HawkShack.com

No it's not the offensive line - That is kinda a light grey color now.

The Dark Cloud hanging over the Seahawk's head as the new season begins is "Do you have the 3rd best defensive player in the NFL returning punts"?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11258 ... fense-10-1

Last year becuase of our stellar defense Golden Tate returned the second highest (51) number of punts in the NFL.

With our stellar defense returning we can assume another large number (51) of punt return opportunities. That is 51 opportunities for opposing teams to tee off on Earl at full speed and at other times blind side contact.

My gut feeling is continues to be that this is not a good idea.

BTW - the backup to Earl as our punt returner happens to be the #2 ranked defensive player in the NFL.

I don't like it.

I went with option #3: "I'd rather have someone else fair-catching every punt ..." than risk injury to ET.

Hopefully, ET will himself fair catch a whole lotta punts.

Hopefully, ET will himself fair catch a whole lotta punts.

I think he's said he *won't* be doing that (unless it's impossible to return).

Myself, I've got mixed feelings.

With the number of punts we force, a good returner can make a significant difference, and if he's the best option, he's the best option.

On the other hand, I think there's a lot of merit to the argument that he's too valuable to give the opposition a chance to tee off on him.

On the other other hand, Tate was our #1 receiver last year and we didn't bat an eye about him returning punts, so why should we feel ET is any more at risk?

I don't know- I guess ultimately I'd say I'd rather have some other great option doing it, but I'll defer to Pete's judgment.

The more punts he fields, the more punishment he will receive. Having a good Defense makes it worse (for a lack of a better term).
Tate wasn't the best player at his position in the league when receiving punts. The Offense didn't revolve around him unlike ET and the Defense.

It's not in Earl's nature to fair catch the ball. Even a thigh bruise could mean he misses a couple of games.
I sure hope it doesn't come to that.

It looks like I'm finally voting with the majority on something.

It's for the same reason that I don't want to see Russell being over-used carrying the ball on the read option that I don't want to see Earl used to return punts.

The Offense didn't revolve around him unlike ET and the Defense.

Fair point.

TE or RS returning punts and/or K/O's is a bad idea. Not because I don't think they can excel at it, of course they can but this position should be left for young non starting back-ups that are doing it to partially justify their being on the 53 man roster as opposed to another player that had similar skills but didn't contribute as much on Special Teams.

Maybe in some way they (Sherm and Earl) think they need to justify their new contracts. They don't need to returns punts to justify their money, what they do on defense more than justifies their contracts.

That being said, he will probably be pretty good at returning punts if he stays healthy.
Edit:
I think both ET and RS are really competitive guys who want to get the ball in their hands any way possible.
It's the way they are wired and makes them the players that they are.

I say go for it. Pete knows what he's doing - especially with special-teams. Earl can be quite dynamic in space and he's also very careful with the ball. Win-win... go Hawks

If I were going to use him as a punt returner, I'd do it sparingly.
Meaning have another player the normal return guy, but when or if we needed a big play, put ET in. That would give us a spark if needed and still protect him when not required.
It would be a shame to see him get dinged in the 4th quarter when the outcome isn't in doubt.

Something else I thought of that lends support to allowing ET to return punts:

There seems to be an attitude that punt returners are 'teed up' for the opposition (I include myself)- is there any basis for that?

I started pondering how often we really see punt returners getting tattooed, and I don't think it's all that common compared to the risk of other positions.

Am I right or wrong?

edit- and I like Stream's avatar

Seldom do players get seriously injured returning punts ( and somewhere there is a study on it, PR are injured only more often than place kickers, and long snappers, and LESS often than punters) that said, I still don't want either Earl or Sherman back there doing it.

burrrton wrote:Something else I thought of that lends support to allowing ET to return punts:

There seems to be an attitude that punt returners are 'teed up' for the opposition (I include myself)- is there any basis for that?

I started pondering how often we really see punt returners getting tattooed, and I don't think it's all that common compared to the risk of other positions.

Am I right or wrong?

edit- and I like Stream's avatar

Ask Jacoby Jones - He suffered a sprained knee by his own teamate last year.




Hard to find data for NFL- here is something for high school.


http://thebiglead.com/2011/03/23/hypocr ... le-change/


>>>>>>>>>While I don’t have access to the NFL’s data, I did find this study on high school athletes, entitled “Effects of Time in Competition, Phase of Play, and Field Location on Injury Severity in High School Football” by Ellen E. Yard. Some of the lowlights as it relates to injuries for high school football players:

32.7% of injuries on kickoffs and punts were “severe” (defined as 21 or more missed days), compared to 19.3% on other plays.
20.3% of injuries on kickoffs and punts were concussions, compared to 10.9% on other plays.<<<<<<<<<

burrrton wrote:Something else I thought of that lends support to allowing ET to return punts:

There seems to be an attitude that punt returners are 'teed up' for the opposition (I include myself)- is there any basis for that?

I started pondering how often we really see punt returners getting tattooed, and I don't think it's all that common compared to the risk of other positions.

Am I right or wrong?

edit- and I like Stream's avatar

I think the impression of being 'teed up' comes from when we see a returner getting hammered.
It may not happen often, but when it does it leaves a lasting impression.
The last thing we want to see is a guy running a 4.4 down field and crashing into ET just after he catches the ball.
We saw Lockette hit someone during preseason and I kept thinking of that whenever I saw Earl back there.

I'm opposed to him returning punts, but in the years I've been watching football, or playing it, seldom have I seen "serious" injuries occur in PR duties, for some reason that dramatically increases with KR men ( maybe the additional players able to converge on the ball carrier) I'm not terrified of ET getting injured in that area, after all guys like Reed, Sanders,Peterson etc have done so with no I'll effects, Jones injury was about as fluky as it gets, but I've also seen FG kickers tear ACL's jumping for joy, or QB's concuss themselves head butting walls after TD's, Fluky things happen in this game, and sometimes they're severe. I don't want him doing it, but the thought that it is "more" dangerous than simply playing FS is false.

ET not OK, but having Percy return KO's is OK? No one seems to care about that as much as ET. I think Percy could become the Cog that puts us over the top this year and he could be the teams Offensive POY if not in the running for the leagues. His presence will improve the O that even with the new anti-LOB rules, such as they are, we will score more and be better off with him playing.

I voted to let ET do it. It's football and it sure seams that he isn't complaining about it and seems to want to do it. Tate didn't lose any playing time, did he?

js

I don't like it.

As fragile as he is, I'D have Harvin return punts as well.

He's not going to get many kickoff return opportunities with a defense like ours, and he'd be excellent returning punts.

ET has the talent to do it, but he's more valuable to the team at his FS position than PH is as a WR, IMO. We essentially won a SB without Harvin last year, and I just don't wanna risk - no matter how slim the odds - anything happening to our best defensive player.

Meanwhile, I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed, 'cause it looks like he's the guy at this point.

I don't want EITHER guy returning punts. They are too valuable and the risk outweigh the benefits. We need to find someone else.

jshawaii22 wrote:ET not OK, but having Percy return KO's is OK? No one seems to care about that as much as ET. I think Percy could become the Cog that puts us over the top this year and he could be the teams Offensive POY if not in the running for the leagues. His presence will improve the O that even with the new anti-LOB rules, such as they are, we will score more and be better off with him playing.

I voted to let ET do it. It's football and it sure seams that he isn't complaining about it and seems to want to do it. Tate didn't lose any playing time, did he?

js

The difference being that most KO's are not returned now that they have moved the ball up. Also Percy is phenomenal at avoiding the first wave of contact on returns. He normally doesn't get touch until the second level at best, by which time most of the action has slowed. His ridiculous speed and juking ability usually leaves him with a rather clean uni.

I don't like it at all. the argument can be made that there are next to no injuries on punt returns if you look only at that one facet of the issue. it adds punishment to an already punishing game I would much rather see someone like Richardson handling them.

I have to believe the "about face" decision on Walters was reluctant recognition that our return teams harbored too much risk. I don't want ET, RS, or Harvin returning kicks. We need to take a "play from ahead mentality" on this issue and limit unnecessary risk. For a team this good, Pete and JS open themselves to too many questions (ie, 1st round draft slotting, OL personnel). Hard to argue with this level of success, but on this issue of kick returners I'd play it safer.