...you ask for the storm, you gonna get it!

It can get contentious, it certainly did at the PI, but at the end of the day we're still all Seahawks fans, so it's all good.

[Long Time Fan]

calls me delusional though...well...

You seem to be a reasonable primate. Kin to Koko?

[NorthHawk]

RD, although I agreed with you at the time that we should have taken Cox, I've come to the realization that PC goes after specialists in the sense they have a special quality or skill. So selecting Irvin is completely in character and we have to get used it as I doubt he will change on account of us even for higher selections. It's what the FO does - looking for unique skills that can make the team better even if it doesn't look to be a good fit for what they are currently running.

Except that Pete said he wasn't taking Irvin as a specialist. When asked to explain his selection, he said that he was projecting Irvin to play Leo. However, I'm not sure if he was being up front about it or not. He's only used Irvin at Leo once in two years even though the incumbant had major knee surgery during the offseason. The Irvin pick was the biggest first round reach that year and he might have been just saying that to get the press and other critics off his back, which is totally understandable.

You could probably wallpaper your house with the quotes from Pete that were overstatements or exaggerations. He gets caught up with his enthusiasm and coupled with his positive approach tends to be overzealous when talking about what a new player can do for the team.

That doesn't take away from their philosophy of selecting a player for what he can provide them without much concern about their shortcomings. In this case, Irvin was completely in character for that pick. He is a player with a specific skill set that they might still be trying to find a spot for. Again, with the Defense playing so well they would be hard pressed to make any major changes that wouldn't endanger their success.

That doesn't mean Irvin won't be a washout, rather that the story hasn't yet been finished.

[RiverDog]

I hear ya, North, about Pete Speak. I'm just saying that he did indicate shortly after drafting him that Irvin was projected to be a Leo. He never said that he was going to be a specialist, and indeed, he's been used on all three downs this year.

I agree with Irvin's pass coverage ability. I was surprised at how well he did play in coverage, the play that sticks out in my mind being the one pick that he made, not sure which game that was. His speed allows him to keep up with the athletic pass catching tight ends, like Jimmy Graham, whom I think he covered quite often and of whom we almost completely shut down. Vernon Davis was shut down as well. The only time we got burned badly by tight ends this season was in the first half of the Texas game, and if I remember right, it was KJ/Malcolm that were the guilty parties, or at least it wasn't Irvin as he was still on suspension.

But what I don't understand is how we were using him. His biggest weakness always has been his run defense, his long suit pass rushing and we mostly agree that he's at least holding his own in pass coverage, yet he's in there on first down and comes out a lot on third. Is Pete/Quinn seeing something we all are missing?

[HumanCockroach]

St Louis. ( 8 tackles, 1 pick, 1 pass defensed,1 FF, 1 sack) it is what he can do, though whether he can do that stuff regularly remains to be seen. That stat line measures up with anything Malcolm did, but the competition, and stage is drastically different. He has the talent, and has made plays, obviously he isn't consistent ( as is to be expected by someone in a new position), maybe it is just a glimpse that will never be realised on a regular basis, but games like that keep me from questioning the pick, at least at this point.

[Distant Relative]

To me, at this point..... Irvin is a middle of the road player regardless of his draft status at this point of his career.

Glad some posters here aren't coaches for the Hawks. Imagine where we'd be! Yes I said we.

[RiverDog]

St Louis. ( 8 tackles, 1 pick, 1 pass defensed,1 FF, 1 sack) it is what he can do, though whether he can do that stuff regularly remains to be seen. That stat line measures up with anything Malcolm did, but the competition, and stage is drastically different. He has the talent, and has made plays, obviously he isn't consistent ( as is to be expected by someone in a new position), maybe it is just a glimpse that will never be realised on a regular basis, but games like that keep me from questioning the pick, at least at this point.

Thanks for the memory jog. Irvin isn't horrible IMO. That's impossible on a defense that's as good as this one is. If he were 'that bad', offenses would seek him out and take advantage of him. But he is the weak link.

[NorthHawk]

I hear ya, North, about Pete Speak. I'm just saying that he did indicate shortly after drafting him that Irvin was projected to be a Leo. He never said that he was going to be a specialist, and indeed, he's been used on all three downs this year.

I agree with Irvin's pass coverage ability. I was surprised at how well he did play in coverage, the play that sticks out in my mind being the one pick that he made, not sure which game that was. His speed allows him to keep up with the athletic pass catching tight ends, like Jimmy Graham, whom I think he covered quite often and of whom we almost completely shut down. Vernon Davis was shut down as well. The only time we got burned badly by tight ends this season was in the first half of the Texas game, and if I remember right, it was KJ/Malcolm that were the guilty parties, or at least it wasn't Irvin as he was still on suspension.

But what I don't understand is how we were using him. His biggest weakness always has been his run defense, his long suit pass rushing and we mostly agree that he's at least holding his own in pass coverage, yet he's in there on first down and comes out a lot on third. Is Pete/Quinn seeing something we all are missing?

I don't profess to know what Pete has in mind with Irvin. But I didn't know what he was going to do with all of the DL last year either. In a conventional Defense, there would have been a lot of talent sitting on the bench. Pete made it work and the results were more than expected. It's fair to ask what he has in mind for Irvin, but to prejudge in my opinion is short sighted. Time will tell if this experiment works out - but their draft philosophy has a degree of risk ( although calculated) in my opinion.

[RiverDog]

I hear ya, North, about Pete Speak. I'm just saying that he did indicate shortly after drafting him that Irvin was projected to be a Leo. He never said that he was going to be a specialist, and indeed, he's been used on all three downs this year.

I agree with Irvin's pass coverage ability. I was surprised at how well he did play in coverage, the play that sticks out in my mind being the one pick that he made, not sure which game that was. His speed allows him to keep up with the athletic pass catching tight ends, like Jimmy Graham, whom I think he covered quite often and of whom we almost completely shut down. Vernon Davis was shut down as well. The only time we got burned badly by tight ends this season was in the first half of the Texas game, and if I remember right, it was KJ/Malcolm that were the guilty parties, or at least it wasn't Irvin as he was still on suspension.

But what I don't understand is how we were using him. His biggest weakness always has been his run defense, his long suit pass rushing and we mostly agree that he's at least holding his own in pass coverage, yet he's in there on first down and comes out a lot on third. Is Pete/Quinn seeing something we all are missing?

I don't profess to know what Pete has in mind with Irvin. But I didn't know what he was going to do with all of the DL last year either. In a conventional Defense, there would have been a lot of talent sitting on the bench. Pete made it work and the results were more than expected. It's fair to ask what he has in mind for Irvin, but to prejudge in my opinion is short sighted. Time will tell if this experiment works out - but their draft philosophy has a degree of risk ( although calculated) in my opinion.

Where was it that I was prejudging?

[briwas101]

Super sub??? You are delusional. First of all, he was drafted to be a QB killer and has NOT developed in to one after 2 full seasons. At LB he is a LIABILITY not a "super sub. Oh, and we could have had Fletcher Cox or 2-3 other DE's that were picked after Irvin that have all developed in to the players they were projected as.

I love Pete Carroll for bringing the Lombardi to Seattle but come on folks, he screwed to pooch on Bruce Irvin, OK quit rationalizing and be honest with your self for once in your life. He was a #1 pick and he is not even a starter after 2 seasons and he isn't even as good as Aaron Curry who we all now accept as the Seahawks WORST BUST #1 pick. Oh, and someone said he was a "spy" and is the one responsible for the win against SF in the NFC Championship game. MORE DELUSIONS!!! Colin Kaepernick ran for more than 130 yards in that game so what does that make Bruce Irvin? A blind spy??? Face it, when ever Pete wakes up and gets rid of Irvin many of you Irvin lovers are going to look silly. Oh, and I bet you will claim you thought he was a bust all along like many of the Aaron Curry lovers did after he was booted to Oakland. Oh, and some of you were still making excuses for that bum even then.

Was irvin a reach? Absolutely. You're not going to find many people who still believe he was the right pick.

Have the results of the Hawks unorthodox 1st round picks been good? NO.

Carpenter and Irvin were both reaches and years later it still appears as though they were reaches.

Do i think Schneider is good with his 1st round picks? Not at all. In fact I think he is one of the 5 worst GMs when it comes to 1st round picks (Carpenter, Irvin, Harvin).

But you are focusing on all the wrong things.


If a WR is drafted to be a 1000 yard receiver but they "only" average 600, is that a bust? I wouldn't say so. Obviously the stats aren't as good as you want, but 600 yards is well above average.

Was Irvin drafted to be a "QB Killer" ? Maybe. Perhaps the Hawks really thought he would turn into that. Is he going to be a qb killer? No he isnt.

But just because he isn't going to live up to what they HOPED he would become it does not make him a bust.

It feels so weird to be arguing this with you because I used to spend lots of time on message boards talking about how Irvin was a huge reach (2 years in a row) and how he will never be what people thought he would be.

I never liked the pick for a single second but my two eyes are telling me that he IS NOT A BUST. He is at worst a serviceable player, and at best he is a reliable backup who can fill in at 2 positions.

Either way, his salary is not preventing us from signing players. If you want to talk about waste of space, there are several on the Seahawks right now who need to go before Irvin does.

[HumanCockroach]

People expecting a slew of sacks from Irvin out of the LB spot are seriously confused. Claiming he is the "weak link " in this defense is mistaken as well. Irvin produced in the position he played at the same level as Wright and Smith in that position. It isn't a spot that is going to create huge statistics. Far to many people look at statistics and read them as a failure or weak link, without understanding how it all ties together. Smith did NOTHING of note until his last 5 games that was remarkable. It doesn't mean I don't like him, but to many people getting semi hard for a player that has been good for 5 games. He very well may turn into a star, but winning a SB MVP doesn't make him a can't miss player.

The same guy claiming him a bust, is the guy that is claiming. Him a bust, is the guy that said Wilson is to short and would never win a SB. So much for that theory. Some can't be happy, they HAVE to have someone to bash, and Jack ( er Seahawksfan4ever) is one of those guys.

I am not saying it is a lock, either way, just pointing out that obviously there is more to it, some of which no one on this board knows.

And just out of curiosity, I have seen nothing saying they are changing Irvins position again, so where did that whole speculation come from in the first place?

[RiverDog]

People expecting a slew of sacks from Irvin out of the LB spot are seriously confused. Claiming he is the "weak link " in this defense is mistaken as well. Irvin produced in the position he played at the same level as Wright and Smith in that position. It isn't a spot that is going to create huge statistics. Far to many people look at statistics and read them as a failure or weak link, without understanding how it all ties together. Smith did NOTHING of note until his last 5 games that was remarkable. It doesn't mean I don't like him, but to many people getting semi hard for a player that has been good for 5 games. He very well may turn into a star, but winning a SB MVP doesn't make him a can't miss player.

The same guy claiming him a bust, is the guy that is claiming. Him a bust, is the guy that said Wilson is to short and would never win a SB. So much for that theory. Some can't be happy, they HAVE to have someone to bash, and Jack ( er Seahawksfan4ever) is one of those guys.

I am not saying it is a lock, either way, just pointing out that obviously there is more to it, some of which no one on this board knows.

And just out of curiosity, I have seen nothing saying they are changing Irvins position again, so where did that whole speculation come from in the first place?

Here:

Bruce Irvin, who got just 17 snaps, mostly at defensive end. We’ll see what that means for the future for Irvin, who had been moved to SLB prior to the start of the season.


http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... ap-counts/

[HumanCockroach]

Again, I'll wait for Carroll or the Seahawks to say something, not speculate off a blog. Just the way I do things. Using the same formula from that one game, could I start a post asking if Clinton McDonald was moving to LB? He dropped into coverage on the bulk of his snaps, so a LB switch is in the works, right? Nah. They had a game plan for the Broncos ( as is evidence by the sudden reemergence of Schofield, the lack of snaps for Bryant ( the same as Irvin) and the movement of players in the front 7..

[RiverDog]

Again, I'll wait for Carroll or the Seahawks to say something, not speculate off a blog. Just the way I do things. Using the same formula from that one game, could I start a post asking if Clinton McDonald was moving to LB? He dropped into coverage on the bulk of his snaps, so a LB switch is in the works, right? Nah. They had a game plan for the Broncos ( as is evidence by the sudden reemergence of Schofield, the lack of snaps for Bryant ( the same as Irvin) and the movement of players in the front 7..

Speculate? The blog cited a fact, ie Irvin's snap count and where he was lining up. They made no summation other than coming to a quite reasonable conclusion that we'll have to wait to see what that all means. And it wasn't just one game that Irvin's snap counts were diminished and that we started using him at DE. There's been a trend over the past few games, and he was used at DE in the previous game vs. the Niners, a completely different offense than the Broncos, which would indicate that it wasn't just part of a singular game plan.

I don't understand why you consider it so blasphemous to ponder what our plans are for an individual player.

[NorthHawk]

I hear ya, North, about Pete Speak. I'm just saying that he did indicate shortly after drafting him that Irvin was projected to be a Leo. He never said that he was going to be a specialist, and indeed, he's been used on all three downs this year.

I agree with Irvin's pass coverage ability. I was surprised at how well he did play in coverage, the play that sticks out in my mind being the one pick that he made, not sure which game that was. His speed allows him to keep up with the athletic pass catching tight ends, like Jimmy Graham, whom I think he covered quite often and of whom we almost completely shut down. Vernon Davis was shut down as well. The only time we got burned badly by tight ends this season was in the first half of the Texas game, and if I remember right, it was KJ/Malcolm that were the guilty parties, or at least it wasn't Irvin as he was still on suspension.

But what I don't understand is how we were using him. His biggest weakness always has been his run defense, his long suit pass rushing and we mostly agree that he's at least holding his own in pass coverage, yet he's in there on first down and comes out a lot on third. Is Pete/Quinn seeing something we all are missing?

I don't profess to know what Pete has in mind with Irvin. But I didn't know what he was going to do with all of the DL last year either. In a conventional Defense, there would have been a lot of talent sitting on the bench. Pete made it work and the results were more than expected. It's fair to ask what he has in mind for Irvin, but to prejudge in my opinion is short sighted. Time will tell if this experiment works out - but their draft philosophy has a degree of risk ( although calculated) in my opinion.

Where was it that I was prejudging?

My apologies, I should have typed "but for some to prejudge in my opinion is short sighted" as it was directed to the thread and not just you.
After re-reading it I can see how you thought that, though.

[HumanCockroach]

Again, I'll wait for Carroll or the Seahawks to say something, not speculate off a blog. Just the way I do things. Using the same formula from that one game, could I start a post asking if Clinton McDonald was moving to LB? He dropped into coverage on the bulk of his snaps, so a LB switch is in the works, right? Nah. They had a game plan for the Broncos ( as is evidence by the sudden reemergence of Schofield, the lack of snaps for Bryant ( the same as Irvin) and the movement of players in the front 7..

Speculate? The blog cited a fact, ie Irvin's snap count and where he was lining up. They made no summation other than coming to a quite reasonable conclusion that we'll have to wait to see what that all means. And it wasn't just one game that Irvin's snap counts were diminished and that we started using him at DE. There's been a trend over the past few games, and he was used at DE in the previous game vs. the Niners, a completely different offense than the Broncos, which would indicate that it wasn't just part of a singular game plan.

I don't understand why you consider it so blasphemous to ponder what our plans are for an individual player.

Yes, "speculate" Blogs are simply that, "speculation" on the internet. So, IMO, saying that you speculating on a blog that is based on "speculation" isn't some huge reach on my part.Please don't pretend like that isn't what it is, you have far to much credibility to profess that isn't what happens on blogs, ok there is a "trend", whoopity do dah, a trend means nothing. When a team DECIDES to do something it is what they are going to do. I could pull up Avril and Clemmons playing LB for stretches last season as well, does that mean they are to become full time LB's? Of course not.

They made no secret of what they want, multiple players that can play multiple positions and be effective in those positions. ( for instance Schofield played leo almost exclusively for the first 6 games this year, and yet he is a LB.). It is what they do, have done, and will continue to do. So unless there is a HUGE shift in defensive philosophy, I will wait for them to say it, before SPECULATING on a move that more than likely is not happening.

FYI RD, the Leo now moves to a location with MORE blockers in Quinn's version of this line, not sure why you would think that would be a smart move by the Hawks, as you have pointed out numerous times, Irvin does not have the moves to deal with double teams. Curious you would even question it to begin with.

[RiverDog]

Yes, "speculate" Blogs are simply that, "speculation" on the internet. So, IMO, saying that you speculating on a blog that is based on "speculation" isn't some huge reach on my part.Please don't pretend like that isn't what it is, you have far to much credibility to profess that isn't what happens on blogs, ok there is a "trend", whoopity do dah, a trend means nothing. When a team DECIDES to do something it is what they are going to do. I could pull up Avril and Clemmons playing LB for stretches last season as well, does that mean they are to become full time LB's? Of course not.

They made no secret of what they want, multiple players that can play multiple positions and be effective in those positions. ( for instance Schofield played leo almost exclusively for the first 6 games this year, and yet he is a LB.). It is what they do, have done, and will continue to do. So unless there is a HUGE shift in defensive philosophy, I will wait for them to say it, before SPECULATING on a move that more than likely is not happening.

FYI RD, the Leo now moves to a location with MORE blockers in Quinn's version of this line, not sure why you would think that would be a smart move by the Hawks, as you have pointed out numerous times, Irvin does not have the moves to deal with double teams. Curious you would even question it to begin with.

That's one of the functions of a blog, but not the only one. This one simply stated some facts and was extremely short on speculation, noting just that we'll have to wait and see what the diminished snaps and different positions means, if anything.

I never suggested that Irvin move back to Leo. I was curious why they would not play him there except for one game in the past two years even though Pete said that was the plan for him. My opinion of his best use would be the "spinner" role that he was supposed to be playing this year, but it looked to me like they were using him more as a conventional OLB. He came out on a lot of passing situations, left in on a lot of running situations.

[HumanCockroach]

I am not sure he doesn't end up there when everything is said and done. He very well may, and for all any of us know at this point become the best player the Seahawks ever have in the roll, I just don't believe in pigeon holing players, especially NOT when the are two years into their career, had we done that with Smith, he wouldn't have been on the field at all those last few games. I treat or think of every player as a work in progress, until they have been in the league for a minimum of three to four seasons, whether they be first round picks or not, and Irvin is in my book simply no different from any other player that the Seahawks ( or any other team for that matter) have ever drafted. Sure, SOME come in and produce right away, however in my decades of watching the sport, it has become pretty apparent, that that happening is the exception not the rule, and as such, I will wait to see how he performs, before speculating on what he might or might not do.

[RiverDog]

I am not sure he doesn't end up there when everything is said and done. He very well may, and for all any of us know at this point become the best player the Seahawks ever have in the roll, I just don't believe in pigeon holing players, especially NOT when the are two years into their career, had we done that with Smith, he wouldn't have been on the field at all those last few games. I treat or think of every player as a work in progress, until they have been in the league for a minimum of three to four seasons, whether they be first round picks or not, and Irvin is in my book simply no different from any other player that the Seahawks ( or any other team for that matter) have ever drafted. Sure, SOME come in and produce right away, however in my decades of watching the sport, it has become pretty apparent, that that happening is the exception not the rule, and as such, I will wait to see how he performs, before speculating on what he might or might not do.

Not every player is going to be afforded 3-4 years to prove his worth. Some players don't get more than a 15 minute workout. There's a difference in how first round picks are treated vs. a UFA, as well there should be. If an organization felt good enough about a player like Irvin to spend a top half of the first round draft pick on him, they ought to have their heads examined if they cut him after two years like some in here have suggested, especially a player like Irvin who can be used at several positions.

Don't lump me in the crowd that wants to cut Irvin. I may not like what I've seen from him and I'll continue to piss and moan about our spending the #15 overall on him until he settles into a role, but I am not so anxious to be proven right that I want to see my team to act with such carelessness that they discard a top half of the first round pick after just two seasons.

[HumanCockroach]

I am not sure he doesn't end up there when everything is said and done. He very well may, and for all any of us know at this point become the best player the Seahawks ever have in the roll, I just don't believe in pigeon holing players, especially NOT when the are two years into their career, had we done that with Smith, he wouldn't have been on the field at all those last few games. I treat or think of every player as a work in progress, until they have been in the league for a minimum of three to four seasons, whether they be first round picks or not, and Irvin is in my book simply no different from any other player that the Seahawks ( or any other team for that matter) have ever drafted. Sure, SOME come in and produce right away, however in my decades of watching the sport, it has become pretty apparent, that that happening is the exception not the rule, and as such, I will wait to see how he performs, before speculating on what he might or might not do.

Not every player is going to be afforded 3-4 years to prove his worth. Some players don't get more than a 15 minute workout. There's a difference in how first round picks are treated vs. a UFA, as well there should be. If an organization felt good enough about a player like Irvin to spend a top half of the first round draft pick on him, they ought to have their heads examined if they cut him after two years like some in here have suggested, especially a player like Irvin who can be used at several positions.

Don't lump me in the crowd that wants to cut Irvin. I may not like what I've seen from him and I'll continue to piss and moan about our spending the #15 overall on him until he settles into a role, but I am not so anxious to be proven right that I want to see my team to act with such carelessness that they discard a top half of the first round pick after just two seasons.

First of all, I didn't, second of all I am fully aware that some players get 15 minutes ( though as has been seen throughout the history of the NFL, if they have enough talent and drive they CAN still make it). Third, piss and moan all you want, I could care less, I just differentiate in how I view drafts and the success or failure there in. I see them as a whole, not parts. In that draft Seattle garnered NUMEROUS successes without which, Seattle doesn't reach, or win a SB. I could care less if Wagner or Wilson or Irvin were the ones drafted in the first round, the fact remains they were ALL drafted, and are ALL contributing to the victory that the Seahawks just had on the biggest stage possible. If I have to "put up with" average success from a first round pick, but also have all pro, pro bowl, HOF careers, or seasons from others drafted throughout the draft, then I am happy and consider it a successful draft.

I just don't see things the same way as many ( obviously including you), the whole is always greater than the pieces in my book just the way I operate. I do the same stupid thing when I play fantasy ( as irrelevant as that is) this past year I drafted the Seahawks defense in the third round, last year I gambled on players I wanted, instead of the "smart" play, and received grief over many of those picks, or downright made fun of, only to win the whole thing back to back. I have always condoned taking the player a team WANTS over the general conscientious and that simply will never change for me.

The Seahawks, have done so since Carroll arrived ( Thomas, Chancellor, Wilson, Wagner, Sherman, the list goes on) and I am inclined to accept that system as superior to who Maycock, or Schaeffer or any fan thinks is the "smart" choice if for no other reason than it coincides with my belief in team building, AND because the results are irrefutably successful for this team.this FO has IMO earned that rite, and so I trust them to make those calls.

[I-5]

I am not sure he doesn't end up there when everything is said and done. He very well may, and for all any of us know at this point become the best player the Seahawks ever have in the roll, I just don't believe in pigeon holing players, especially NOT when the are two years into their career, had we done that with Smith, he wouldn't have been on the field at all those last few games. I treat or think of every player as a work in progress, until they have been in the league for a minimum of three to four seasons, whether they be first round picks or not, and Irvin is in my book simply no different from any other player that the Seahawks ( or any other team for that matter) have ever drafted. Sure, SOME come in and produce right away, however in my decades of watching the sport, it has become pretty apparent, that that happening is the exception not the rule, and as such, I will wait to see how he performs, before speculating on what he might or might not do.

Not every player is going to be afforded 3-4 years to prove his worth. Some players don't get more than a 15 minute workout. There's a difference in how first round picks are treated vs. a UFA, as well there should be. If an organization felt good enough about a player like Irvin to spend a top half of the first round draft pick on him, they ought to have their heads examined if they cut him after two years like some in here have suggested, especially a player like Irvin who can be used at several positions.

Don't lump me in the crowd that wants to cut Irvin.

I may not like what I've seen from him and I'll continue to piss and moan about our spending the #15 overall on him

until he settles into a role, but I am not so anxious to be proven right that I want to see my team to act with such carelessness that they discard a top half of the first round pick after just two seasons.

OK I'll bite. Who would you have rather seen the Hawks take at #15 instead of Irvin and develop within their system? Cox? Ingram? DeCastro? Hightower? I'm not sure about Irvin, either, but I'm not ready to mention him in the same category of Aaron Curry yet. I see him as an extremely gifted athlete at the LB position who is developing consistency, skills, and hopefully, maturity into his game. 2014 will tell us a lot about Irvin's future, that is for sure.

[RiverDog]

I am not sure he doesn't end up there when everything is said and done. He very well may, and for all any of us know at this point become the best player the Seahawks ever have in the roll, I just don't believe in pigeon holing players, especially NOT when the are two years into their career, had we done that with Smith, he wouldn't have been on the field at all those last few games. I treat or think of every player as a work in progress, until they have been in the league for a minimum of three to four seasons, whether they be first round picks or not, and Irvin is in my book simply no different from any other player that the Seahawks ( or any other team for that matter) have ever drafted. Sure, SOME come in and produce right away, however in my decades of watching the sport, it has become pretty apparent, that that happening is the exception not the rule, and as such, I will wait to see how he performs, before speculating on what he might or might not do.

Not every player is going to be afforded 3-4 years to prove his worth. Some players don't get more than a 15 minute workout. There's a difference in how first round picks are treated vs. a UFA, as well there should be. If an organization felt good enough about a player like Irvin to spend a top half of the first round draft pick on him, they ought to have their heads examined if they cut him after two years like some in here have suggested, especially a player like Irvin who can be used at several positions.

Don't lump me in the crowd that wants to cut Irvin.

I may not like what I've seen from him and I'll continue to piss and moan about our spending the #15 overall on him

until he settles into a role, but I am not so anxious to be proven right that I want to see my team to act with such carelessness that they discard a top half of the first round pick after just two seasons.

OK I'll bite. Who would you have rather seen the Hawks take at #15 instead of Irvin and develop within their system? Cox? Ingram? DeCastro? Hightower? I'm not sure about Irvin, either, but I'm not ready to mention him in the same category of Aaron Curry yet. I see him as an extremely gifted athlete at the LB position who is developing consistency, skills, and hopefully, maturity into his game. 2014 will tell us a lot about Irvin's future, that is for sure.

I didn't place him in the same category as Aaron Curry. The only time I mentioned Curry in relation to Irvin was in response to a similar comment made by HC about the 2012 draft, the point being that a lot of people, including me, used the low productivity of the top 8-10 draft picks in the 2009 draft as some sort of justification for selecting Curry at #4.

But to answer your question, I was hoping we would have taken Fletcher Cox. I haven't come away pleased with our top draft picks since we took Okung and Thomas in 2010, but like a lot of armchair quarterbacks, I have a tendency to rely on conventional wisdom.

[I-5]

That's an honest answer. I think Carroll and Schneider have earned a pass to fire and miss, because they hit so much more than miss. I know you weren't comparing Irvin to Curry, I was just commenting that someone else was.

I'm going to watch the all-22 film of the NFC Championship game again to see what happened between the first and second halves with Kap and Irvin...

[HumanCockroach]

I have to ask, who does Cox replace?? The only way he contributes is by displacing someone along that D-line, and if n improved pass rush is the priority ( which it most certainly was going into that draft) how does Cox fit into it? As a pass rush specialist? If so, doesn't that simply put him in the exact same position as Irvin? ( well with less production).. Sorry I simply don't see it. Cox couldn't crack the starting lineup on a team that finished 4-12, but somehow he was a better choice than Irvin??? In what way?

He might have developed into a productive player in this system, maybe, but IMHO he does not produce the results in Seattle Irvin has to this point, so I guess I am confused how you can "piss and moan" about Irvin, but trumpet a pick that would have more than likely had LESS snaps and productivity....

[RiverDog]

I have to ask, who does Cox replace?? The only way he contributes is by displacing someone along that D-line, and if n improved pass rush is the priority ( which it most certainly was going into that draft) how does Cox fit into it? As a pass rush specialist? If so, doesn't that simply put him in the exact same position as Irvin? ( well with less production).. Sorry I simply don't see it. Cox couldn't crack the starting lineup on a team that finished 4-12, but somehow he was a better choice than Irvin??? In what way?

He might have developed into a productive player in this system, maybe, but IMHO he does not produce the results in Seattle Irvin has to this point, so I guess I am confused how you can "piss and moan" about Irvin, but trumpet a pick that would have more than likely had LESS snaps and productivity....

I thought you weren't into speculation, HC. Now you're wanting to hypothesize how a player would or wouldn't have performed better under our system? Does it make our decision to take Aaron Curry look any better by saying that at least we didn't use it to draft Mark Sanchez?

[RiverDog]

I have to ask, who does Cox replace?? The only way he contributes is by displacing someone along that D-line, and if n improved pass rush is the priority ( which it most certainly was going into that draft) how does Cox fit into it? As a pass rush specialist? If so, doesn't that simply put him in the exact same position as Irvin? ( well with less production).. Sorry I simply don't see it. Cox couldn't crack the starting lineup on a team that finished 4-12, but somehow he was a better choice than Irvin??? In what way?

He might have developed into a productive player in this system, maybe, but IMHO he does not produce the results in Seattle Irvin has to this point, so I guess I am confused how you can "piss and moan" about Irvin, but trumpet a pick that would have more than likely had LESS snaps and productivity....

I thought you weren't into speculation, HC. Now you're wanting to hypothesize how a player would or wouldn't have performed better under our system? Does it make our decision to take Aaron Curry look any better by saying that at least we didn't use it to draft Mark Sanchez?

[kalibane]

And where do you think Cox would have been playing had they drafted him? Chances are his playing time would have been as limited as Irvin's and you'd be complaining about taking Cox.

[Eaglehawk]

I didn't place him in the same category as Aaron Curry. The only time I mentioned Curry in relation to Irvin was in response to a similar comment made by HC about the 2012 draft, the point being that a lot of people, including me, used the low productivity of the top 8-10 draft picks in the 2009 draft as some sort of justification for selecting Curry at #4.

But to answer your question, I was hoping we would have taken Fletcher Cox. I haven't come away pleased with our top draft picks since we took Okung and Thomas in 2010, but like a lot of armchair quarterbacks, I have a tendency to rely on conventional wisdom.

Its iffy that Irvin will stay. My last season for him to produce will be 2014-15. Until then I give him an electric slide.

[HumanCockroach]

I have to ask, who does Cox replace?? The only way he contributes is by displacing someone along that D-line, and if n improved pass rush is the priority ( which it most certainly was going into that draft) how does Cox fit into it? As a pass rush specialist? If so, doesn't that simply put him in the exact same position as Irvin? ( well with less production).. Sorry I simply don't see it. Cox couldn't crack the starting lineup on a team that finished 4-12, but somehow he was a better choice than Irvin??? In what way?

He might have developed into a productive player in this system, maybe, but IMHO he does not produce the results in Seattle Irvin has to this point, so I guess I am confused how you can "piss and moan" about Irvin, but trumpet a pick that would have more than likely had LESS snaps and productivity....

I thought you weren't into speculation, HC. Now you're wanting to hypothesize how a player would or wouldn't have performed better under our system? Does it make our decision to take Aaron Curry look any better by saying that at least we didn't use it to draft Mark Sanchez?

I'm not, doesn't mean I don't have opinions, and as such, I put IMHO ( in my humble opinion) before the line you decided to highlight ( as it is speculation on my part, and nothing but an opinion) and I said so, I didn't site facts ( which I could have) just floated an opinion. Would be greatly interested on how you think Cox fits, as he isn't much of a pass rusher which makes the pass rushing opportunities Irvin received not really viable for him to get on the field. Just don't see how or who the guy would have replaced on the field. One of your complaints is you don't spend those picks on non 3 down players, yet you advocate taking someone that in all likelihood plays less, not more than Irvin, which I find a little bit of a paradox.

I was interested in your speculation and so I asked, you chose to ignore all of that and take a jab. Fine, there were guys that I wanted as well, however, I am just not as sure of myself to claim this pick or that pick was wrong, since I am aware that my homework, isn't on the level of the FO, and is based a lot on what draft analysts say.