Perception

[Bill Swerski]

The slant route has more to do with technique than anything else. The first part is that you have to turn the corner before you make your break. Deion Branch does not do this. In this aspect, it is his personal techique and failure to slip a jam that is causing the problem, and there isn't a darn thing Hasselbeck can do, no matter how comfortable they get together. I have not ripped him to shreds or called him a worthless POS, rather simply stated that he is not a #1 WR and does not fit into this team....

 

Well, yes, you can have all of the technique in the world but if you're a 5'9" midget, you're going to get jammed from time to time. Jesus, I've dated girls taller than Deion. Size definitely does play a role when you're running short routes where the DBs are allowed up bump you. And as Pat pointed out, the WCO is about timing. You need reps with your offense to establish that timing. IIRC, Branch didn't even put on a SEA uniform until October... and then Hasselbeck was injured shortly after and Branch had to adjust to Wallace and then back to Hasselbeck.

 

Unless Holmgren plans on having five active receivers, I don't see how Deion stays active. With the exception of Engram, all figure to be making pretty good money, so I am not sure that would be a factor in determining importance.

 

And then all hell will break loose after Branch throws a temper tantrum. Sorry, but it's not going to happen. I know that you're upset about D-Jax clearly being the odd man out here, but suggesting that Branch will be deactivated this season because Engram and Hackett are supposedly better options is just ridiculous. They've invested a ton of guaranteed money in Branch and Burleson over the past year and aren't going to let either of those guys sit on the bench. If Branch is THAT bad of a fit for SEA's offense, we won't know until November or December. And in that case, he'd be traded next off-season... and I don't think that it'll come to that anyway, as Branch didn't exactly suck this past season. Either way, Holmgren isn't going to embarrass him by not allowing him to dress.

 

I watched every game he ever played in a Patriots uniform, close to half in person. He got open with the Pat's in ways most wr's don't.

 

This is true. Deion's torched many very good defenses in the past. If he's not working out in SEA's offense, they'll alter the playbook to accomodate his skill set. I'm sure that a borderline-HOF coach and master of the WCO like Mike Holmgren will be able to figure it out.

 

Branch inactive? Talk about laughable.

 

Certainly laughable for somebody who claims to cover the NFL for a living.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

Just watch. If Jackson remains on the team, Branch will play less snaps than Hackett & Engram. Remind me again how the clear #1 receiver is also clearly the odd man out?

[Bill Swerski]

Just watch. If Jackson remains on the team, Branch will play less snaps than Hackett & Engram.

 

I doubt that , although it's possible. But you're dead-wrong about Branch being deactivated because he supposedly doesn't fit the offense.

 

You're just throwing manure at the wall to see what sticks.

 

Remind me again how the clear #1 receiver is also clearly the odd man out?

 

Hmmm... maybe it has to do with the fact that, despite Jackson being vocally unhappy with his contract, the Seahawks went out and gave both Branch and Burleson the money that he wanted?

Edited March 9, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Seahawks21]

 

You're just throwing manure at the wall to see what sticks.

Hmmm... maybe it has to do with the fact that, despite Jackson being vocally unhappy with his contract, the Seahawks went out and gave both Branch and Burleson the money that he wanted?

 

Yeah, that pretty much sounds like a clear odd man out to me!! Money issues happen every day in the NFL, and very rarely does the player get dealt because of them. Burleson and Branch may be rich, but neither have anywhere close to the chemistry that Jackson has with Hasselbeck, Holmgren, or the offense. Money isn't always the determining factor, as hard as it may be to fathom, production is kind of important.

 

All I said was that it wouldn't surprise me if Branch was deactivated a few times. I will make you a 1-1 wager of any value you wish that he is deactivated at least once if Jackson remains. I know you don't like to actually put anything on the line to back your ridiculous claims, but I am very willing to back what I say. I, unlike you, am not willing to put my name on stupid statements without backing them up.

[Bill Swerski]

Yeah, that pretty much sounds like a clear odd man out to me!! Money issues happen every day in the NFL, and very rarely does the player get dealt because of them. Burleson and Branch may be rich, but neither have anywhere close to the chemistry that Jackson has with Hasselbeck, Holmgren, or the offense. Money isn't always the determining factor, as hard as it may be to fathom, production is kind of important.

 

Branch received $13 million in guaranteed money last September. Burleson received a similar contract. The cap hit for trading or cutting either of these two would be massive. Or have you forgotten about that salary cap thing?

 

No doubt that D-Jax is SEA's best WR and that he also has the best chemistry with Hasselbeck. But SEA has already committed over well $20 million in guaranteed money and about $10-$12 million/year in cap space (assuming that their deals are back-loaded) to Branch and Burleson. Instead of paying D-Jax his market value, they decided to go with these two instead. It doesn't sound like D-Jax is in their long-term plans, especially when they're already shelling out top-dollar to SA and Walter Jones and a ton of money to Hasselbeck, Peterson, Kearney, and now Grant. Given all of that and the fact that their defense still needs a lot of work, I don't see the Seahawks paying $15-$16 million/year in cap space to three WRs for an extended period of time. One of those three are going to have to go at some point. And, as I said before, the cap hits would preclude Branch or Burleson from leaving anytime soon.

 

All I said was that it wouldn't surprise me if Branch was deactivated a few times.

 

And you would probably be the only one on this board who wouldn't be surprised. That would piss off Branch to no end, destroy morale, and create an epic media-driven controversey.

 

I know you don't like to actually put anything on the line to back your ridiculous claims, but I am very willing to back what I say. I, unlike you, am not willing to put my name on stupid statements without backing them up.

 

I don't need to bet money to prove that you're an obnoxious blow-hard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. What does it tell you when NOBODY on this board agrees with your statements? You should stick to making Starbucks runs for John Clayton.

[piratesownninjas]

I don't need to bet money to prove that you're an obnoxious blow-hard who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. What does it tell you when NOBODY on this board agrees with your statements? You should stick to making Starbucks runs for John Clayton.

 

This is the second time i've posted this, but, Arguing with Swerski is like setting the deck chairs on the Titanic. He'll only drag you down to his level.

[bushwacked]

This is the second time i've posted this, but, Arguing with Swerski is like setting the deck chairs on the Titanic. He'll only drag you down to his level.

 

 

 

That may be true, but that Sehawk21 guy is just as bent on arguing and Swerski hasnt' been spouting blatant nonsense throughout this thread.

[ebartender]

That may be true, but that Sehawk21 guy is just as bent on arguing and Swerski hasnt' been spouting blatant nonsense throughout this thread.

 

 

+1

[Bill Swerski]

This is the second time i've posted this, but, Arguing with Swerski is like setting the deck chairs on the Titanic. He'll only drag you down to his level.

 

 

And apparently arguing with piratesowndildos will result in unsolicited, caustic PMs. Thankfully, those can be blocked and nobody has to read them.

[Seahawks21]

Dude, Swerski, you are blatantly wrong again. D-Jax got a deal a few years ago and has several years left. Just because you paid people doesn't mean that they are going to work out. I'm not going to say anything more about it, other than to tell you to just watch. That's all I can say at this point. Watch and learn brother. Nice name callin' again though!! b If I am so wrong, then it should be free money to you. Why won't you take it??

Edited March 10, 2007 by Seahawks21

[Bill Swerski]

Dude, Swerski, you are blatantly wrong again. D-Jax got a deal a few years ago and has several years left. Just because you paid people doesn't mean that they are going to work out.

 

I'm aware that Jackson got a deal back in '04 or something. I'm also aware that he's underpaid for a person of his talent level and that he's unhappy with his deal. But if you want to believe that the Seahawks will allocate $16+ million/year in cap room for 3 WRs for the long term and that Deion Branch will be wearing street clothing on the sideline a year removed from receiving $13 million in guaranteed money, go right ahead.

 

b If I am so wrong, then it should be free money to you. Why won't you take it??

 

Given that everybody here disagrees with your "predictions" and thinks that you're a clueless blowhard, I'm sure that your time here will be limited and that I won't see a dime from you. And even if you didn't welch, I don't really want your money anyway.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[bushwacked]

Dude, Swerski, you are blatantly wrong again. D-Jax got a deal a few years ago and has several years left. Just because you paid people doesn't mean that they are going to work out. I'm not going to say anything more about it, other than to tell you to just watch. That's all I can say at this point. Watch and learn brother. Nice name callin' again though!! b If I am so wrong, then it should be free money to you. Why won't you take it??

 

 

 

Dude, is this you?

[Seahawks21]

Hahahahah!!! If only the rest of these people knew how funny that was!!! With all respect to Chad Eaton and Dan Davone, that has got to be the worst football show on tv!!

Edited March 10, 2007 by Seahawks21

[Seahawks21]

I'm aware that Jackson got a deal back in '04 or something. I'm also aware that he's underpaid for a person of his talent level and that he's unhappy with his deal. But if you want to believe that the Seahawks will allocate $16+ million/year in cap room for 3 WRs for the long term and that Deion Branch will be wearing street clothing on the sideline a year removed from receiving $13 million in guaranteed money, go right ahead.

Given that everybody here disagrees with your "predictions" and thinks that you're a clueless blowhard, I'm sure that your time here will be limited and that I won't see a dime from you. And even if you didn't welch, I don't really want your money anyway.

 

I've been here five years plus bro. I've been pissing people off by being right for years. I don't really care who agrees with me. Most people don't. Those people aren't right nearly as often as I am. I will gladly give someone you trust on this site a paypal transaction for any wager you come up with. Furthermore, I guarantee that there are other Hawk fans on this site that don't think it is out of the question to see Deion Branch deactivated. Holmgren deactivates WR's. He did it to Koren, Peter Warrick, and DJ Hackett. If he can get by without one of them, he won't hesitate to bench one, and I'm tellin' ya, it ain't gonna be one of the other four.

[bushwacked]

Furthermore, I guarantee that there are other Hawk fans on this site that don't think it is out of the question to see Deion Branch deactivated.

 

 

 

You aren't gonna get support from me on that. Branch might be deactivated due to injury or some unforseen circumstances, but not level of play. Branch will probably be no worse than an every down #2 WR next year and probably our #1a,1b. For some reason you can't wrap your head around the Djax situation. I hope Djax is around next year; but I'm thinking he isn't. I'll try telling the story in my way:

 

The Hawks have approximately 15 million counting against the cap this season alone for Djax, Branch, and, Burleson. The only guy we can realistically dump or trade is an unhappy Djax who is not getting paid fair market value. Djax happens the most productive, yet injury prone receiver on the team, but the circumstances permit that he will likely get traded. There has even been murmurs of him getting outright cut to dump the cap space.

 

Djax already sat out training camp when Burleson got the cash (I think the injury was a ruse). Then the Hawks gave Branch the cash. Now we are splurging big money all over the place on people who won't take it and others that will.

 

Blame circumstances/miscalculations or whatever, management has sent a clear sign to Djax, and why would he want to stay? I think he is as good as gone and hope we get a 2nd round pick for him. I don't really know, but I would bet the buzz around the NFL is he ain't coming back to the Hawks and you can hold tight if you want him.

 

I was firmly clamped to Ruskell's nutsack after his first draft/superbowl year. The fact is that he had a team that should have dominated the NFC for 3-4 years. After letting Hutch slip away and watching the Burleson/Branch/Djax Circus.....its apparent he dropped the ball and now we are just another good team in the NFC fighting for our 1-2 year window.

 

I have been a Hawk fan since Zorn/Largent and will cheer with them through thick and thin. These are the good years and they still have a 1-2 good seasons left. Hopefully they go out and win it. But in the back of my mind the biggest dropped ball in Hawk history won't be form Djax, Stevens, or even Krob....but the GM who did everything right in his first year, and then screwed the pooch.

[Bill Swerski]

I will gladly give someone you trust on this site a paypal transaction for any wager you come up with.

 

I don't really want your money, nor do I feel the need to make a bet with some loudmouth on a message board to prove a point. But I'm sure that you can find plenty of insecure losers on the web who would be willing to do so. Good luck with that.

 

Holmgren deactivates WR's. He did it to Koren, Peter Warrick, and DJ Hackett.

 

So, I suppose that because Tony Dungy deactivates Aaron Moorehead from time to time, he'll deactivate Reggie Wayne as well.

 

You aren't gonna get support from me on that. Branch might be deactivated due to injury or some unforseen circumstances, but not level of play. Branch will probably be no worse than an every down #2 WR next year and probably our #1a,1b. For some reason you can't wrap your head around the Djax situation. I hope Djax is around next year; but I'm thinking he isn't. I'll try telling the story in my way:

 

The Hawks have approximately 15 million counting against the cap this season alone for Djax, Branch, and, Burleson. The only guy we can realistically dump or trade is an unhappy Djax who is not getting paid fair market value. Djax happens the most productive, yet injury prone receiver on the team, but the circumstances permit that he will likely get traded. There has even been murmurs of him getting outright cut to dump the cap space.

 

Djax already sat out training camp when Burleson got the cash (I think the injury was a ruse). Then the Hawks gave Branch the cash. Now we are splurging big money all over the place on people who won't take it and others that will.

 

Blame circumstances/miscalculations or whatever, management has sent a clear sign to Djax, and why would he want to stay? I think he is as good as gone and hope we get a 2nd round pick for him. I don't really know, but I would bet the buzz around the NFL is he ain't coming back to the Hawks and you can hold tight if you want him.

 

That's pretty much the way I see it. I know much less about the Seahawks than most of the homers here, but it takes little more than common sense to realize the above.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Big John]

Dude, is this you?

 

He shaves his head.

[Seahawks21]

I don't really want your money, nor do I feel the need to make a bet with some loudmouth on a message board to prove a point. But I'm sure that you can find plenty of insecure losers on the web who would be willing to do so. Good luck with that.

So, I suppose that because Tony Dungy deactivates Aaron Moorehead from time to time, he'll deactivate Reggie Wayne as well.

That's pretty much the way I see it. I know much less about the Seahawks than most of the homers here, but it takes little more than common sense to realize the above.

 

Love the name callin'!! keep thie zingers comin' buddy!! So, I am to believe that Deion Branch is going to be our #2 WR over Hackett?? What a joke. As I have said about everything we have argued about, all of which I have been proven to be correct....watch, watch and learn. They know that if they trade Darrell Jackson, we are a significantly worse football team. Ain't gonna happen. They don't even care about his attitude or whether he holds out. They know he's gonna be big on sundays, and they need it, especially if they are in a 1-2 year window. Look, they aren't hurting for cap space, why in the heck would they want to clear some?? If anything, they will cut Branch after the season. Don't believe me? Watch. Swerski, it's alright, I'd be afraid to bet against me too.