2019 Needs

[chf]

Passing going up or other DBs struggling has absolutely nothing to do with our opinions - these guys are graded against their peers. Shaq didn't crack the top 100 corners this year (per PFF). Top 100!!! Flowers, Coleman and Thompson graded poorly as well. And anyone skeptical of metrics or analytics (which they shouldn't be) can always look at traditional numbers like PR against or any others and see that it was a rough year for the secondary.

Again, there are two different discussions here:

1. Whether they had good years - which they objectively did not.

2. Whether or not they can be good players down the line: the book is definitely still out on that.

My opinion is that Flowers and Thompson are better served as organizational depth. I'm not advocating for them to be cut. I'm saying that I don't think either of them belong on the field for a good base defense.

Frankly, the numbers suggest that Shaq probably should be included in that, but I'm willing to bet on the talent there moreso than the other two. And I like McDougald - a lot. He makes a lot of sense to be the in the box safety in this defense.

So PFF is the bible? Because, you know, watching the games, I remember at least a half dozen times thinking 'hey nice play rook' with Flowers. Did he make some mistakes? Yep. Try to remember the years of our midget corners though, and then compare Shaq and Flowers to them.

You know who is a pretty good evaluator of DB talent? That Carroll guy. He seems to be pretty impressed with both.

 

[Anointed One]

I feel like Flowers play was better than Griffin's the last 8 games of the year... Flowers will be the better of the two moving forward...

 

[BSUSeahawk]

So PFF is the bible? Because, you know, watching the games, I remember at least a half dozen times thinking 'hey nice play rook' with Flowers. Did he make some mistakes? Yep. Try to remember the years of our midget corners though, and then compare Shaq and Flowers to them.

You know who is a pretty good evaluator of DB talent? That Carroll guy. He seems to be pretty impressed with both.

That’s the beauty of numbers/metrics/analytics. Your eye test says they played ok. My eye test said that they both had a really tough year and were a liability for the defense.

The numbers say they both were pretty bad. Is PFF the bible? No. But when Griffin is the 113th ranked CB, what is more likely, that he was really, really bad (which to be frank, was pretty obvious to anyone who saw every game) or that PFF is off on their rankings by 50+ spots. Same with Thompson.

Now, I’ll admit Flowers is a different discussion. He was not good, but he has very ideal size and was picking up a new position. Personally, I didn’t like what I saw, both in terms of coverage or ball skills, but I can understand why some are interested.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Our defense ranked 13th in the league. I don't think Flowers or Griffen played that poorly. Of course there's plenty of room for improvement since both are very young.

 

[chf]

Our defense ranked 13th in the league. I don't think Flowers or Griffen played that poorly. Of course there's plenty of room for improvement since both are very young.

You didn't watch the games either?

 

[chf]

That’s the beauty of numbers/metrics/analytics. Your eye test says they played ok. My eye test said that they both had a really tough year and were a liability for the defense.

The numbers say they both were pretty bad. Is PFF the bible? No. But when Griffin is the 113th ranked CB, what is more likely, that he was really, really bad (which to be frank, was pretty obvious to anyone who saw every game) or that PFF is off on their rankings by 50+ spots. Same with Thompson.

Now, I’ll admit Flowers is a different discussion. He was not good, but he has very ideal size and was picking up a new position. Personally, I didn’t like what I saw, both in terms of coverage or ball skills, but I can understand why some are interested.

Yes, I'm smart enough to understand metrics. What's at issue is how one interprets metrics.

By the 'metrics,' KC and the Rams should've gotten beaten all over the field today.

KC's db's are, imo, a perfect example of why you can't always trust stats. They actually played pretty well in that game against us, Wilson just made some perfect throws.

A significant chunk of the national media picked Indy BECAUSE they predicted that they'd be as bad today as their stats were all year.

They played pretty damn well today.

 

[Oswaldandme]

I need to take a dump.

 

[chf]

At any rate, we'll see going forward. I doubt you'll ever see a PC/JS draft where they don't draft DB's at all, but I'd be surprised if they're as low in their opinion of their young guys as you are. I didn't listen to the podcasts after every game, but did catch quite a few Brock and Salk and Clayton casts, and they seemed pretty high on the young guys too.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

You didn't watch the games either?

They both played very well at times and played meh at times. Both are young and have room for improvement. Yes or No @chf ? I said the D ranked 13th overall not 30th, this isn't a slam against them.

 

[chf]

They both played very well at times and played meh at times. Both are young and have room for improvement. Yes or No @chf ? I said the D ranked 13th overall not 30th, this isn't a slam against them.

I was totally trying for sarcasm with my post, 100% agreeing with you. The post by BSU implied I didn't watch the games. I was riffing on that.

But yes. Our D was ranked in the top half of the league, and our pass D was better than our run D. So how the living hell did we accomplish that if our DB's were such trash?

And to be clear, further to the larger conversation, I'm not saying that the two corners don't need to keep improving or anything.

My entire exception is with any characterization that these two guys don't have a future role to play in Seattle.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I was totally trying for sarcasm with my post, 100% agreeing with you. The post by BSU implied I didn't watch the games. I was riffing on that.

But yes. Our D was ranked in the top half of the league, and our pass D was better than our run D. So how the living hell did we accomplish that if our DB's were such trash?

And to be clear, further to the larger conversation, I'm not saying that the two corners don't need to keep improving or anything.

My entire exception is with any characterization that these two guys don't have a future role to play in Seattle.

Damn it! The sarcasm went over my head.

These two guys will grow and I think we'll see great things down the road. People forget the LOB didn't become the LOB over night.

 

[MrS]

At any rate, we'll see going forward. I doubt you'll ever see a PC/JS draft where they don't draft DB's at all, but I'd be surprised if they're as low in their opinion of their young guys as you are. I didn't listen to the podcasts after every game, but did catch quite a few Brock and Salk and Clayton casts, and they seemed pretty high on the young guys too.

to be fair, with the exception of john clayton, the sports media in seattle are nothing but nut licking lapdogs terrified to say a negative word about this team.

 

[Anointed One]

to be fair, with the exception of john clayton, the sports media in seattle are nothing but nut licking lapdogs terrified to say a negative word about this team.

that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard... Brock and Salk are always calling a spade a spade...

 

[MKHawk]

Brock seems to have declared a one-man war on analytics (not a good look) and is now railing against Hawks fans/twitter complaining about the play calling in the WC loss (terrible look)

I was disappointed in Griffin this year (had higher expectations and he had some pretty visible flubs), but was encouraged by Flowers (much lower expectations, given his circumstances switching positions and all). Frankly, the fact that Dallas was picking on Griffin was a very unpleasant surprise.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Yes, I'm smart enough to understand metrics. What's at issue is how one interprets metrics.

By the 'metrics,' KC and the Rams should've gotten beaten all over the field today.

KC's db's are, imo, a perfect example of why you can't always trust stats. They actually played pretty well in that game against us, Wilson just made some perfect throws.

A significant chunk of the national media picked Indy BECAUSE they predicted that they'd be as bad today as their stats were all year.

They played pretty damn well today.

I'm not sure I understand. KC's defense and secondary HAS been bad most of the year. They were good on Saturday for sure, but that doesn't mean they were good all year and just underappreciated. Also, just because a team is or has been bad doesn't mean that's automatically going to happen every game. In the case of the Rams, I think most people would agree that despite their poor play, they have the talent to be a lot better than that. Hill replacing Talib most of the year certainly hurt as well.

That aside, I wasn't inferring that you weren't smart enough to understand metrics, stats or anything else. I was simply saying that the value in them is that it can provide a solid ballpark for how good a player was. Especially in a situation like this where different people are coming away with different conclusions based on what they see. So when each corner + Thompson is outside the top 60 in CBs (and safeties for TT), it's safe to say that even if there's some variation or inaccuracies within the numbers, they aren't significant enough to actually think that Griffin, Flowers or Thompson were anything better than "below average" last year. And that's being generous.

Again, that doesn't mean that they should be cut or anything. They obviously have talent. But I don't think there's any way you can go into next year with those 3 assuming starting roles and expect to be very good in pass defense.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

Brock seems to have declared a one-man war on analytics (not a good look) and is now railing against Hawks fans/twitter complaining about the play calling in the WC loss (terrible look)

I was disappointed in Griffin this year (had higher expectations and he had some pretty visible flubs), but was encouraged by Flowers (much lower expectations, given his circumstances switching positions and all). Frankly, the fact that Dallas was picking on Griffin was a very unpleasant surprise.

Yeah, it's a really bizarre campaign that he's taken on. From a guy that I generally consider pretty smart. Literally any time a team takes a lead in one of the games he makes sure to point out that they did so because of the LOS battle and running game - conveniently leaving out the part that the remaining 4 teams are 4 of the 5 best passing teams in the NFL (with the Chargers being the other).

 

[chf]

Again, that doesn't mean that they should be cut or anything. They obviously have talent. But I don't think there's any way you can go into next year with those 3 assuming starting roles and expect to be very good in pass defense.

ANY rookie DB who plays wire to wire accomplishes something. There's plenty of reason to be optimistic.

you give yourself away with your language. They shouldn't be 'cut,' but don't see ANY way that the three can be starters and we can be good.

How about continued progression, and ability to receive coaching?

AGAIN, you know who knows and coaches DB's pretty well? That Carroll guy.

 

[chf]

I didn't listen to B+S after the playoff loss, but I'd have to imagine that Brock may just get a little beaten down by Hawks fans.

We are a pretty reactionary, negative bunch.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

I was totally trying for sarcasm with my post, 100% agreeing with you. The post by BSU implied I didn't watch the games. I was riffing on that.

But yes. Our D was ranked in the top half of the league, and our pass D was better than our run D. So how the living hell did we accomplish that if our DB's were such trash?

And to be clear, further to the larger conversation, I'm not saying that the two corners don't need to keep improving or anything.

My entire exception is with any characterization that these two guys don't have a future role to play in Seattle.

Huh? I wasn't implying that. The only thing I said was that your eye test and my eye test resulted in different conclusions (after your "actually watching the games" quip).

The Seahawks were 19th in passer rating against. And that's the traditional numbers - the advanced stuff is even worse. So I'm not sure how that would translate to being ranked in the top half.

I can understand your disagreement on Flowers, but I don't see how anyone would want Thompson to have a prominent role going forward. He just flat out wasn't good. Flowers at least has some intriguing tools that he may grow into.

 

[BSUSeahawk]

ANY rookie DB who plays wire to wire accomplishes something. There's plenty of reason to be optimistic.

you give yourself away with your language. They shouldn't be 'cut,' but don't see ANY way that the three can be starters and we can be good.

How about continued progression, and ability to receive coaching?

AGAIN, you know who knows and coaches DB's pretty well? That Carroll guy.

I'm being intentional with my language. I do not foresee a scenario where we go into 2019 with the same starting secondary and have a good pass defense. I believe that 100%.

I actually don't disagree that Griffin and Flowers can improve, but if your goal is to make the playoffs (and beyond), I don't think hoping that both players make huge strides is a safe policy. They need some talent back there.

As far as the last comment goes, I don't subscribe to the theory that coaches are infallible (see: Schottenheimer). And while Carroll obviously has forgotten more about secondary play than I'll ever know, that doesn't mean he can't miss on a player. Even beyond that, what's the point of a discussion board if the response to everything is just "well the coach sees it this way"?