Player Spotlight: D.J. Hackett (2 Viewers)

[Jason Wood]

2007 Player Spotlight Series

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

Thread Topic: D.J. Hackett, WR, Seattle Seahawks

Player Page Link: D.J. Hackett Player Page

Each article will include:

Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member

Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads
FBG Projections
Consensus Member ProjectionsThe Rules

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player
Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"
To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the playerProjections should include (at a minimum):

For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs
For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs
For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDsBest of Luck and ENJOY!

 

[LBH]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play

80 1100 8

 

[shadyridr]

I think this guy is a stud but Seattle has a ton of WRs to throw the ball to. Plus they have a guy named Alexander that gets most of the goalline touches. That being said I like Hackett to be 1B to Branchs 1A but put up better TD #s

65 rec, 1000 yds, 7 tds

 

[mad sweeney]

Hackett has hands, heart and size. Hass locked onto him last season when it seemed like no other WR was trying. If he missed a big pass hass came right back to him. I think Branch is a better route runner and will get more receptions and yards but Hackett will get the big play TDs.

65-70 receptions 900 yds 11 TDs

The last 2 seasons Holmgren has venture tentatively into "trick" plays with Branch doing end arounds and Seneca Wallace playing a slash type role. Wallace and Hackett have a lot of chemistry from running 2nd team together for years. I would not be surprised to see them hook up on a few oddball plays so tack on another 50-100 yards (either rushing or receiveing) and another TD or 2 (maybe even passing?! to Wallace). Mike's adventures into trick play land are few and far between so it's hard to know what to expect but he's been getting creative and seems to want to use his weapons so look fo rit to open up a bit.

 

[Blackjacks]

Hackett has hands, heart and size. Hass locked onto him last season when it seemed like no other WR was trying. If he missed a big pass hass came right back to him. I think Branch is a better route runner and will get more receptions and yards but Hackett will get the big play TDs.65-70 receptions 900 yds 11 TDsThe last 2 seasons Holmgren has venture tentatively into "trick" plays with Branch doing end arounds and Seneca Wallace playing a slash type role. Wallace and Hackett have a lot of chemistry from running 2nd team together for years. I would not be surprised to see them hook up on a few oddball plays so tack on another 50-100 yards (either rushing or receiveing) and another TD or 2 (maybe even passing?! to Wallace). Mike's adventures into trick play land are few and far between so it's hard to know what to expect but he's been getting creative and seems to want to use his weapons so look fo rit to open up a bit.

I like Hackett but those #'s are pretty highI'd put him around 800 yards and 6 td's

 

[mad sweeney]

Hackett has hands, heart and size. Hass locked onto him last season when it seemed like no other WR was trying. If he missed a big pass hass came right back to him. I think Branch is a better route runner and will get more receptions and yards but Hackett will get the big play TDs.65-70 receptions 900 yds 11 TDsThe last 2 seasons Holmgren has venture tentatively into "trick" plays with Branch doing end arounds and Seneca Wallace playing a slash type role. Wallace and Hackett have a lot of chemistry from running 2nd team together for years. I would not be surprised to see them hook up on a few oddball plays so tack on another 50-100 yards (either rushing or receiveing) and another TD or 2 (maybe even passing?! to Wallace). Mike's adventures into trick play land are few and far between so it's hard to know what to expect but he's been getting creative and seems to want to use his weapons so look fo rit to open up a bit.

I like Hackett but those #'s are pretty highI'd put him around 800 yards and 6 td's

Jurevicus had 10 Tds 2 seasons ago, I think Hackett has an excellent chance to match those numbers, especially with Jackson and Stevens gone.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play 80 1100 8

I highly doubt Hackett catches 80 balls this season.Seattle spreads the ball around and the last time they had someone catch 80 plus balls was D. Jackson 87 his one and only time in 2003.So Hasselback in his career at Seattle of 6 years has had one player ever catch 80 balls and you are predicting Hackett to catch 80 balls in his first year as a starter with a QB who has only had 1 WR in his lifetime catch 80 balls from him. That appears to be lofty expectations for a guy entering his first full year as a starter.65 catches830 yards6 TD's

 

[Kleck]

I'm biased. I've been promoting Hackett for a long time now. Here are a couple of posts I made in other threads. Seems like it would be worth while to paste them here.

I've been watching the Seattle receivers closely for a long time. I've watched every play of every game since the early 80s' date=' and while working for footballguys.com as a game recapper I've probably written about 50 recaps of Seahawk games. Why am I giving you my resume? Because I feel like I know this team better than pretty much everyone with the exception of a few beat writers.So we can get it out of the way, I've been leading the Hackett bandwagon for a long time now. I'm biased. I really want him to shine so I can feel justified in my consistent backing of the kid.

What is it I like about him so much?

Hands. He catches the ball with his hands and has the ability to "snatch" the ball. The first thing I evaluate with any receiver is how often they catch the ball against their body instead of using their hands. See Koren Robinson if you want the definition of "body catcher".

Play Maker. Hackett has the ability to go up and grab the ball in traffic. He makes a play on the ball at its highest point. A guy like Jackson or Engram has to let the ball come down to them so they can hopefully catch it. Hackett will go get it, and he'll fight for it.

Can take a pop and hang on. Four times last year Seattle had to make fourth quarter drives allowing PK Josh Brown to make a game winning kick. On two of those drives Hackett made tough catches to keep drives alive. Both times he took big hits across the middle and held on.

From week 1 in Detroit:

Seattle Seahawks at 03:131-10-SEA20 (3:13) S.Alexander left tackle to SEA 34 for 14 yards (T.Holt).

1-10-SEA34 (2:43) S.Alexander right tackle to SEA 36 for 2 yards (E.Sims; B.Bailey).

2-8-SEA36 (1:59) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to D.Jackson ran ob at SEA 49 for 13 yards (E.Sims).

1-10-SEA49 (1:46) S.Alexander right end to SEA 45 for -4 yards (E.Sims; P.Lenon).

2-14-SEA45 (1:06) M.Hasselbeck pass short left to D.Hackett to DET 41 for 14 yards (D.Bly).

1-10-DET41 23) M.Morris right end pushed ob at DET 24 for 17 yards (T.Holt).

1-10-DET24 16) S.Alexander left end to DET 24 for no gain (A.Lewis).

2-10-DET24 03) J.Brown 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Darche, Holder-R.Plackemeier.

SEA 9 DET 6, Plays: 8 Yards: 56 Possession: 3:13.

From week 13 in Denver:

Seattle Seahawks at 02:311-10-SEA14 (2:31) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to J.Stevens to SEA 20 for 6 yards (C.Bailey, DJ.Williams).

2-4-SEA20 (2:00) M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete short right to J.Stevens (G.Warren).

3-4-SEA20 (1:56) M.Hasselbeck pass deep right to N.Burleson to SEA 36 for 16 yards (C.Bailey).

1-10-SEA36 (1:23) S.Alexander up the middle to SEA 41 for 5 yards (K.Burns).

2-5-SEA41 (1:17) M.Hasselbeck pass short left to D.Branch to SEA 49 for 8 yards (D.Foxworth).

1-10-SEA49 56) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to D.Hackett to DEN 38 for 13 yards (DJ.Williams).

1-10-DEN38 46) S.Alexander up the middle to DEN 35 for 3 yards (M.Myers; P.Chukwurah).

2-7-DEN35 24) PENALTY on SEA-C.Spencer, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at DEN 35 - No Play.

2-12-DEN40 22) S.Alexander left tackle to DEN 32 for 8 yards (E.Dumervil).

3-4-DEN32 10) M.Hasselbeck spiked the ball to stop the clock.

4-4-DEN32 10) J.Brown 50 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-D.Rackley, Holder-R.Plackemeier.

SEA 23 DEN 20, Plays: 10 Yards: 54 Possession: 2:32.

These two plays really stuck in my mind. I assume because I'm a fan and I want the guy to do well, but mostly because each was a clutch catch where he took a big hit.

He's plenty fast enough. He's plenty tall enough. The bottom line is he makes plays and catches the ball. I've been scratching my head for the past two years wondering why he wasn't on the field more. To me he's been the hands-down best receiver in Seattle for a while now, but he just hasn't had the opportunities. Well, now he'll get his chance. Is he a lock for success? No one is, but in my opinion I think he has a great opportunity now and a solid skill set.

Last thought. Last year Hackett had an amazing catch percentage. I'll try to look it up and get you the data. I think Sando posted it as the Tacoma News Tribune in his blog.

do you think his production last year was the biggest reason that Seattle felt they could deal DJax to SF?

Biggest reason? No. The team would have kept Jackson if they felt they could. His getting shipped out of town was all about hurt feelings and money. Holmgren wanted to keep Jackson. This was all about Jackson and the new GM (Ruskell) not getting along.

Jackson had agreements with the previous GM that the new GM wouldn't honor. Jackson wasn't willing to be a team player when it came to voluntary workouts and camps. Neither side would budge so it became an untenable relationship.

All this said, the emergence of Hackett was certainly a factor that allowed the team to move Jackson and still feel confident in their WR corps. Are they thrilled? Certainly not, but I am. I understand I'm lonely on this island, but I think the starting WRs in Seattle will be better this season than last (I include Engram in that bunch as he's on the field for at least 70% of the snaps). Look back at Hasselbeck's production when Jackson was out in 2005. Seattle went 9-0 during this stretch.

| 5 stl | 27 38 316 2 0 | 4 4 0 || 6 hou | 14 20 168 1 1 | 4 40 0 || 7 dal | 23 42 224 1 2 | 1 11 0 || 9 ari | 13 20 158 1 0 | 4 2 1 || 10 stl | 17 29 243 1 2 | 1 2 0 || 11 sfo | 19 31 233 1 0 | 6 7 0 || 12 nyg | 21 37 249 2 1 | 2 7 0 || 13 phi | 8 15 98 1 0 | 0 0 0 || 14 sfo | 21 25 226 4 1 | 1 9 0 |I'm more enthused to see Hackett get his shot than I am to see Jackson go, but...Ask yourself this. Have you ever seen Darrell Jackson make a spectacular catch? Even one? Just one play that made your jaw drop? My contention is that anyone spouting the greatness of Darrell Jackson hasn't seen anything more than stat lines. Yes, he's posted great numbers, but lots of mediocre talents have posted great numbers because they were in the right situation.

The "special" talent in Seattle is LT Walter Jones and head coach Mike Holmgren. Hasselbeck is solid. Alexander is above average, but the rest are just role players in a great system.

From Clare Farnesworth at the PI.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/314534_hawk05.html

IN NEW HANDS: The morning practice offered the first glimpse of Deion Branch at the flanker spot that was filled by Darrell Jackson before his draft day trade to the San Francisco 49ers.D.J. Hackett worked at split end, where Branch played last season after being acquired in a trade with the New England Patriots.

The double switch seems to play to the players' strengths. Branch moves into the featured spot in the passing game and will be able to go in motion more often. Hackett brings size to the split end position, which has been lacking since Koren Robinson was released in 2005.

"I think it's probably more natural positions (for them)," quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said of Branch and Hackett.

Hasselbeck, who is recovering from surgery on his left shoulder, did some throwing in individual drills. Backup quarterbacks Seneca Wallace and David Greene took all the snaps in team drills.

For those trying to nail down their projections, this solidifies the idea that Branch should lead the team in catches while Hackett will be the more "downfield" guy. I'll being paying particular attention to Hackett on the line of scrimmage this coming preseason to see how he deals with the jam at the line of scrimmage. Branch shouldn't have to deal with it at the flanker position.

My projections:

DJ Hackett

70 receptions

950 yards

9 touchdowns

Just for reference sake here are my other significant Seattle receiver projections:

Deion Branch

80 receptions

1000 yards

6 touchdowns

Bobby Engram

45 receptions

540 yards

4 touchdowns

Marcus Pollard

40 receptions

480 yards

5 touchdowns

Nate Burleson

10 receptions

120 yards

1 touchdown

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I'm biased. I've been promoting Hackett for a long time now. Here are a couple of posts I made in other threads. Seems like it would be worth while to paste them here.

I've been watching the Seattle receivers closely for a long time. I've watched every play of every game since the early 80s' date=' and while working for footballguys.com as a game recapper I've probably written about 50 recaps of Seahawk games. Why am I giving you my resume? Because I feel like I know this team better than pretty much everyone with the exception of a few beat writers.So we can get it out of the way, I've been leading the Hackett bandwagon for a long time now. I'm biased. I really want him to shine so I can feel justified in my consistent backing of the kid.

What is it I like about him so much?

Hands. He catches the ball with his hands and has the ability to "snatch" the ball. The first thing I evaluate with any receiver is how often they catch the ball against their body instead of using their hands. See Koren Robinson if you want the definition of "body catcher".

Play Maker. Hackett has the ability to go up and grab the ball in traffic. He makes a play on the ball at its highest point. A guy like Jackson or Engram has to let the ball come down to them so they can hopefully catch it. Hackett will go get it, and he'll fight for it.

Can take a pop and hang on. Four times last year Seattle had to make fourth quarter drives allowing PK Josh Brown to make a game winning kick. On two of those drives Hackett made tough catches to keep drives alive. Both times he took big hits across the middle and held on.

From week 1 in Detroit:

Seattle Seahawks at 03:131-10-SEA20 (3:13) S.Alexander left tackle to SEA 34 for 14 yards (T.Holt).

1-10-SEA34 (2:43) S.Alexander right tackle to SEA 36 for 2 yards (E.Sims; B.Bailey).

2-8-SEA36 (1:59) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to D.Jackson ran ob at SEA 49 for 13 yards (E.Sims).

1-10-SEA49 (1:46) S.Alexander right end to SEA 45 for -4 yards (E.Sims; P.Lenon).

2-14-SEA45 (1:06) M.Hasselbeck pass short left to D.Hackett to DET 41 for 14 yards (D.Bly).

1-10-DET41 23) M.Morris right end pushed ob at DET 24 for 17 yards (T.Holt).

1-10-DET24 16) S.Alexander left end to DET 24 for no gain (A.Lewis).

2-10-DET24 03) J.Brown 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-J.Darche, Holder-R.Plackemeier.

SEA 9 DET 6, Plays: 8 Yards: 56 Possession: 3:13.

From week 13 in Denver:

Seattle Seahawks at 02:311-10-SEA14 (2:31) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to J.Stevens to SEA 20 for 6 yards (C.Bailey, DJ.Williams).

2-4-SEA20 (2:00) M.Hasselbeck pass incomplete short right to J.Stevens (G.Warren).

3-4-SEA20 (1:56) M.Hasselbeck pass deep right to N.Burleson to SEA 36 for 16 yards (C.Bailey).

1-10-SEA36 (1:23) S.Alexander up the middle to SEA 41 for 5 yards (K.Burns).

2-5-SEA41 (1:17) M.Hasselbeck pass short left to D.Branch to SEA 49 for 8 yards (D.Foxworth).

1-10-SEA49 56) M.Hasselbeck pass short right to D.Hackett to DEN 38 for 13 yards (DJ.Williams).

1-10-DEN38 46) S.Alexander up the middle to DEN 35 for 3 yards (M.Myers; P.Chukwurah).

2-7-DEN35 24) PENALTY on SEA-C.Spencer, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at DEN 35 - No Play.

2-12-DEN40 22) S.Alexander left tackle to DEN 32 for 8 yards (E.Dumervil).

3-4-DEN32 10) M.Hasselbeck spiked the ball to stop the clock.

4-4-DEN32 10) J.Brown 50 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-D.Rackley, Holder-R.Plackemeier.

SEA 23 DEN 20, Plays: 10 Yards: 54 Possession: 2:32.

These two plays really stuck in my mind. I assume because I'm a fan and I want the guy to do well, but mostly because each was a clutch catch where he took a big hit.

He's plenty fast enough. He's plenty tall enough. The bottom line is he makes plays and catches the ball. I've been scratching my head for the past two years wondering why he wasn't on the field more. To me he's been the hands-down best receiver in Seattle for a while now, but he just hasn't had the opportunities. Well, now he'll get his chance. Is he a lock for success? No one is, but in my opinion I think he has a great opportunity now and a solid skill set.

Last thought. Last year Hackett had an amazing catch percentage. I'll try to look it up and get you the data. I think Sando posted it as the Tacoma News Tribune in his blog.

do you think his production last year was the biggest reason that Seattle felt they could deal DJax to SF?

Biggest reason? No. The team would have kept Jackson if they felt they could. His getting shipped out of town was all about hurt feelings and money. Holmgren wanted to keep Jackson. This was all about Jackson and the new GM (Ruskell) not getting along.

Jackson had agreements with the previous GM that the new GM wouldn't honor. Jackson wasn't willing to be a team player when it came to voluntary workouts and camps. Neither side would budge so it became an untenable relationship.

All this said, the emergence of Hackett was certainly a factor that allowed the team to move Jackson and still feel confident in their WR corps. Are they thrilled? Certainly not, but I am. I understand I'm lonely on this island, but I think the starting WRs in Seattle will be better this season than last (I include Engram in that bunch as he's on the field for at least 70% of the snaps). Look back at Hasselbeck's production when Jackson was out in 2005. Seattle went 9-0 during this stretch.

| 5 stl | 27 38 316 2 0 | 4 4 0 || 6 hou | 14 20 168 1 1 | 4 40 0 || 7 dal | 23 42 224 1 2 | 1 11 0 || 9 ari | 13 20 158 1 0 | 4 2 1 || 10 stl | 17 29 243 1 2 | 1 2 0 || 11 sfo | 19 31 233 1 0 | 6 7 0 || 12 nyg | 21 37 249 2 1 | 2 7 0 || 13 phi | 8 15 98 1 0 | 0 0 0 || 14 sfo | 21 25 226 4 1 | 1 9 0 |I'm more enthused to see Hackett get his shot than I am to see Jackson go, but...Ask yourself this. Have you ever seen Darrell Jackson make a spectacular catch? Even one? Just one play that made your jaw drop? My contention is that anyone spouting the greatness of Darrell Jackson hasn't seen anything more than stat lines. Yes, he's posted great numbers, but lots of mediocre talents have posted great numbers because they were in the right situation.

The "special" talent in Seattle is LT Walter Jones and head coach Mike Holmgren. Hasselbeck is solid. Alexander is above average, but the rest are just role players in a great system.

From Clare Farnesworth at the PI.http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/314534_hawk05.html

IN NEW HANDS: The morning practice offered the first glimpse of Deion Branch at the flanker spot that was filled by Darrell Jackson before his draft day trade to the San Francisco 49ers.D.J. Hackett worked at split end, where Branch played last season after being acquired in a trade with the New England Patriots.

The double switch seems to play to the players' strengths. Branch moves into the featured spot in the passing game and will be able to go in motion more often. Hackett brings size to the split end position, which has been lacking since Koren Robinson was released in 2005.

"I think it's probably more natural positions (for them)," quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said of Branch and Hackett.

Hasselbeck, who is recovering from surgery on his left shoulder, did some throwing in individual drills. Backup quarterbacks Seneca Wallace and David Greene took all the snaps in team drills.

For those trying to nail down their projections, this solidifies the idea that Branch should lead the team in catches while Hackett will be the more "downfield" guy. I'll being paying particular attention to Hackett on the line of scrimmage this coming preseason to see how he deals with the jam at the line of scrimmage. Branch shouldn't have to deal with it at the flanker position.

My projections:

DJ Hackett

70 receptions

950 yards

9 touchdowns

Just for reference sake here are my other significant Seattle receiver projections:

Deion Branch

80 receptions

1000 yards

6 touchdowns

Bobby Engram

45 receptions

540 yards

4 touchdowns

Marcus Pollard

40 receptions

480 yards

5 touchdowns

Nate Burleson

10 receptions

120 yards

1 touchdown

Has Seattle lost all faith in Burleson? Does he still have a chance to start instead of Hackett?

 

[footballfreek]

My projections for Hackett.

73 / 1050 / 7 TD

 

[Sweet Love]

Is Nate Burleson really that far out of the picture. I know he played well under expectations last year, but couldn't, nay, isn't he expected to cut into the number of receptions of Branch, Engram and Hackett.

I expect Patriots WR2 numbers out of Hackett at best (since there is competition and Seattle spreads the ball) which would maybe put him around:

58 receptions

757 yards

5 TDs

 

[duaneok66]

Is Nate Burleson really that far out of the picture. I know he played well under expectations last year, but couldn't, nay, isn't he expected to cut into the number of receptions of Branch, Engram and Hackett.I expect Patriots WR2 numbers out of Hackett at best (since there is competition and Seattle spreads the ball) which would maybe put him around:58 receptions757 yards5 TDs

per footballoutsiders.com, his catch% is 67 percent, which is outstanding . . .

 

[LBH]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play80 1100 8

I highly doubt Hackett catches 80 balls this season.Seattle spreads the ball around and the last time they had someone catch 80 plus balls was D. Jackson 87 his one and only time in 2003.So Hasselback in his career at Seattle of 6 years has had one player ever catch 80 balls and you are predicting Hackett to catch 80 balls in his first year as a starter with a QB who has only had 1 WR in his lifetime catch 80 balls from him. That appears to be lofty expectations for a guy entering his first full year as a starter.65 catches830 yards6 TD's

Thats true, although had Djax stayed healthy he may have had a decent chance to just get there. Maybe 70rec 1050 and 8 is a better projection

 

[Sweet Love]

Is Nate Burleson really that far out of the picture. I know he played well under expectations last year, but couldn't, nay, isn't he expected to cut into the number of receptions of Branch, Engram and Hackett.I expect Patriots WR2 numbers out of Hackett at best (since there is competition and Seattle spreads the ball) which would maybe put him around:58 receptions757 yards5 TDs

per footballoutsiders.com, his catch% is 67 percent, which is outstanding . . .

I am not really knocking his catching ability, I just wonder if Alexander is healthy and the way they spread the ball if he is going to have a lot of targets. At that percentage (67), he would need 85-90 balls thrown his way.

 

[kevinallen]

There's no reason that Hackett cant match what an unhealthy DJax did last year in 13 games. Spreading the ball around or not...

65 rec 950 yards 10 TD's.

 

[mad sweeney]

Is Nate Burleson really that far out of the picture. I know he played well under expectations last year, but couldn't, nay, isn't he expected to cut into the number of receptions of Branch, Engram and Hackett.I expect Patriots WR2 numbers out of Hackett at best (since there is competition and Seattle spreads the ball) which would maybe put him around:58 receptions757 yards5 TDs

Burleson was completely unimpressive as a WR last year. Hackett beat him out then and I wouldn't think any different this year. The 4th WR sees a good chunk of action though so I'm sure we'll see if he's improved. Carved out a nice niche for himself as a punt returner although he doesn't like to fair caitch which will cause problems sooner or later. Mike Sando is on the audible today and I believe the Burleson/Hackett battle will be one of the topics covered. i am looking forward to that myself.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Mike Sando is on the audible today and I believe the Burleson/Hackett battle will be one of the topics covered. i am looking forward to that myself.

We just finished part I - we have a few more questions for him, but he needed to step out for a minute. We asked the Burleson/Hackett question - I don't want to give away the answer , we should have the interview up by mid-day tomorrow at the latest (hopefully tonight), but trust me, it will help your understanding of the situation. He also by implication gives a reason that Hackett hasn't played more.

 

[mad sweeney]

Mike Sando is on the audible today and I believe the Burleson/Hackett battle will be one of the topics covered. i am looking forward to that myself.

We just finished part I - we have a few more questions for him, but he needed to step out for a minute. We asked the Burleson/Hackett question - I don't want to give away the answer , we should have the interview up by mid-day tomorrow at the latest, but trust me, it will help your understanding of the situation. He also by implication gives a reason that Hackett hasn't played more.

Now that is just plain cold, teasing like that.

 

[Routilla]

I just got DJ in the 13th rd of a 15 rd draft(10 teams). Branch went in the 7th. That's value.

 

[Phurfur]

I just got DJ in the 13th rd of a 15 rd draft(10 teams). Branch went in the 7th. That's value.

That's a league with bad owners.

 

[Routilla]

I just got DJ in the 13th rd of a 15 rd draft(10 teams). Branch went in the 7th. That's value.

That's a league with bad owners.

For Branch or DJ? Branch was the #29 WR and DJ was the #49.

 

[Dhizz]

I just got DJ in the 13th rd of a 15 rd draft(10 teams). Branch went in the 7th. That's value.

That's a league with bad owners.

Because they aren't projecting a career year for Hackett, they're bad owners?I'm not big on projecting bust out players. Taking the ole "last 4 games" convert that to "entire season", holy crap this guy is a top 10 WR!In a redraft, it's one of the biggest mistakes. Getting that oft injured, underachiever, talented yet none productive, 3rd year magic RB/WR.Michael Clayton?Burleson? Barlow?How many people grabbed them in the 3rd/4th round after their big year? How many years did AJ suck before he actually put together a decent season? AJ was always a top 15 pick, yet he's finished 23, 22, 47, 18 in the last 4 years. People just love to project the next big thing. Most times the next big thing never comes.If you look at these spotlights, there's about 40 top 20 WRs. Everyone is getting 70-80 catches, 1000 yards, and 8+ tds. So either everyone is going to switch to the run and shoot, or lots of these WRs will disappoint. I'll wager on the latter.

 

[rzrback77]

Seattle's rushing game went way south last season. The passing game showed a slight improvement in yardage and TDs. They lose D Jackson, but keep a solid if unspectacular foursome at WR, led by Deion Branch and featuring DJ Hackett, Engram, and Burleson. All of them were there last year and Engram has been there a while, so they have some continuity.

06 WR Targets - Receptions - Yardage TDs

D Jackson 112 63 956 10

Branch 101 53 725 4

Hackett 67 45 610 4

Engram 36 24 290 1

Burleson 37 18 192 2

05 WR Targets - Receptions - Yardage TDs

Jurevicius 84 55 694 10

Engram 97 67 778 3

D Jackson 55 38 482 3

Hackett 43 28 400 2

Warrick 23 11 180 0

04 WR Targets - Receptions - Yardage TDs

D Jackson 148 87 1199 7

Engram 52 36 499 2

Robinson 65 31 495 2

Jerry Rice 56 25 362 3

Urban 8 6 117 1

The pattern here is that they spread the wealth around with the WRs. Hackett did improve from his first year stats to year two, but it was a modest gain. I think that he improves again, but not what is expected on this message board. The incessant threads and the outlandish projections will keep Hackett on everybody's draft list and someone will reach too high for him. The other factor is that S Alexander's TDs went from 28 in 2005 to 7 in 2006. I see some bounce back for Alexander and a susequent decrease for the WRs. Additionally, the Seahawks have a somewhat more reliable TE that may take away some targets as well.

DJ Hackett 100 targets 65 receptions 750 yards and 5 TDs.

 

[Sweet Love]

If you look at these spotlights, there's about 40 top 20 WRs. Everyone is getting 70-80 catches, 1000 yards, and 8+ tds. So either everyone is going to switch to the run and shoot, or lots of these WRs will disappoint. I'll wager on the latter.

This is one of the reasons why I am bearish on Hackett. As I mentioned earlier, Seattle spreads the ball and he is slated to be a WR2. Even if you bump him to a WR 1A, how many WRs can you expect to get 1000 yards and 7-8 TDs??

Secondary WRs (on their own team), need to be in special situations to get 1000 yards. Part of that is based on great talent (Holt in the early years, Wayne at the present) and another part of that is based on opportunity. I do not think that Seattle has that type of pass mentality to yield such great stats for their WR2 with the competition that is lurking in the WR3 & 4 spots (lack of opportunity) and honestly, I do not think Hackett is that good.

I will pose this question though, how many people think Hackett will outproduce Branch (barring an injury to Branch)?

 

[nygiants56]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play 80 1100 8

I highly doubt Hackett catches 80 balls this season.Seattle spreads the ball around and the last time they had someone catch 80 plus balls was D. Jackson 87 his one and only time in 2003.So Hasselback in his career at Seattle of 6 years has had one player ever catch 80 balls and you are predicting Hackett to catch 80 balls in his first year as a starter with a QB who has only had 1 WR in his lifetime catch 80 balls from him. That appears to be lofty expectations for a guy entering his first full year as a starter.65 catches830 yards6 TD's

and DJax would've caught 90+ balls every season,had he not dropped SO MANY PASSES! we need to get a stat on the number of targets,compared to the number of receptions for Djax, then factor in Hackett's catch % , and see what the projected stat totals would be..85/1250/10

 

[mad sweeney]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play 80 1100 8

I highly doubt Hackett catches 80 balls this season.Seattle spreads the ball around and the last time they had someone catch 80 plus balls was D. Jackson 87 his one and only time in 2003.So Hasselback in his career at Seattle of 6 years has had one player ever catch 80 balls and you are predicting Hackett to catch 80 balls in his first year as a starter with a QB who has only had 1 WR in his lifetime catch 80 balls from him. That appears to be lofty expectations for a guy entering his first full year as a starter.65 catches830 yards6 TD's

and DJax would've caught 90+ balls every season,had he not dropped SO MANY PASSES! we need to get a stat on the number of targets,compared to the number of receptions for Djax, then factor in Hackett's catch % , and see what the projected stat totals would be..85/1250/10

I reaqlly doubt Hackett gets over 70 catches, Branch will be the main yard/reception eater but I think the TD totals will be in the double digits.

 

[Sweet Love]

I love Hacketts prospects this year to be a startable fantasy wr. He outproduced Branch down the stretch, and it looks like Hasselbeck has no problem going to him when he needs a big play 80 1100 8

I highly doubt Hackett catches 80 balls this season.Seattle spreads the ball around and the last time they had someone catch 80 plus balls was D. Jackson 87 his one and only time in 2003.So Hasselback in his career at Seattle of 6 years has had one player ever catch 80 balls and you are predicting Hackett to catch 80 balls in his first year as a starter with a QB who has only had 1 WR in his lifetime catch 80 balls from him. That appears to be lofty expectations for a guy entering his first full year as a starter.65 catches830 yards6 TD's

and DJax would've caught 90+ balls every season,had he not dropped SO MANY PASSES! we need to get a stat on the number of targets,compared to the number of receptions for Djax, then factor in Hackett's catch % , and see what the projected stat totals would be..85/1250/10

So you are predicting a Top 10 WR year for Hackett?

 

[mad sweeney]

Mike Sando is on the audible today and I believe the Burleson/Hackett battle will be one of the topics covered. i am looking forward to that myself.

We just finished part I - we have a few more questions for him, but he needed to step out for a minute. We asked the Burleson/Hackett question - I don't want to give away the answer , we should have the interview up by mid-day tomorrow at the latest (hopefully tonight), but trust me, it will help your understanding of the situation. He also by implication gives a reason that Hackett hasn't played more.

Sigmund,Listened to the audible and really didn't find any bombshell type info from it. Did you dig any deeper with him "off mic" about the 'banged up' part? Or was there some implication that he had a problem with Holmgren and even though Haskell likes him Holmgren doesn't? Is he a bad practicer or bad guy? Or was it just that Holmgren didn't think he was ready?

For those that haven't listened to it yet, Mike Sando (Seahawks beat reporter) basically reiterated many of the points I've made earlier. That the offensive woes were due largely to the injuries and constant reshuffling of the line and Alexander's now healed foot. That Hass may not return to 05 form but as long as he stays comfortable with the line should be much better than last season, and that barring injury or sudden onset of the Seahawks Dropsies there is no way that Hackett is not the starter and OC Gil Haskell has been trying to get him more playing time the last 2 years.

Based on the Audible interview I will stick with my predictions of Hackett being the 1b guy, less rec and yards than Branch but double digit TDs like Jurevicius 2 years ago.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Sigmund,Listened to the audible and really didn't find any bombshell type info from it. [snip]OC Gil Haskell has been trying to get him more playing time the last 2 years.

This was the piece of info I was referring to - Sando specifically said "if Haskell was head coach" Hackett would have gotten more playing time. Who's above the Haskell in the food chain? Holmgren. This tells me that behind the scenes, Haskell was unsuccessfully lobbying Holmgren for more playing time for Hackett. Why didn't Holmgren listen? I can only speculate. But we know that Holmgren was the obstacle, and we know that the reality of Hackett's role not being as big as his talent was also noticed by a high-up in the Seahawks braintrust, which validates everything we've been saying about him (especially Shick) for the last 2 years. It's not earthshattering, but it makes me much certain in projecting Hackett as the starter.

 

[Heinz 57]

He definately should have gotten more playing time last season. He only stared FIVE games. He had a good average when he was in there, 13.6 per catch. My predictions are based assuming he becomes a starter in 2007. Oh yea, and Someone has to catch the ball in SEA. Ill give him 900, 8 tds.

 

[Q-Bert]

DJ Hackett has been extremely impressive from a statistical standpoint thus far in his career. With very minimal targets he has put up suprisingly impressive numbers. His catch percentage has been phenomenal. 65% as a rookie and 67% as a second year player. Those are unbelievably good numbers. Based the great talent evaluation made above by Shick! and based on a look at his catch percentage compared to a reasonable number of targets I predict the following.

100 Targets (about what Branch had last year)

65 Receptions

900 Yards

6 Touchdowns

This would be good for about the 25-30 range for wide receivers. And, I honestly feel like his ceiling is higher. With 10-20 more targets he could easily by a 1000 yard 8 touchdown guy.

 

[mad sweeney]

Sigmund,Listened to the audible and really didn't find any bombshell type info from it. [snip]OC Gil Haskell has been trying to get him more playing time the last 2 years.

This was the piece of info I was referring to - Sando specifically said "if Haskell was head coach" Hackett would have gotten more playing time. Who's above the Haskell in the food chain? Holmgren. This tells me that behind the scenes, Haskell was unsuccessfully lobbying Holmgren for more playing time for Hackett. Why didn't Holmgren listen? I can only speculate. But we know that Holmgren was the obstacle, and we know that the reality of Hackett's role not being as big as his talent was also noticed by a high-up in the Seahawks braintrust, which validates everything we've been saying about him (especially Shick) for the last 2 years. It's not earthshattering, but it makes me much certain in projecting Hackett as the starter.

Thanks Sigmund. Asks more questions than it answers though.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Sigmund,Listened to the audible and really didn't find any bombshell type info from it. [snip]OC Gil Haskell has been trying to get him more playing time the last 2 years.

This was the piece of info I was referring to - Sando specifically said "if Haskell was head coach" Hackett would have gotten more playing time. Who's above the Haskell in the food chain? Holmgren. This tells me that behind the scenes, Haskell was unsuccessfully lobbying Holmgren for more playing time for Hackett. Why didn't Holmgren listen? I can only speculate. But we know that Holmgren was the obstacle, and we know that the reality of Hackett's role not being as big as his talent was also noticed by a high-up in the Seahawks braintrust, which validates everything we've been saying about him (especially Shick) for the last 2 years. It's not earthshattering, but it makes me much certain in projecting Hackett as the starter.

Thanks Sigmund. Asks more questions than it answers though.

too true - but then again, most good info is that way. We are just peeking through keyholes here, and any good team wants it that way.

 

[kensat30]

60/900/7

This guy is a steal in the later rounds. Hackett runs the best vertical routes on the team, despite all the Branch hype, and Seattle is going to need to replace Darrell Jackson's knack for getting open on that 20-30 yard post-corner route he used to run all the time. Deion Branch's inability to find the endzone should bode well for Hackett in the redzone as well, but I get the impression that SA is once again going to become the TD hog down near the stripe.

I really want to project top15 numbers for this guy (another 10-15 catches and a couple more TDs) but he really needs to step into a solid starting role and prove a little bit first on a full-time basis. Hackett is a must draft player considering his ADP though. Potential top10 player, high floor numbers considering his team/QB situation, and you can draft him as a #4 or #5 WR? Sign me up.

 

[5Rings]

60/900/7

This guy is a steal in the later rounds. Hackett runs the best vertical routes on the team, despite all the Branch hype, and Seattle is going to need to replace Darrell Jackson's knack for getting open on that 20-30 yard post-corner route he used to run all the time. Deion Branch's inability to find the endzone should bode well for Hackett in the redzone as well, but I get the impression that SA is once again going to become the TD hog down near the stripe.

I really want to project top15 numbers for this guy (another 10-15 catches and a couple more TDs) but he really needs to step into a solid starting role and prove a little bit first on a full-time basis. Hackett is a must draft player considering his ADP though. Potential top10 player, high floor numbers considering his team/QB situation, and you can draft him as a #4 or #5 WR? Sign me up.

I agree with Kensat.

 

[BGP]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

 

[Baron Samedi]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

 

[The Ref]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

See highlight above. If Hackett can help them win, he will produce.

 

[BGP]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

Like I say, the NFL really doesn't work that way. The bottom line for management is padding the resume. Winning is a part of that, but making bad trades is not. If the Seattle Seahawks lost a couple more games in 2007 because they pushed to make Branch too much of the offense, that would be more acceptable for them. They could argue the trade was a success. They could argue they got the Seahawks to the Super Bowl in 2005. But if he is a bust, it just looks worse for them.Look, people are critical of John Gruden because, even tho he won a super bowl, a lot of people say "yah, but it wasn't your players". Winning with the players you hand select, especially when you trade high picks for them, is very important for the resume.

 

[Baron Samedi]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

Like I say, the NFL really doesn't work that way. The bottom line for management is padding the resume. Winning is a part of that, but making bad trades is not. If the Seattle Seahawks lost a couple more games in 2007 because they pushed to make Branch too much of the offense, that would be more acceptable for them. They could argue the trade was a success. They could argue they got the Seahawks to the Super Bowl in 2005. But if he is a bust, it just looks worse for them.Look, people are critical of John Gruden because, even tho he won a super bowl, a lot of people say "yah, but it wasn't your players". Winning with the players you hand select, especially when you trade high picks for them, is very important for the resume.

Doesn't work that way?.....BS. You either win or mangement gets fired period. Ask any owner if they care more about their managements resumes or they teams winning. Winning equals money dude, lots of money, owners don't care how its done. You just have to do it to keep your job.

 

[This_Is_Not_VRR]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

Like I say, the NFL really doesn't work that way. The bottom line for management is padding the resume. Winning is a part of that, but making bad trades is not. If the Seattle Seahawks lost a couple more games in 2007 because they pushed to make Branch too much of the offense, that would be more acceptable for them. They could argue the trade was a success. They could argue they got the Seahawks to the Super Bowl in 2005. But if he is a bust, it just looks worse for them.

Actually, it does. And enough with this resume nonsense. Tim Ruskell isn't a politician, he's not worred about being re-elected, he's not concerned with "padding his resume" he's only concerned with winning. Not only that, winning is the best way to keep his job safe. Win enough games, and even the most bone headed personnel move is considered little more than water under the bridge.

And what you fail to realize is that regardless of whether Branch ever amounts to anything in Seattle, this is a trade that will never blow up in Ruskell's face. Why? Because for starters, Paul Allen signed off on it. And the reason Allen signed off on it is because he was in total agreement with Ruskell that the Seahawks only have a limited amount of time left to win a Super Bowl and that they should do everything possible to surround Hasselbeck, Alexander, Jones with the best possible talent. And that's the right mindset to have when you have a veteran team with a small championship window. If anything, the Branch trade will only ever come back to haunt the Patriots. Trading Branch last season may have cost them a Super Bowl. They decided to try and merely get by at WR, and it cost them dearly.

Lastly, your entire premise about management forcing Branch into too large of a role at the cost of winning games is absurd. Tim Ruskell sure as hell doesn't tell Mike Holmgren what to do, and Holmgren isn't about to tailor his game plan around a player that doesn't deserve it or isn't capable of the role. Nate Burleson was another one of Ruskell's key pickups last year, and Holmgren barely played him.

Bottom line: Politics has nothing to do with this. Good old fashioned talent and hard work will decide the Branch vs Hackett battle.

 

[identikit]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

Like I say, the NFL really doesn't work that way. The bottom line for management is padding the resume. Winning is a part of that, but making bad trades is not. If the Seattle Seahawks lost a couple more games in 2007 because they pushed to make Branch too much of the offense, that would be more acceptable for them. They could argue the trade was a success. They could argue they got the Seahawks to the Super Bowl in 2005. But if he is a bust, it just looks worse for them.

Actually, it does. And enough with this resume nonsense. Tim Ruskell isn't a politician, he's not worred about being re-elected, he's not concerned with "padding his resume" he's only concerned with winning. Not only that, winning is the best way to keep his job safe. Win enough games, and even the most bone headed personnel move is considered little more than water under the bridge.

And what you fail to realize is that regardless of whether Branch ever amounts to anything in Seattle, this is a trade that will never blow up in Ruskell's face. Why? Because for starters, Paul Allen signed off on it. And the reason Allen signed off on it is because he was in total agreement with Ruskell that the Seahawks only have a limited amount of time left to win a Super Bowl and that they should do everything possible to surround Hasselbeck, Alexander, Jones with the best possible talent. And that's the right mindset to have when you have a veteran team with a small championship window. If anything, the Branch trade will only ever come back to haunt the Patriots. Trading Branch last season may have cost them a Super Bowl. They decided to try and merely get by at WR, and it cost them dearly.

Lastly, your entire premise about management forcing Branch into too large of a role at the cost of winning games is absurd. Tim Ruskell sure as hell doesn't tell Mike Holmgren what to do, and Holmgren isn't about to tailor his game plan around a player that doesn't deserve it or isn't capable of the role. Nate Burleson was another one of Ruskell's key pickups last year, and Holmgren barely played him.

Bottom line: Politics has nothing to do with this. Good old fashioned talent and hard work will decide the Branch vs Hackett battle.

Excellent posting. Couldn't agree with you more.

Id

 

[zadok]

65/900/9

The best fantasy WR in a prolific offense. A top 25 finish is nearly guaranteed, IMHO.

 

[Restricted]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

Nate Burleson wasn't the team's most productive WR in 06. Mark it as a loss and move on.

 

[BGP]

The only problem with Hackett breaking out this season is that the Seahawks paid so much to the Patriots to secure the rights to Deion Branch. If Branch isn't CLEARLY the team's most productive WR in 2007, its going to look VERY bad for management, no matter how good Hackett does. You can't discount that as a factor. Management can very much be tied to the fate of the players they select. And its also very true that even quality players can be let go for the simple reason that current management or coaching wasn't responsible for bringing that player in. Its an ego thing. Part of building your resume is to be able to say YOU found and developed that star player. If you inherit that player from someone else, you can't take credit for it in the same way. In this case, even if they develop Hackett, the Branch deal is an overpowering black mark on everyone's resume if he does not produce.

I don't think many are saying Branch won't produce, Many are alluding to the fact that Hackett has serious skills, with a great mix of size, speed and desire will make him a force this year. This does not mean that branch will not produce either. To say that Hackett won't breakout because management wants Branch to be the clear #1 doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line for management is winning and if Hackett performing like a stud contributes to Seattle winning, I believe they'll be most satisfied with that.

Like I say, the NFL really doesn't work that way. The bottom line for management is padding the resume. Winning is a part of that, but making bad trades is not. If the Seattle Seahawks lost a couple more games in 2007 because they pushed to make Branch too much of the offense, that would be more acceptable for them. They could argue the trade was a success. They could argue they got the Seahawks to the Super Bowl in 2005. But if he is a bust, it just looks worse for them.

Actually, it does. And enough with this resume nonsense. Tim Ruskell isn't a politician, he's not worred about being re-elected, he's not concerned with "padding his resume" he's only concerned with winning. Not only that, winning is the best way to keep his job safe. Win enough games, and even the most bone headed personnel move is considered little more than water under the bridge.

Its a real phenomenon. People criticize Barry Switzer because, even though he won, it wasn't with "his" players. People do the same to John Gruden. Of course the top priority is to win with "your" players.

And what you fail to realize is that regardless of whether Branch ever amounts to anything in Seattle, this is a trade that will never blow up in Ruskell's face. Why? Because for starters, Paul Allen signed off on it. And the reason Allen signed off on it is because he was in total agreement with Ruskell that the Seahawks only have a limited amount of time left to win a Super Bowl and that they should do everything possible to surround Hasselbeck, Alexander, Jones with the best possible talent. And that's the right mindset to have when you have a veteran team with a small championship window. If anything, the Branch trade will only ever come back to haunt the Patriots. Trading Branch last season may have cost them a Super Bowl. They decided to try and merely get by at WR, and it cost them dearly.

I disagree that Allen "signing off" on the trade would prevent this from being a black mark on Ruskell or Holmgren because Allen isn't an NFL guy. He's just the owner.

Lastly, your entire premise about management forcing Branch into too large of a role at the cost of winning games is absurd. Tim Ruskell sure as hell doesn't tell Mike Holmgren what to do, and Holmgren isn't about to tailor his game plan around a player that doesn't deserve it or isn't capable of the role. Nate Burleson was another one of Ruskell's key pickups last year, and Holmgren barely played him.

Bottom line: Politics has nothing to do with this. Good old fashioned talent and hard work will decide the Branch vs Hackett battle.

The Seawawks gave Burleson a nice contract (which can always be restructured and already has once), and they gave up a 3rd round pick. The Seahawks gave up their 1st rounder for Branch. Those two investments aren't close. The club has invested a ton more in Branch than in Burleson.

 

[DWidmar]

So are we led to believe that because of politics the offensive coordinator will not exploit an advantage within his gameplan if the advantage is to Hackett?? That when Hasselbeck is dropping back he is going to look off an open Hackett because he "has" to get Branch the ball? What many are saying in this thread is that Hackett is very talented and he will put himself into positions where Hass will be able to get him the ball more so than Branch. The fans are smart enough to notice if the Hawks are forcing an offense through a player and that would blow up in managements face if it was creating losses more so than winning and not getting Branch the ball. There is no acceptable losing in the NFL.

We know that there are politics within football but to assume that they will force Holmgren and Co. to force feed Branch because they traded a first rounder for him is wrong. Honestly that isnt as much as what Dallas paid for Galloway so it's not like they overpaid for Branch. He is not the top paid wr or anything. Not too mention he has never been considered an elite wr. Sure he was considered as a great talent and a good fit into a system but he will never be mistaken for Randy Moss or TO. I dont see how him being a productive #2 wr will blow up in their face.

I personally am not sure how this wr situation will play out. I see Hackett making big plays and Branch making more receptions but essentially equalling themselves out. I see it as a dead even heat. I just disagree with the whole political thing.

 

[BGP]

So are we led to believe that because of politics the offensive coordinator will not exploit an advantage within his gameplan if the advantage is to Hackett?? That when Hasselbeck is dropping back he is going to look off an open Hackett because he "has" to get Branch the ball? What many are saying in this thread is that Hackett is very talented and he will put himself into positions where Hass will be able to get him the ball more so than Branch. The fans are smart enough to notice if the Hawks are forcing an offense through a player and that would blow up in managements face if it was creating losses more so than winning and not getting Branch the ball. There is no acceptable losing in the NFL.

You know, I think it can happen a lot of ways. I'm not guaranteeing it will happen. But its likely it does happen.

We know that there are politics within football but to assume that they will force Holmgren and Co. to force feed Branch because they traded a first rounder for him is wrong. Honestly that isnt as much as what Dallas paid for Galloway so it's not like they overpaid for Branch. He is not the top paid wr or anything. Not too mention he has never been considered an elite wr. Sure he was considered as a great talent and a good fit into a system but he will never be mistaken for Randy Moss or TO. I dont see how him being a productive #2 wr will blow up in their face.

I personally am not sure how this wr situation will play out. I see Hackett making big plays and Branch making more receptions but essentially equalling themselves out. I see it as a dead even heat. I just disagree with the whole political thing.

They gave up a first rounder to get Branch. That is a LOT. Galloway didn't pan out, and I'm sure that Campo has some kind of black mark on his resume because of that. I'm sure many think less of Jerry Jones for pulling the trigger on that trade.But to stress again, I'm not ASSUMING that the Seahawks will force-feed the ball to Branch in 2007. I'm not GUARANTEEING they will give him more opportunities to succeed compared to Hackett. Let's get that cleared up right now. I am saying the HIGH price they paid is a significant factor, and Branch is a player I'm targetting.

Disclosure: Ironically, Branch was selected before I could get him in my draft. A couple of rounds later I was looking for a WR and Hackett was still on the board and I picked him. If I had a bias here, it would be that Hackett becomes the best fantasy option in Seattle. I doubt that will happen.

 

[DWidmar]

I understand your not making any guarantees and I understand what your saying. I would want to target a wr I thought would succeed because of his talent on the field not because of some idea that the team paid a high price to get him. If that is your logic for targeting him, I just see that as flawed. I want to target players who's talent give them the best opportunity to be productive, not because of what is owed them, based on the price the team paid for them. That is just too risky of a proposition.

Now if you were to argue that Branch is a better talent, has stepped up in big games (superbowl mvp), now has the opportunity to be the #1 guy since D-Jax has moved on and he wants to show everyone why the team traded a first rounder for him and he has something to prove. I would put more stock in that arguement and so should you. I just don't believe you should target a player who is owed something.

 

[proninja]

Shut down the BGP

Seriously Beej, I'm from Seattle. Nobody knows crappy football like Seattle fans from the '90's. I mean, we totally stank, had a joke at quarterback most of the time, and our team was almost taken from us.

Oh, wait...you're a browns fan. Why can't you understand that Ruskell could have been Vick's henchmen and we'd still love him. He's made a few silly moves - transitioning Hutch being the worsrt, but his body of work as a whole is very solid. And, if Branch doesn't work out, it'll still be solid.

Ruskell's legacy around here will be that of a winner. Not as someone who never made a mistake, and we get that up here - winning's pretty new and pretty fun.

 

[BGP]

Shut down the BGP

Seriously Beej, I'm from Seattle. Nobody knows crappy football like Seattle fans from the '90's. I mean, we totally stank, had a joke at quarterback most of the time, and our team was almost taken from us.

Oh, wait...you're a browns fan. Why can't you understand that Ruskell could have been Vick's henchmen and we'd still love him. He's made a few silly moves - transitioning Hutch being the worsrt, but his body of work as a whole is very solid. And, if Branch doesn't work out, it'll still be solid.

Ruskell's legacy around here will be that of a winner. Not as someone who never made a mistake, and we get that up here - winning's pretty new and pretty fun.

You're joking right?The Seahawks had a losing record only 5 out of 10 seasons in the 1990s. Outside of 92, 93, and 94, they were competitive every year that decade. Its not like, the Browns, where 6 of the first 8 years since the return we've racked up double-digit losses. Its not the Seahawks' fault that the AFC West was absolutely loaded for a while in the 1990s, where no-one had a losing record.