Some random draft thoughts

Thanks to the Seahawksdraftblog.com, watched some film on Justin Houston, the defensive end from Georgia as a potential pick for the Hawks Leo position on defense. I liked Chris Clemons at the Leo position this year, as well as Raheem Block, but some depth is needed and Clemons is a bit of a one trick pony. The Hawks need more depth at their specialized positions, the Red Bryant anchor position and the LEO. Houston is a great athlete, very light on his feet, great burst off the ball and had a good build and long arms.

I'm always hesitant about players from Georgia because of effort issues. Houston is no different. He doesn't play as hard against the run, especially interior running plays. Teams ran a lot of read option to his side and he wasn't terrible, just a little slow at decision making at times. If he's not directly involved in the play his effort just isn't there. He doesn't have a lot of pass rush moves at this time, most of the time he just tries to run around the tackle, and occasionally tries to power back inside. He doesn't use his hands particularly well, but he has strong hands and could excel as a pass rusher over time.

I'm slowly becoming more of a believer that the Hawks shouldn't draft a quarterback in the first round unless they've been blessed with a qb dropping. I think we should do one more year of Hass, draft a mid round qb and have him get groomed by Hass next year.

The Want To Know Why

Yes, I know its been almost a year since I've posted. But I'm kickstarting this blog again. The more I read about the draft or peoples views on football in general, the more I realize that the vast majority of football fans, don't actually understand the game that they love so dearly. Do I look down upon them for this? Only if they propogate these ideas as the truth, rather than a fairly uneducated opinion. But first, a little rant.

Just like in baseball, there has been a flailing attempt at a statistical revolution in football. These statisticians use their "advanced metrics" to compare players across decades as well as current players, eschewing the changes in the game and its philosophy in the sake of "comparison". These analysts, I believe, use numbers in place of football understanding. I am not saying that fans should know the wide varieties of play calls coverages and scheme, but they should understand, if nothing else, technique.

Technique, in order to understand technique, you must first understand correct technique and the fact that certain physical attributes enable better technique than others. You want a stout center with quick hands and tremendous natural strength. You want a defensive end with strong hands. You want a tackle with long arms, thin ankles, big hands and a fat ass. Why? Because he needs to be light on his feet, good balance, have long arms to hold at bay pass rushers and strong hands to control their opponent in run blocking.
40 times are irrelevant. Acceleration is far more important. How often during the course of the game does a player run forty yards unimpeded in a straight line?
If your watching game tape on a potential prospect, ask yourself questions, "How well does the tackle move his feet?" "How often does a defensive linemen drop his arms?" On the flip side, "How well does he use his hands?" "What angles does a linebacker take to the ball? "How is his gap containment?"
Look at a quarterback, look at his release, how does it vary depending on the throw. Watch his feet. Where does he release the ball? How tight is the throwing motion?

It is one thing to know that something happened, it is an entirely different thing to know why it happened? Why are most of Drew Brees interceptions off deflections? Why is Mark Ingram such a stud? What makes James Harrison such a great pass rusher?(great balance, acceleration and hand technique) Why does Matt Hasslebeck struggle throwing the deep ball(It goes beyond arm strength). Figure out the answer to these questions, and talent assessment is much easier.

The Case Against Conference Tournaments

I hate conference tournaments. I hate them. They're a money grab that in order to get people to watch it, demeans the regular season entirely. According to the NCAA, four games is more important than an entire conference season of work. In the small conferences, winning the regular season title is virtually irrelevant, a ncaa bid isn't guaranteed. However, winning a stretch of three or four games over the course of a weekend is worthy of an automatic bid? How is this fair?

Everyone rips on the BCS(Undeservedly) for being a cash cow, but the only reason conference tournaments are around is money. It makes for exciting television. I watch as much of the conference tournaments as I can because its my best chance to see teams I do not normally see.

I do not understand why Bobby Knight is the only member of the national media that is outspoken on the ridiculousness of conference tournaments. I am not against a conference championship game of some sort. Cal Washington was an outstanding game, so was Kansas State and Kentucky. But why are small conference teams taking the spots of big conference bubble teams with better resumes? Wouldn't a ncaa tournament with drawable teams get better ratings and be better attended than Kentucky vs NE Tech State? I'll get to that next time.

Yikes

Its hard to write about losses, especially when its the same song and dance as last year, but not nearly as competitive. Pull me off the ledge please, the season is only half over...right?

That old sinking feeling...

Once again, the Seahawks appear to be suffering another steady stream of injuries. I'd like to use that as a viable excuse for that catastrophe on Sunday, but offensively, it really wasn't. Sure Vallos and Unger in the middle is a mess and they desperately need Spencer back, but the offensive game plan sucked. The injuries of Mebane, Tatupu and Hill directly led to their backups overpursuing the expertly used cutback running plays of the 49ers.

The bright side, is that most of the injuries are short term injuries. I'm more optimistic than most for the Bears game, aside from their defensive line destroying our offensive line, its a decent matchup for the Hawks.

First opening day shutout since 98

Going to watch the game again tonight, a few thoughts upon the first viewing.

Total growing pains with the offense early on, Hasslebeck looked awful, players weren't on the same page.

The defense was very good.

Lawrence Jackson, a few weeks after I question his heart, plays inspired football, and makes plays, I intend to watch him closely on the second viewing to see if he really played well or he just gambled and won a lot.

Daryl Tapp, another guy I piss on regularly for his selfish play, showed great instincts and pass rushing ability. He did a real good job of diagnosing plays.

Offensive line blocking was inconsistent, especially with the running game. Rob Sims had a few noticably excellent blocks.

Kind of disappointed it took a half for Knapp to realize the Rams coverage was heavily keyed on Housh and taking advantage of it.

Fumble aside, Nate looked good.

Aaron Curry is going to learn how to control himself a little better, but I loved his passion.

Patrick Kerney was nonexistant, might've been schemed that way, might be he's just getting old.

Getting tired of punters trying to drop it at the 1, the kick is a success if its downed from the 19 yard line and in.

Speaking of punters, it pains me royally to think that we once had Donnie Jones and let him go.

More thoughts tomorrow after I roll the tape again.

Tonight

I hate the Steelers, I really do. Which is a change for me, from 1994-January of 2005, I liked the Steelers. Everybody has teams that they casually like, and can quasi pull for when their team is out of it, and the Steelers were just that team. Throughout the 90's I watched Cowher, Neil O Donnel, Kordell, Greg LLoyd, Carnell Lake, Yancy Thigpen and the gang get close, but never quite win it all. Maybe I was drawn to them because they always took on teams I hated, the Chargers in 94, the Cowboys in 95, the Broncos in 97, the Patriots in 2001 and 2004. Its amazing how one game changes everything. Somehow, in two weeks, I went from being happy for Cowher and the gang for making the Super Bowl, to A) Wishing it was the Broncos so the Seahawks could win by 50, B) Fostering an unbelievable amount of hate for Joey Porter C) Fostering an equal amount of hate for Jerome Bettis and D) Allowing the media's complete and utter disrespect for the best team in the NFL get to me.

By the time the game rolled around, I was eager to stick it to those bastards, then the travesty that I will not speak of happened. And I have rooted against those bastards(exception: the last Super Bowl) for every single game.

Naturally, tonight, I hoped the Titans, a team I like and respect, would piss all over Heinz Field and disintegrate Big Ben the Guard Dog. I watched the first half and the ending. Pittsburgh won, which I expected. It was a good battle, and I get the feeling that Tennesse rolls over them if they meet again in the playoffs. Despite everyone disregarding the Titans for losing Haynesworth, that front four is unbelievable, that defense is very well coached, and I truly believe they would've hoisted the trophy last year if it weren't for all that fluky shit that happened in the game against the Ravens.

Chris Johnson is unbelievably fast.

Reports of the demise of Kerry Collins are exaggerated.

The Steelers defense, I hate to say, is still very good. However, a team with a quality tight end and a playmaking slot receiver(God, that sounds like the Seahawks) can still pick their coverages apart.

Go Hawks.