No, this isn't a picture of my paperboy, or the most recent Eagle Scout, but rather of undrafted free agent punter Chris Kluwe of UCLA.According to Seahawks.com, he's giving veteran Leo Araguz a run for his money in training camp:
But the 24-year-old Kluwe, a rangy 6-4, 215 pounds, has been crushing punts with more increasing regularity, including a 65-yarder in Saturday’s scrimmage. Consistency and experience will probably win out. Then again, Kluwe seems to be getting stronger. He was one of three finalists for the Ray Guy Award for the nation’s best punter last season and averaged 43.4 on 61 punts last season for the Bruins.
Araguz has the inside track, being the FG holder for Josh Brown, but it'll be interesting to see if this kid can battle himself into a roster spot.
Having just typed "being the FG holder for Josh Brown", I got to thinking, why don't we have one of our backup QBs holding for FGs? This would open up the playbook for the old-time Seahawks who used to be masters of trickery, or at least give you a better option in case of a muffed snap. MH is always talking about ways of getting Seneca on the field. How about this one?
ReplyDeletePosted by alba
Hear hear. I opened up the comment to say just that. I wonder how common it is for the #1 or #2 QB to be the holder in the NFL today. The holder can't be touched to my knowledge, unless they are running with the ball, so it wouldn't seem to be that risky.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the topic of specialists, I wish they would just make Bannister one, I know it wouldn't clear a roster spot, but I am getting a little frustrated with him taking a WR spot.
Posted by JoSCh
To borrow from Shakespear, "would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?" I understand and somewhat agree that just like with the pro-bowl, there should be Special Teams designations for roster spots, but the truth of the matter is that they can call Bannister a Linebacker or Offensive Guard for that matter, he still only counts as one guy toward the ultimate 53-man roster.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there's the other school of thought that says you can only have so many roster spots for WRs, so rather than keeping the 5 or 6 best WRs, you're keeping one less so Bannister can be on the roster as a WR. (would anyone care to argue that Bannister belongs on the team as a WR?? - - - probably not since that snowy day in Lambeau when he cut off his route too early!)
Posted by alba
Oh, I got all kinds of theories, esp with Carter putting in time @ FB, and we got two former TEs @ FB, that we can go into the season with 2 TE and 5 FB, with one FB acting as the 3rd TE. But that leaves Lumsden on the practice squad. Which is probably the best place for him anyway. I just want to see us with 6 WRs that can catch and be substituted as need be, especially with the potential playmakers we have in Pathon, Urban, and Hackett.
ReplyDeletePosted by JoSCh
i agree with Josh 1000% on his second paragraph about Bannister...
ReplyDeleteDJ Hackett is making it hard for Urban to get the last spot...even it he does, he'll probably be 5th or 6th in the depth chart anyways...
I do like this punter though...
1. About the holder -- Josh Brown goes through holders like toilet paper. Since he's started with the Seahawks, he's gone through, like, a billion different holders. I don't think they are going to worry too much about his FG holding abilities when it comes down to choosing a punter. The field position game is just too important (see Rouen last season vs. TB).
ReplyDelete2. I think the way they generally determine the bottom part of the depth chart is primarily by ST performance. The number of linebackers and wide recieivers kept dependes largely on ST play.
For instance if they are cutting down to 53, and they need to decide if they are going to keep an eighth LB or a seventh WR, the 53rd roster spot is going to go to the player with the better ST play, hands down.
They dont' decide how many WR's or LB's they are going to keep AND THEN sort out the special teams players.
Does anyone know of any players in the NFL (outside of kickers) that play soley on ST? My point is that they might as well list them to a position. They can come in handy one and a while.
"Does anyone know of any players in the NFL (outside of kickers) that play soley on ST? "
ReplyDeleteAlex Bannister.
Posted by JoSCh
bullseye...ha
ReplyDeletePosted by ADP
He caught 2 passes last year.
ReplyDeleteWhile technically that means he plays, You're probably right in principle, because that's not where he is earning his paycheck.
On the other hand, Urban only caught 6 passes, and we definitely think of him as a receiver.
Urban didn't take up a roster spot the whole season last year... he is basically a second year player now, assuming he makes the team. The last 2 (3?) years he was PS, I think last year was his first activation (could be wrong) but Bannister was active all the games he wasn't hurt.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, if they would (or could) use Bannister more as the 4th or situational WR, the point would be moot. 9 catches in 4 years? He's 6'5" and fast, you'd think he could do something besides gun at least a couple of times a game. Bad hands, bad routes, or just not "polished"? Or are they just not using him?
Regardless, carrying a pro bowl ST player at a position where we obviously needed help in the past makes me a little irate.
Imagine if instead of David Greene we had Bannister as our #3 QB? That is about how I feel about him beating out WRs that have a shot at helping the team somewhere other than ST. And I don't buy its 1/3 of the game, its more like 1/6, or 1/10.
Posted by JoSCh
Point taken. We should keep seven WR's then, and let our 12th DT go.
ReplyDeletej/k, I know we don't have 12 DT's on the roster, only 11.
But there needs to be SOME place for a ST performer like Bannister. I don't care of he is listed as a waterboy. He's a difference maker.
I don't see much point in arguing over the fraction, (1/3, 1/6, etc.) but in close games and closely matched teams, ST play is usually the fulcrum. Good ST players will win you some ball games every season.
I would question Bannister's health before I doubted his contibution. His collar bone has gone out twice.
Maybe the question is this: Should he be taking up a WR roster spot, or something else? I don't think he warrants listing at any other position. It would be interesting to see him try to blitz, though.
Enough of this flow of consciousness- it's making me late for work.
You know, "WORK"? ;)
"I don't care of he is listed as a waterboy. He's a difference maker "
ReplyDeleteIs that part of the 53 man roster? ;-) But actually, how much of a difference maker? I know they don't have good stats on it, but how important is he really in coverage? How much of a dropoff is there without him?
"in close games and closely matched teams"
That is my worry, specifically Curtis and McDonald. I want to beat them there!
Posted by JoSCh
"But actually, how much of a difference maker? I know they don't have good stats on it, but how important is he really in coverage? How much of a dropoff is there without him?"
ReplyDeleteHe didn't get to the Pro Bowl by ****ing his way to the top.
Regarding holders, I still don't understand why Seneca is not the holder full time on field goals. Talk about a potentially dangerous fake field goal! The guy can run like nobodys business as well as air it out, I see no reason for him not to be the full time holder on field goals, and if anyone can come up with a reason I'm wrong on this I'll be shocked.
ReplyDelete"He didn't get to the Pro Bowl by ****ing his way to the top. " More conjecture, you don't know he didn't! That Alex Bannister is one fine piece of ace...
ReplyDeleteWell, I went looking for stats, to see what the dropoff was with and without him. Football Outsiders says that our ST were ranked 24 in 01, 13 in 02, 19 in 03, and 24 in 04, and using their system (too complex to explain) never were much more that mediocre at punt and kickoff defense. And that is his forte, no? Obviously some of that is attributed to the kicker and the rest of the team, I guess, although Tennessee in 2003 seemed to have horrible kickoffs but their coverage was able to keep the returner pretty well stifled.
Looking at game logs from last year, NO Beerman ran over us to the tune of 153 yards on 8 attempts. We held Tampa to 78 yards on 6 returns, gave the Whiners 152 yards on 9 tries, Lambs 161 in 9, Champs 130 in 7, Tardinals 105 in 7, and Panthers 157 in 6. Then w/o Bannister, 172 in 11 for the Whiners, 110 in 5 for the Lambs, 124 in 7 for the Fins, 32 in 4 for the Bills, 8 for 168 for the 'Girls, 108 in 5 for the 'Queens, 58 in 4 for the J-E-T-S, 135 in 8 to the Tardinals again, 75 in 6 for the ATL, and finally 115 in 8 for the Lambs playoff.
I don't see our coverage units being that much better with Bannister. I am not saying he isn't great, but it looks to me like even with him there we're pretty inept. Is there more value to be had using his roster spot for someone who can have more impact?
And I won't even mention the injury, 2 collarbones is flukey, but if he gets hurt again, cut him like a sandwich.
Posted by JoSCh
You win.
ReplyDeleteThis time....
I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that blasted JoSCh!
but if he gets hurt again, cut him like a sandwich.
ReplyDeleteAnother classic piece of "Street slang" which probably should be added to the header!
The only reasons I can think of against having Seneca hold is 1) not wanting him to get kicked in the hand, and 2) not wanting him holding if he has to fill in for Matt. Neither good enough not to do it.
BRING BACK EFREM HERRARA!!!!
Posted by alba