SBNation.com User Blog: stufr

ESPN playoff machine

stufr — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:55:01 -0000

ESPN playoff machine

I love playing with this thing.

An explanation for Irvin's lack of performance.

stufr — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:36:13 -0000

An explanation for Irvin's lack of performance.

We all knew he was going to be a bit of a project, but it is good to here that the talent is there and the skills are coming along.

Who do you think will get bigger cheers?

stufr — Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:35:33 -0000

Not who you will cheer for, but who you think the fans will cheer more for at the Clink?

I will personally only cheer for whoever is in the Seahawks jersey, but somewhere deep down inside I will be quietly trying to stop myself from cheering for Jake and Matt. I guess its good that its only a pre-season game. That will cut down on the internal conflict, since I don't really care about the final score.

Poll

Who do you think will get bigger cheers?

Hasselbeck and Locker

28 votes

Flynn and Wilson

39 votes

67 votes | Poll has closed

T.O. is coming to town

stufr — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:44:47 -0000

T.O. is coming to town

I hope this tryout is just to motivate the guys on the roster.

This kinda thing makes me happy

stufr — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:34:48 -0000

This kinda thing makes me happy

I hope we see this turn out to be something that they build off of.

You should want Flynn to be our starter this year

stufr — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:18:11 -0000

There is nothing wrong with wanting RW to be our QBOTF, in fact I do and would encourage you to. The problem is, starting RW this wouldn't be maximizing the teams assets.

The thought of starting RW this year is exciting and fun, but starting a rookie is always a crap shoot. Would we be stunting their development? Would we be sacrificing the season? We won't know unless we do it, but there are obvious concerns with starting a rookie.

Assuming the competition goes how most think it will, Flynn will win and give us the best chance of winning this season. Not only that, I contend if gives us the best chance of continuing to build the franchise.

Flynn starting would give RW a year of development on the sidelines and in the film room. That time is invaluable, especially with a cerebral guy like him. I don't know how long he should sit, but I think its safe to say that in the least it won't hurt him.

If Fynn proves that he is starter quality, he then becomes a valuable asset. After this season, his contract becomes very team friendly in the near term. We could hold onto him as a backup, or better yet trade him. As a true starter, with his contract, he would be a valuable asset. If we never start him, we can't prove that he is worth anything and would then most likely cut him loose eventually.

So yes, you should want Flynn to start, to help out RWs development and maximize our assets going forward.

Sando does some good work

stufr — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:41:06 -0000

Sando does some good work

If this became a reality I would be pumped. I usually don't like him much, but good on ya Sando.

No compensatory picks for Hawks

stufr — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:18:43 -0000

No compensatory picks for Hawks

The price for Gallery and Rice.

Big push for Mario Williams

stufr — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:16:44 -0000

Big push for Mario Williams

It is Clayton, but he is fairly sold on the fact that we are going to be pushing to make this happen.

Polk going to the NFL

stufr — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:03:58 -0000

Polk going to the NFL

Getting "The Guy" or the QBOTF isn't easy

stufr — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:03:24 -0000

We have gone after them before and it didn't work out well. Their names were Rick Mirer and Dan McGuire. Mirer was only a minor bust because Chicago gave us a first for him eventually. Dan McGuire was a complete bust. Not only was he the first QB drafted that year, but there was an internal fight in the Seahawks FO because Chuck Knox wanted to draft Brett Favre in the second. Who knows if he would have developed so well in Seattle, but he definitely ended up better.

My point is that getting pissed because we aren't taking a risk, or because we haven't taken a risk to move up isn't necessarily thinking it through. How much worse would the franchise be if we had traded up to get either of them? Picks that would get us Carlton Gray, Kevin Mawae, Sam Adams and others who would become good players and some all pro. I would have given them up to get ten plus years of the finished Favre, but that's not who we drafted, or who a lot of teams drafted along the way.

Getting the guy is a great goal, but getting the guy isn't as easy as clicking your heals together and asking for it. We could trade away all of this years draft and next years draft and still probably not have enough to get Luck. To get RGIII it will take the top half of this years and next years draft. You might as well call them QB1 and QB2 because that's about all you really can predict about them. What would you trade for Alex Smith or J Russell or any number of first round busts? What would you trade for Manning or Brees? Both questions are equally dumb because you don't know who you are getting when you draft them. You are getting highly regarded and scouted QB1 or QB2. There are questions that you need to ask based on the capital that it will take to draft them.

Will either one of those guys be enough to carry a team that loses that many draft picks?

In our current form and development we are a fringe playoff team. Are you willing to give that up?

Is this shiny new QB enough of a player to lift us out of that without the help that those picks would give? Very few QBs in the league are, so you are essentially betting that this guy will be a top 3-5 QB in the league, quickly as good or better than Manning, Brees or Brady. That's a huge bet.

Are you willing to risk being a bottom dweller for the next 3-5 years over it? Even with PC/JS and their churning ability, that's what you get if you lose the bet.

I want to get the guy too, I am just being realistic about what is at stake. When all is said and done, if the pro scouts think that they have the guy to carry the team, then it will be worth it. If they aren't sure though, then I don't want to make the move.

Sark agrees with me

stufr — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:59:50 -0000

Sark agrees with me

Some of Rob Staton's thoughts on the Luck vs Barkley debate

stufr — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:19:36 -0000

Some of Rob Staton's thoughts on the Luck vs Barkley debate

Great article. Rob sums up most of my thoughts better than I ever could.

Millen Rant

stufr — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:42:56 -0000

Millen Rant

It's fun to hear a pro lose it with this team.

Total Quarterback Rating

stufr — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 19:29:13 -0000

Total Quarterback Rating

It might be useful

Its finally over

stufr — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:40:34 -0000

Its finally over

It looks like a plan and a timeline are forming

stufr — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:24:44 -0000

It looks like a plan and a timeline are forming

Differential Passer Rating

stufr — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:02:49 -0000

Differential Passer Rating

Interesting stat that shows that yes, we were lucky last year, not good. Here is an article about the stat in historic context.

Leinart Story

stufr — Thu, 26 May 2011 11:40:09 -0000

Leinart Story

Its interesting how close Leinart and Kolb's numbers are. If Pete can motivate him, why not give it a try?

Steve Smith is probably on the trading block. Do we want him?

stufr — Tue, 03 May 2011 13:04:17 -0000

Steve Smith is probably on the trading block. Do we want him?

We just drafted his brother. How much would he be worth?

This Isn’t Smash Mouth Football, this is the Makings of a Hybrid

stufr — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:08:45 -0000

Everyone is trying to label our draft as a move to smash mouth over the more "acceptable" modern passing offense. I think we are actually moving our offense forward in the newest trend, the "Hybrid" offense. What do I mean by hybrid? We have an OC who comes from Minnesota where they have a very talented OL and guys like AP and P. Harvin. PC made his name in college on a team with a great OL and this guy named R. Bush. What do these teams have in common, along with NO and Philly, they have big strong talented OLs and play maker backs who don’t necessarily fit the mold of RB or WR, in the classic sense. They do a lot of swing passes and screens, which are essentially run plays where you have moved and spread the line of scrimmage laterally.

We went and got Leon Washington and Golden Tate last year and kept Force employed. All three are exciting play makers who don’t exactly fit the mold of the classic WR or RB. All three have the potential to do exciting things with the ball in space. You can’t just sling the ball out to them and expect it to work though. You need an athletic and mobile OL.

Now you might be saying STUFR, you are drunk; we also traded for the Beast. I would say, yes I am drunk, but the fact that we went after the Beast actually helps my point. That’s because if all you have is hybrid play makers and a small OL who can go out and help them, then defenses will key off that and stack the outside, knowing that you aren’t really capable of running it up the gut. The OL that we are building is fast and agile, but also big. That combination doesn’t show up in the later rounds. Late round OL draftees are either fast and agile or big, not both, as a general rule. The OL that we are building is plenty big to go old school, punch you in the face and nail your sister football. To top that off we put the Beast behind them. When we run it up the gut you will either get a big fatty in your face or the Beast will take you out prison style.

More importantly, much like Danny already wrote, you don’t need a great QB to run this offense. You need someone who can hit the screen and swing pass well and in an ideal world has enough of a gun to stretch the field. That last part is key and the difference between this being just an ok offensive philosophy and a great one. If you have a broken Hass or a T. Jackson type back there this offense will function, but it won’t be great. If you put a Favre or a Brees behind it then it can be great. You now have explosive playmaking ability on short passes and the ability to smash mouth and keep the interior honest. Add in a QB with a gun and then the secondary has to stay honest. CW needs to learn to throw the swing and screen better, but if he can, he may thrive in this type of philosophy. This philosophy can easily make a good franchise look elite, see K. Kolb.

So if you are worried about going back in time to a smash mouth philosophy, I wouldn’t worry about it. We are actually moving towards the newest movement in offensive philosophy, the hybrid. We can argue about what we should have drafted at each position, but it is tough to get big, fast and agile OLs in the back of drafts. Maybe we don’t need as many of them as we will have, but if it works, this could be really good.

The Carpenter pick is all about process

stufr — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:24:28 -0000

I said it in another thread, but am curious to find out other peoples reaction.

I think this pick screams "good process". It’s not the sexy pick, but it was the right one for a franchise rebuilding and a couple years away from truly competing.

Think of it this way. You wanted to take out the prom queen who is so hot, but never puts. Instead you ended up with the cute girl down the street who has a dirty streak in her.

Rob Staton, Rob Rang and Mike Mayock all had this guy as the next best OL available and at good value at the end of the first. Our new OL coach, who is one of the most respected OL guys in the game, said that this was the guy they were targeting.

This is a building block level pick, which may end up being a second cornerstone of our OL and offense for the next decade. Building up the lines and working out from there is good process. You may not like the pick, but if the process builds a winner, you can’t argue with it.

For everyone out there who screamed about the CW trade as "bad process", you should be able to recognize that this is the exact opposite of that.

So, am I the only one who sees a FA with a good process in place?

I said it in another thread, but am curious to find out other peoples reaction.

I think this pick screams "good process". It’s not the sexy pick, but it was the right one for a franchise rebuilding and a couple years away from truly competing.

Think of it this way. You wanted to take out the prom queen who is so hot, but never puts. Instead you ended up with the cute girl down the street who has a dirty streak in her.

For everyone out there who screamed about the CW trade as "bad process", you should be able to recognize that this is the exact opposite of that.

So, am I the only one who sees a FA with a good process in place?

The judge will rule on the stay Wednesday

stufr — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:14:20 -0000

The judge will rule on the stay Wednesday

There might be one day of FA and trades.

This guy makes me trade away everything to get Locker or make the right moves to get Kaep

stufr — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:37:53 -0000

This guy makes me trade away everything to get Locker or make the right moves to get Kaep

This is a really good read
Plus fieldgulls and Danny get a nice plug

Sark sums up Jake

stufr — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:50:37 -0000

Sark sums up Jake

You really can't count the first two years of development when he didn't have a QB coach and the plays were drawn up in the mud and most said, "Jake runs right/left"

Wonderlic Scores

stufr — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:27:30 -0000

Wonderlic Scores

In case anyone cares.

A little fodder for the Ricky Stanzi fans

stufr — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:31:42 -0000

A little fodder for the Ricky Stanzi fans

Signings are done for now

stufr — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:17:00 -0000

Signings are done for now

Guess that means Matt will hit the open market. Kinda makes me think he will be gone afterall.

Cox is back

stufr — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:59:16 -0000

Cox is back

"We call it the Mendoza line," said Ted Thompson, Packers president. "There are certain areas that you just pass on. It doesn't mean those players aren't going to be great players in the NFL, Pro Bowlers and all the rest. It's just that percentage-wise, w

stufr — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:03:59 -0000

"We call it the Mendoza line," said Ted Thompson, Packers president. "There are certain areas that you just pass on. It doesn't mean those players aren't going to be great players in the NFL, Pro Bowlers and all the rest. It's just that percentage-wise, w

"These are the specific physical prerequisites, draft commandments if you will. Thou shalt not draft cornerbacks shorter than 5 feet 10. Linebackers shall be at least 6 feet in height. Trading down in the draft order is preferable."

Kinda explains Wilson a little more.