Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features

HundleyBre15.jpg

» Futures: UCLA QB Brett Hundley

Beyond the immediate considerations of Hundley's potential, the quarterback's tape raises larger questions about the position.

12 Apr 2013

State of the Team: Seattle Seahawks

by Andy Benoit

The 2013 "State of the Team" articles will run daily through the NFL draft. These offer a snapshot look at a team’s roster, with players classified by color based on how they fit their role. My analysis is based on film study, not statistics, although we will try to note when my judgment differs significantly from FO's advanced stats, and explain a little bit why. Starters are in bold, and you will notice that many units are listed with 12 starters rather than just 11. This denotes the extra playing time that nickelbacks and third receivers usually get in today's NFL.

Color Legend:

  • Star
  • Good
  • Adequate
  • Jury’s still out
  • Just a guy
  • Upgrade needed
  • No longer on the team

Some players colored pink as "just a guy" are younger low-round picks who just haven't seen much playing time, but keep in mind that 99 percent of the time, there’s a negative reason why such a player has rarely seen the field.

Players colored red as "upgrade needed" are not necessarily bad players. Sometimes, this simply means the player is a decent backup who should not be starting.

Since I generally don't do analysis on special teams, those categorizations are based strictly on FO stats, with any comments written by Aaron Schatz. We're only listing kickers and punters, as most teams go into training camp without specific players set as return specialists.

Click here for an archive of all State of the Team articles.

OFFENSE

OVERVIEW

The Seahawks did a great job simplifying their passing game early last year to help their rookie quarterback, and in turn that rookie is on his way to stardom. (A little improvement as a sophomore would put him in the "blue" category.) As Russell Wilson grows, so will the sophistication of Darrell Bevell’s offense. We saw more read-option elements down the stretch last season; expect to see those continue to expand with a versatile weapon like Percy Harvin stepping into the slot. Also likely to expand will be Seattle’s three-receiver passing game. Most of what the Seahawks did in the air last season took place out of base personnel, which meant a heavy dose of play-action, rolled pockets and other defined-read concepts. These concepts often worked because defenses were adamant about putting an eighth man in the box against Marshawn Lynch. That’s a schematic advantage that will apply to whatever sets the Seahawks are operating out of this season.

BACKFIELD

QB: Russell Wilson, Josh Portis; Lost: Matt Flynn

RB: Marshawn Lynch, Robert Turbin, Michael Robinson (FB); Lost: Leon Washington

Wilson should only be better in Year Two. He’s very comfortable playing on the move; he’s smart; he doesn’t have the strongest arm but he throws with great trajectory downfield and, most of the time, good enough velocity at the intermediate and underneath levels. Lynch is a tenacious high-volume runner in the middle of his prime. He’s serviceable on third down though Turbin is the more preferred option there.

RECEIVERS

WR: Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Golden Tate, Doug Baldwin

TE: Zach Miller, Anthony McCoy; Lost: Cameron Morrah

All four of Seattle’s wideouts can line up anywhere along the formation. That’s a huge asset for play-caller Darrell Bevell. Rice is this group’s most dynamic downfield threat. Harvin will be the feature of the short area and underneath/intermediate passing attack. His acceleration and change-of-direction are outstanding. Baldwin and Tate both tend to go up and down, but both are slightly overqualified (in a good way) for their respective backup roles. It will be interesting to see how Miller plays in 2013. He looked like the epitome of an average tight end throughout last season, which is fine. In the playoffs, however, he exploded with two big catches late in the Wild Card win at Washington and over 100 yards serving as the focal point of Seattle’s zone-beater concepts against Atlanta in the Divisional Round. What should we expect in 2013?

OFFENSIVE LINE

LT: Russell Okung LG: James Carpenter C: Max Unger RG: Paul McQuistan RT: Breno Giacomini

Backups: G J.R. Sweezy, G John Moffitt; Lost: Frank Omiyale

When healthy, Okung can be an innately dominant force. Football seems to come easy to him (particularly run-blocking). Carpenter must prove he can stay on the field for more than half a season. The mobile Unger has good short area mechanics that make him a nice fit in this zone scheme. McQuistan and Giacomini are not special but neither will stall many drives. Thanks to various injuries inside last year, Seattle’s young depth up front is fairly well developed.

DEFENSE

OVERVIEW

The Seahawks have the defense that every team wants right now. Their tremendous outside cornerback tandem allows for suffocating coverage with single-high safety looks. That means there’s always a free roamer or eighth defender in the box. This defensive line is dynamic inside and outside. These linebackers are smart and athletic. Pete Carroll’s scheme is easy to execute, hard to defeat and subtly complex on third-and-long. Whatever holes are on this defense defense rarely have a chance to open up. Consequently, new coordinator Dan Quinn should be able to replace Gus Bradley just fine.

DEFENSIVE LINE

DE: Cliff Avril, Red Bryant, Bruce Irvin, Michael Bennett, Chris Clemons

DT: Brandon Mebane, Jay Howard, Tony McDaniel, Clinton McDonald; Lost: Alan Branch, Jason Jones

Clemons is the best player in this bunch, but the fact that Carroll and GM John Schneider signed Avril and Bennett tells you there is not a lot of optimism about the veteran’s chances of fully recovering from his January ACL injury. Avril and Bennett are both quality edge rushers who can also play the run. Bennett, in fact, is a better run-defender than pass-rusher. Whatever reps he gets in nickel will likely come inside, as he doesn’t have the speed-power combination that the undersized but explosive Avril and Irvin have. What would be most sensible is playing Bennett at end in the base D and sliding Bryant inside to fill Branch’s large but overlooked void. The question is whether Bryant, who is built like Branch, would have the quickness to handle one-gap assignments. Mebane does most of the two-gap work; he’s a high-octane dynamo with great lateral ability. If the Seahawks don’t move Bryant to tackle, they’ll let Howard, last year’s fourth-round pick, and McDaniel, a free agent pickup from Miami, compete for a starting job.

LINEBACKERS

OLB: K.J. Wright, Malcolm Smith, Heath Farwell; Lost: Leroy Hill

ILB: Bobby Wagner, __________

At this point, Wagner isn’t quite a sure-thing to become elite, but it’s hard to look at his ascension as a rookie and not see Pro Bowls on the horizon. He has great fluidity and a high football IQ. His progress as a sub-package player was very impressive. He also really needs a backup. Wright is a good athlete who knows how to mix things up in traffic. Smith is largely untested but did a good job filling in with the first unit when Leroy Hill was out last year.

SECONDARY

CB: Richard Sherman, Brandon Browner, Walter Thurmond, Jeremy Lane; Lost: Marcus Trufant

S: Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor, Jeron Johnson

You can’t get much better than Sherman and Browner on the outside. You may have heard both are physical. They’re two of the few players in football who can play zone coverages with press-man techniques. The only drawback is neither is any good on the inside, which makes the healthy return of Thurmond as critical as it is unguaranteed. Seattle spent last year grooming Lane for the slot. He’s built like an outside guy, but his laudable showing as a starter last December should be enough for coaches to prioritize getting him on the field. Whoever is in the slot will have an easier time than typical NFL nickelbacks because, in this scheme, Chancellor is often able to roam the seams and deep-underneath areas. He can play that way because of Browner and Sherman’s effectiveness in press and because of Thomas’s incredible range as a centerfielder.

SPECIAL TEAMS

K: Carson Wiggs; P: Jon Ryan; Lost: Steven Hauschka

2012 undrafted free agent Wiggs (out of Purdue) was in camp with the Seahawks last year and is now on top of the depth chart, but there could be a rookie addition as well.

Follow @Andy_Benoit

e-mail andy@footballoutsiders.com

Posted by: Andy Benoit on 12 Apr 2013

60 comments, Last at 22 Apr 2013, 2:01am by Perfundle

Comments

1
by Perfundle :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 12:21pm

Since Clemons is considered the best of the d-line, presumably he'd be either a blue or a green. The comments on Branch imply that he would rank as at least adequate. That means that the d-line consisted of at least three greens and a black, with another green in Irvin in for third-down passing situations last year. That kind of d-line doesn't get gashed in the run game as much as they did (and this is before Clemons got hurt), while offering up a rather inconsistent pass rush. Bryant, in particular, was not a green last year.

It does seem that some of these grades are cumulative, so that punters, for instance, need several years of consistent play to be called good, but then Wagner gets a star grade after just one year.

Sherman and Browner both being blue simply shows the need to break up the blue into two categories, like "Star" and "Elite." That would sort out the blue-Flacco stuff too. That Browner was lost for four games and the pass defense didn't drop off noticeably is telling.

12
by Austintacious (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:48am

There's no way Red Bryant should be green, he was terrible last year.

On the o-line, Paul McQuistan is in my eyes less than adequate. How else to explain how he got beat out by a 7th round rookie converted to guard (Sweezey) who was not particularly good himself?

13
by maxnote :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:50am

McQuistan didn't get beat out by Sweezy - he was filling in for Carpenter at LG last season

19
by leandean (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 12:49pm

Bryant had a bad wheel all last year. Not a good thing for a d-lineman.

22
by hawkdawg (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 2:01pm

Because he didn't. Sweezey took over for Moffit, who is a RG.

49
by Ron LaCroix (not verified) :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 9:36am

I agree with you, Austintacious, but he was playing with a foot injury, which of course hindered his ability to anchor when blocked. Should be a 'wait and see' color. I agree about McQuistan too - he's a backup, not an adequate starter.

17
by Fred (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 9:01am

"Since Clemons is considered the best of the d-line, presumably he'd be either a blue or a green."

Blown ACL=jury's out

"It does seem that some of these grades are cumulative, so that punters, for instance, need several years of consistent play to be called good, but then Wagner gets a star grade after just one year."

As explained in every article, special teams are not done by Benoit.

37
by Perfundle :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 10:00pm

"Blown ACL=jury's out"

I was talking about his grade last season, when he was fully healthy, and similarly for the other players. Note that I didn't have Avril and Bennett listed, only Mebane, Branch, Clemons, Bryant and Irvin.

44
by LionInAZ :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 1:13am

So tell us how you pro-rate his grade when he was fully healthy to a current grade post-ACL...

46
by Perfundle :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 3:47am

Um, I'm not making any comment on his current grade. Obviously "Jury's still out" is entirely appropriate for someone coming back from a major injury.

My point was that using the hints in the writeup, I'd determined that the author would've considered Seattle's defensive line to have been at least three Goods and one Adequate, with the first backup also Good. That quality of line doesn't perform as badly as they did last year. And that means that some of those grades are incorrect, at least for the duration of last year, and I noted Bryant in particular.

I understand that the grades also consider past performance beyond last year and also future performance and scheme (Asomugha and Jake Long, for instance). So it's certainly possible that Bryant will recover from his injury to his former form. But he'll be 29 once the season starts, and you never know about players coming back from injury at that age.

2
by Jacob Stevens (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 12:24pm

Really weird seeing Joe Staley in green in the last article, but then Bobby Wagner in blue here. It was a nice, productive season, but I think Wagner subtly hurt the run defense much more than is apparent. He's good, and the early success was surprising. I don't see him as a star.

I dunno what's official, and it'll be worked out in camp anyway, but I've heard more that Bennett will primarily work inside than outside.

3
by IrishBarrister :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 12:28pm

Great series, Andy. I really enjoy getting a full look at each team's roster and potential next season.

4
by Roadspike73 (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 12:48pm

I agree with Jacob Stevens that Bobby Wagner should probably be Green here rather than Blue (although he did have a spectacular rookie season).

However I think that Michael Robinson is being underrated here, and Zach Miller is being criminally underrated. Sure, he doesn't have the pass catching numbers that some tight ends do (at least he didn't until the playoffs), but he's an outstanding blocker, often taking on a Defensive End (or 3-4 OLB) one-on-one and winning, and he always seems to make that critical catch that keeps a drive alive.

Byron Maxwell isn't listed. He and Jeremy Lane rotated across from Sherman while Browner was out, and both of them played well.

Also, Heath Farwell took snaps at ILB last year; I would assume that beyond KJ Wright (who has proven he can move inside when needed), he is Bobby Wagner's backup.

Finally, I would put Jon Ryan at the very top edge of Adequate (I know there's no way to show that) or the bottom of Good; he does an excellent job of kicking to his coverage, especially when nailing someone inside the 20. He does, however, have one or two punts per year that just... are no good.

5
by Perfundle :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 1:18pm

I thought the same about Ryan, especially since Seattle's punt team was ranked 6th last year by FO, but then I looked at the grades for the five punters ahead of him. One of them hasn't been covered yet, one of them got a star grade (Lee of SF), but the other three were all only "Adequate." Cincinnati's punter write-up indicates that one good (or even great) year is not enough to give a punter a good grade, and indeed, Ryan's other four years in Seattle have all earned a (slightly) negative special teams score. And that's fair enough; you wouldn't wanted to have said that Crosby was adequate based on his decent year last year.

7
by Jeff M. (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 8:44pm

Yeah, hate to be the homer who complains that all of his team's guys are underrated, but I had the same immediate thought on Robinson and Miller. Their blocking had a lot to do with Seattle's running success. Add that they're both great receivers and I think both ought to be green.

And Jeremy Lane's performance filling in for suspended Browner has to have proved him at least adequate. Add the new signing of Winfield (I'm guessing green in this exercise) to cover the slot...yeah, I'm excited about this secondary.

8
by theslothook :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 9:37pm

Michael Robinson is a great receiver? Since when....?

10
by Jeff M. (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 11:08pm

Maybe since he put up 75% receiving DVOA and 84 DYAR (good for top-10 backs if he had enough catches to qualify). Would you agree that CJ Spiller, Marcel Reese, and LeSean McCoy are good receivers? Because Robinson put up similar total value, except those guys had 60-70 targets and he did it in 15.

16
by theslothook :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 2:07am

I guess I wouldn't really call any running backs great receivers other than possibly darren sproles and a few others. I think Fo ran some studies a while back that showed screen production is less rb dependent than it is offense dependent.

28
by 12thArmyCoup :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:53pm

Its is O dependent, but you need a RB with great hands, lateral quickness, and one who can create space himself instead of finding holes.

"Your gonna hump it back with my boot tickling your pancreas. NOW MOVE!"

6
by Alex (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 6:14pm

Love (to hate) Russell Okung. Really a beast. But if he's a star, so is Staley.

9
by Peepshowmopguy (not verified) :: Fri, 04/12/2013 - 10:45pm

Can we get a color for Winfield?

18
by BigWoody (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 11:46am

What say you, Will? Does Winfield have enough left in the tank to be a blue at nickleback in Seattle's D-backfield?

21
by andrew :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:03pm

at least one of the other football stats sites rated him the top cornerback in the NFL last year by their metric.

27
by 12thArmyCoup (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:42pm

Especially since this "article" was uploaded today. It's just another glaring example of a hastily thrown together article by someone who was trying to beat a deadline.

11
by andrew :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:15am

Heath Farwell is just a guy as a LB, but at least a green on special teams....

15
by that man (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:59am

Wagner is the 4th best ILB in his division. Don't really see him making the pro bowl anytime soon.

53
by darnell (not verified) :: Tue, 04/16/2013 - 1:38am

Yes, but. Washington is suspended to start the season. So you could realistically have a trifecta of Willis,Bowman and Wagner as the probowl ILBs. It isn't exactly a bad thing to be the 4th best MLB in the NFCW. Heck, the 5th (Laurinaitis) is pretty solid.

20
by galactic_dev :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 1:01pm

Can we get some Russell Wilson hype going? I've never seen anyone throw more accurately on the run, and combined with his escapability, I think he's going to be a huge huge star in this league.

24
by Guest789 :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:34pm

Rodgers still has him beat when it comes to accuracy-on-the-run, and it's not close.

-----

“Treat a man as he is, and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he could be, and he will become what he should be.”

23
by jerry_k (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:04pm

" he doesn’t have the strongest arm" on Russell Wilson. Although technically not the single 'strongest arm' in the NFL, top 10. Did you see his TD vs Pats hitting Rice on the run?? Take another look. About 68 yards in the air. Also note when you watch it again that it doesn't appear like someone 'punted' it much like you see with Romo or even Matt Ryan (watch playoff game vs Seahawks).

25
by Perfundle :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:35pm

It is a 100% certainly that the author has taken quite a few looks at that play, which plays a big part into categorizing him as "throws with great trajectory downfield." Long-distance accuracy is much better than pure arm strength, anyways.

33
by A. Simmons (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 6:54pm

Russell Wilson has a strong arm. I'd put him in competition with almost anyone in the NFL. The beebee he threw to Baldwin in the end zone threw multiple defenders is another example. The fact is Russell focuses on touch. He doesn't blast it every time. If he needs to throw hard, he does. I know the writer of the article can't line up a bunch of QBs and allow them to throw for distance and speed, but I'd put money on Russell being in the top 7 to 10 in the league for arm strength. He's throws across his body on the move at times or moving in the opposite direction. Kid's got an arm.

35
by Steve McQueen (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 9:21pm

Yeah, seems the author is under-valuing Wilson's arm.

Dilfer has called it a top 5 arm. Brock Huard thought it was clearly top 10. There's maybe a bit of small man bias going on here.

40
by Perfundle :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 10:41pm

"There's maybe a bit of small man bias going on here."

Well, every one of Wilson's muscle cells is clearly (5*12+10+5/8 inches)/(6*12+2 inches) = 95% the size of the average QB's, so some modest bias is fair.

26
by 12thArmyCoup (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 3:40pm

There's just SO many mistakes. Not differing opinions, but outright mistakes. Robinson, Tate, Moffit, Miller and Baldwin are just ADEQUATE?!? In the same category as Turbin, McCoy, McQ, Giacomini and Sweezy?
Russell Wilson is Good, but Bobby Wagner is a Star? Did you just pick names out of a hat. You can spin your choices any way you deem fit, but this is just an extremely poor example of so called journalism.

P.S. Heath Farwell is a special teams guy, and probably the best one we have. Labeling him just a guy is beyond any explanation other than being stupid.

29
by Andy Benoit :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 4:00pm

Love the feedback, guys. Aaron and I have talked about next time separating the blue stars into a dark blue and light blue to reflect the difference in "superstar" and "star". Curious, what other changes would people like to see to the color coding system?

30
by Occ :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 4:58pm

Clearly, using less than 10 colors is a mistake. You should use 256 just to be safe.

Honestly though, grading the colors out into 3 groups (dark blue, blue, light blue) would probably be helpful and reasonably intuitive.

31
by Karl Cuba :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 5:13pm

Agreed, three ties of blue, green and red would probably be more intuitive.

Perhaps people should take the colour grading a bit less seriously, look at the remark above from that12th army Seattle fan, it's hardly necessary is it?

42
by Shattenjager :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:41am

I don't think anyone else has said it, so I may be the only one, but I find it a little difficult to read the players lost with that light grey color. I don't think it would be confusing just to leave them black, since the "lost" category is clearly labeled every time. I'm sure someone will explain how this is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, but I thought it was at least possible that someone else has the same experience. It is admittedly a minor issue.

Incidentally, I think this series is a great addition to FO's off-season work.

54
by Zach (not verified) :: Tue, 04/16/2013 - 12:45pm

Another option might be to use a strikethrough font, as a way to make it very clear that the player is no longer on a team. That way, the player could still be assigned their grade (so we could have a sense of how big a loss their departure was), but it would be clear that they're no longer on the team.

60
by David :: Fri, 04/19/2013 - 8:13am

For what it's worth, having done a large number of these ranking exercises (in a completely different field), the important thing is to have a definition to go back to for each of the colours/grades. The number (and delineation) of the grades is much less important. When grading the team, who cares about the difference between 'star' and 'superstar'? In either case, you're set at that position for the foreseeable future.

I'd recommend something like:

Blue - Star performer, perennial pro-bowler, worth any contract to keep on the team
Green - Great player, want to keep, but not at any price. Expect to leave at this position for 3-4 years
Amber - Adequate player, has limitations, but can contribute value in the scheme. Has known deficiencies that can be compensated. Happy to have, happy to lose
Pink - Just a Guy. Won't make mistakes, but severely limited, and must be planned around. Doesn't contribute value.
Red - Replacement needed. Should not be in this position

32
by The Rational One (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 6:41pm

Cliff Avril and Bruce Irvin are blues against the pass, but reds against the run. Does that equal to a green?

Anybody else concerned about the Seahawks run defense? It really sunk at the end of last year, and watching Micheal Turner run for 150 was just embarrassing. The additions of Avril and Bennett aren't going to help was was the weakest part f the defense last year.

38
by Perfundle :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 10:31pm

Bennett was very good against the run last year and Winfield was even better. Those signings should certainly improve the run defense.

Besides, Turner's production was in large part due to Clemons' getting hurt. Not that he was exceptional against the run, but the huge dropoff between him and Irvin was the problem.

Finally, it seems that a good run defense is not really necessary to win a Super Bowl anymore, assuming your offense and pass defense is good enough. The last four champions had run defense rankings of 29 (NO), 16 (GB), 20 (NY) and 26 (Bal). In all except for NY, their pass defense was substantially better.

45
by The Rational One (not verified) :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 2:32am

Turner's performance in the divisional round could be blamed on Clemons being hurt, but the Seahawks defense went from allowing 70 Rush YPG in the first 6 weeks of the regular season last year to 150 rush YPG allowed from week 7 till the end of the playoffs. That's what we call a trend, and it can not be blamed on an injury to Clemons. Bennett should help, but that is a large gap to fill, and Bennett isnt exactly Justin smith or Haloti Ngata

And how is Winfield going to help their run defense? Sherman, Thomas and chandler are all very good tacklers in the box, and Winfield is there mostly for depth, if he sees more then 15% of the snaps something bad happened for the Hawks. Maybe the Seahawks linebackers are a little soft against the more physical teams they see.

48
by Perfundle :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 4:32am

"That's what we call a trend, and it can not be blamed on an injury to Clemons."

Can it be blamed on an injury to Bryant? That is the prevailing view right now; the nagging injury that he picked up pretty much coincides with the drop-off in the rush defense. Of course, who knows how well he can recover, but at least there's a reason there.

Beyond that, Seattle's first 6 opponents averaged 106 yards rushing per game, compared to 129 for the last 11 opponents (Atlanta not included), so that also played a part.

I imagine how much Wagner improves in his second year will play a large part in how well the run defense goes.

50
by Vincent Verhei :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 3:45pm

And how is Winfield going to help their run defense? Sherman, Thomas and chandler are all very good tacklers in the box, and Winfield is there mostly for depth, if he sees more then 15% of the snaps something bad happened for the Hawks.

Marcus Trufant was on the field for 35 percent of the Seahawks' defensive snaps last year, and Jeremy Lane was on for 16%. That's partly because of Brandon Browner's suspension, but even if everyone is healthy and eligible for 16 games this season, I think we can estimate that Winfield will be on the field for at least one-third of Seattle's defensive snaps in 2013, and probably a lot more.

51
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Mon, 04/15/2013 - 1:07am

Check the teams you played. The opening schedule was teams who passed but couldn't run. The second half was mainly teams that ran but couldn't pass, except for Atlanta and the Dolphins. Buffalo looks big, but they lost 50-17.

But after week 6, the Rams couldn't run again in the 2nd game and Detroit couldn't run (but could pass -- the story of their last two years). SF and MIN ran but couldn't pass. ARI couldn't do anything.

Total yards allowed was still low even though run yardage crept up. Basically, Seattle took away the pass and dared teams to run. Only MIA and ATL could do both.

34
by Hawkwind (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 7:56pm

Any other Seahawks fans getting worried that this is becoming a "dream team"-type offseason?

39
by Perfundle :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 10:33pm

Read this if you're worried about that.

41
by Hawkwind (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 11:13pm

Thanks. I'll give up my worries due to reasoning by analogy and start worrying about sophomore slumps. At least they have plenty of swagger.

36
by Steve McQueen (not verified) :: Sat, 04/13/2013 - 9:25pm

A decent effort overall in ranking these guys. The only errors are that Wilson and Ryan need to be upgraded to a Blue and a Green respectively, and Wagner and Browner need to be downgraded to Greens.

55
by RoninX (not verified) :: Wed, 04/17/2013 - 2:53pm

Agree. Browner is good, but not a star.

As a general comment: I would love to see a little more texture to the grading (the color gradient tiers mentioned above seem like an improvement). Many of the comments have to do with borderline guys, and the tier system would at least acknowledge that a guy is viewed as a player who is "almost a star" etc. Not that people won't still gripe!

57
by LionInAZ :: Thu, 04/18/2013 - 11:35pm

No player coming out of their rookie season deserves to be labeled a star, especially if he wasn't in.the top five at his position. Let's hold off the coronation until he repeats his performance.

61
by Perfundle :: Mon, 04/22/2013 - 2:01am

This would a fine sentiment, were it not for the fact that many rookies have already been labeled stars; Wagner when it comes to Seattle, and Luck when it comes to QBs. Many Seattle fans would say that Wilson is more of a star than Wagner is.

43
by mr bailey (not verified) :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 12:56am

Let's all get real. It is really enjoyable to be a Seahawk fan right now. The team is good. Their future is so bright, we all gotta wear sunglasses. Enjoy the moment.

47
by Perfundle :: Sun, 04/14/2013 - 3:50am

Nah, the perpetual rain makes the sunglasses unnecessary.

52
by LionInAZ :: Mon, 04/15/2013 - 7:11pm

What gets me here is the statement that Avril is a guy who can "play the run" in contrast to the evidence.

56
by Anicra (not verified) :: Thu, 04/18/2013 - 11:28pm

Simple system for the colors grades would have been better. Like Red (Hot - Star) to Violet(cold - low grade)and grey -INC. So that instead of looking for which color means what, 99 pct of people know the color bands and approx order from red to blue/purple. Hence they would know best to worst.

58
by Insancipitory :: Thu, 04/18/2013 - 11:56pm

I have it on good authority (plank) that from coldest to hottest the colors are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.

59
by David :: Fri, 04/19/2013 - 8:06am

Yeah, cos absolutely no-one uses red-amber-green ratings for bad to good...