March 10, 2008

Could Someone Explain to Me Why We Shouldn't Move Seneca Wallace to WR?

I'd never claim to be an expert, or know more about the players than the front office & coaches do, but it seems really obvious that Seneca Wallace should be moved to WR full time. Why?


1. We'll be thin at WR, particularly if we lose D.J. Hackett in free agency. Plus, even in the best-case scenario DB won't be back until mid-season. Yes, I know Ruskell is high on Logan Payne, Courtney Taylor and Ben Obamanu, but we need more firepower here.

2. Charlie Frye should be able to nail down the #2 QB spot, and we can snag a developmental project-type guy in the draft. Frankly, if Hass suffers a major injury we are not going to XLIII anyway.

3. Seneca Wallace being on the field as the 3rd or 4th WR would seem to massively open up the offense. In Holmgren's last ride, why not roll the dice?

4. This video from his days at Iowa State



Seriously.. Why SHOULDN'T we do this?

2 comments:

DKSB said...

Actually, Seahawk Addicts has a pretty good argument for a WR corps that looks like this:

Branch (maybe on PUP list the first six weeks)
Engram
Burleson
Obamanu
Taylor
Kent

There WOULD be room for Seneca there if Kent goes to the practice squad or we feel OK carrying 7 WRs the second half of the season...

sherminator said...

I think this looks better:

Wallace
Burleson
Engram (slot)

Branch - when he's healthy again

Let the best men win for the other spots!