Harris elevated to Pro Bowl status

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:25 am

San Francisco 49ers cornerback Walt Harris is now expected to join teammates Frank Gore and Larry Allen at the Pro Bowl. Harris was named a first alternate for the NFC team, and it appears unlikely that the Eagles' Lito Sheppard will be able to play in the game because of a dislocated elbow. Harris will be the third-string corner behind Tampa's Ronde Barber and the Falcons' DeAngelo Hall.

Harris, 32, had the best season of his 11-year career. He tied for the conference lead with eight interceptions. He also forced five fumbles, recovered two and was excellent in coverage against some of the NFC's best wideouts.

"I'm feeling good," Harris said. "Over the last couple years, in my training I'm making sure I'm doing all the right things to stay healthy and keep up with the younger guys. As long as I can do that, and feel good, I'm happy."

link

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:38 am

Man, do we look stupid.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:40 am

air_hog wrote:Man, do we look stupid.

Yes, in retrospect, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the decision when he was released

joebagadonuts · Post by **joebagadonuts** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:40 am

Why can't we get guys like this?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:13 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:Why can't we get guys like this?

Like air_hog and the rest of us, self-proclaimed stupid looking?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:17 pm

Was he considered a core player? :twisted:

So.....is the problem the players or the coaching....?

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:40 pm

joebagadonuts wrote:Why can't we get guys like this?

We did - are you never satisfied? :wink:

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:42 pm

Fios wrote:
air_hog wrote:Man, do we look stupid.
Yes, in retrospect, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the decision when he was released

No, but I'm an Englishman who never gets to see these players in practice, and very rarely on gameday (even on TV). So, I'm supposed to be stupid. What excuse does our very well paid front office and coaching staff have? :oops:

skinsfan1 · Post by **skinsfan1** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:57 pm

man. this makes us look bad.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:30 pm

UK Skins Fan wrote:
Fios wrote:
air_hog wrote:Man, do we look stupid.
Yes, in retrospect, I didn't hear anyone complaining about the decision when he was released

No, but I'm an Englishman who never gets to see these players in practice, and very rarely on gameday (even on TV). So, I'm supposed to be stupid. What excuse does our very well paid front office and coaching staff have?

Folks, Harris routinely got toasted when he was here, it's just amazing the conveniently short memories I find around here. I'm not addressing you in particular UK but there were plenty of people calling for Harris to be cut, there were NO tears shed when he was cut.

If the Redskins had kept him, we'd have two corners who are at least 32 years old, which seems to make very little sense given the complaints on this site about Springs age, and the age of the team in general.

It's also worth noting the 49ers finished 26th in the league in passing defense, the Redskins finished 23rd. Teams completed 63.9% of their passes against the 49ers and threw for 223 yards per game against the Niners. Opposing teams threw a LOT against the Niners, as a result, Harris had a LOT of chances. So he got some picks here and there? So what? The team's pass defense was still awful and that was with the benefit of a halfway decent pass rush, something the Skins, to put it mildly, lacked.

It's just so easy to get caught up in the "look at the numbers he put up game" and, on the surface, they are impressive, good for Walt. But his presence here last season would not have made an appreciable difference. I'm not arguing he would have been a downgrade but nor is it possible to say he would have represented a significant upgrade, especially when you consider the team's other defensive woes.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:42 pm

I fail to see how this makes us look "bad".

It's not like we kicked Walt to the curb and gave out statements saying he was washed up or anything... he was a mediocre corner... then had an awesome season.

Now if Kenny Wright and Mike Rumph have 10 interceptions each next season... then we might look bad. Lol.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:49 pm

Holdman and Harris were repeatedly picked apart in pieces by the opposition when Walt was with us. You can second guess whether one or two are at fault (Iwill takethe latter approach) but Walt was not good at all when he played with us.

I am happy that he is doing well in another scheme with another team but I do not want him back.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:07 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:Holdman and Harris were repeatedly picked apart in pieces by the opposition when Walt was with us. You can second guess whether one or two are at fault (Iwill takethe latter approach) but Walt was not good at all when he played with us.

I am happy that he is doing well in another scheme with another team but I do not want him back.

Walt was a decent reserve... and I don't think you're giving him enough credit for his play this season.

It's not just a different scheme... the guy picked off 8 passes, forced 4 fumbles, and recovered two fumbles... he also ran back an INT for 6.

Some way, somehow... Walt Harris upped his game. He's not just a benefactor of a new system... a new system isn't going to help you strip balls away or step in front of passes.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:08 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:Holdman and Harris were repeatedly picked apart in pieces by the opposition when Walt was with us. You can second guess whether one or two are at fault (Iwill takethe latter approach) but Walt was not good at all when he played with us.

I am happy that he is doing well in another scheme with another team but I do not want him back.

Walt was a decent reserve... and I don't think you're giving him enough credit for his play this season.

It's not just a different scheme... the guy picked off 8 passes, forced 4 fumbles, and recovered two fumbles... he also ran back an INT for 6.

Some way, somehow... Walt Harris upped his game. He's not just a benefactor of a new system... a new system isn't going to help you strip balls away or step in front of passes.

Fios wrote:Folks, Harris routinely got toasted when he was here, it's just amazing the conveniently short memories I find around here. I'm not addressing you in particular UK but there were plenty of people calling for Harris to be cut, there were NO tears shed when he was cut.

If the Redskins had kept him, we'd have two corners who are at least 32 years old, which seems to make very little sense given the complaints on this site about Springs age, and the age of the team in general.

It's also worth noting the 49ers finished 26th in the league in passing defense, the Redskins finished 23rd. Teams completed 63.9% of their passes against the 49ers and threw for 223 yards per game against the Niners. Opposing teams threw a LOT against the Niners, as a result, Harris had a LOT of chances. So he got some picks here and there? So what? The team's pass defense was still awful and that was with the benefit of a halfway decent pass rush, something the Skins, to put it mildly, lacked.

It's just so easy to get caught up in the "look at the numbers he put up game" and, on the surface, they are impressive, good for Walt. But his presence here last season would not have made an appreciable difference. I'm not arguing he would have been a downgrade but nor is it possible to say he would have represented a significant upgrade, especially when you consider the team's other defensive woes.

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:38 am

Skinsfan55 wrote:I fail to see how this makes us look "bad".

It's not like we kicked Walt to the curb and gave out statements saying he was washed up or anything... he was a mediocre corner... then had an awesome season.

Now if Kenny Wright and Mike Rumph have 10 interceptions each next season... then we might look bad. Lol.

Dude, I'm just messing around.

I was probably one of his biggest HATERS while he was here.

I'm just saying, it looks as if we are cursed. I mean, we spend soooo much money on other mediocre players, while our OLD mediocre players are heading to Hawaii.

Either way, I'm happy for Walt, but pissed at myself and this team for letting him walk so we could sign a worse player, and now he's going to the Pro Bowl.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:39 am

I'm curious to know what their pass rush looks like.

There is a difference somewhere and we need to find it. If their pass rush is better than ours (how could it not?), then thats the answer right there. That should give us some hope for our current crop of DB's.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:04 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:I'm curious to know what their pass rush looks like.

There is a difference somewhere and we need to find it. If their pass rush is better than ours (how could it not?), then thats the answer right there. That should give us some hope for our current crop of DB's.

The 49ers were 20th in the league with 34 sacks, almost twice as many as the Redskins (19). The Niners were 5 sacks away from being in the top 10, so 34 sacks represents a decent, if not dominant, pass rush. Again, it's worth noting that teams threw against the Niners at will, if Walt gets credit for an outstanding individual effort, he also shares in the blame for a team whose pass defense was worse than the Redskins. I agree with your sentiment that an improved pass rush makes the secondary significantly better but I think the most important position to fill on defense at this point is middle linebacker.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:44 am

Fios wrote:he also shares in the blame for a team whose pass defense was worse than the Redskins.

Stats be damned; there was no such thing this year.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:45 pm

I know what you're getting at but, for the purposes of this discussion, there were teams with worse pass defenses and the 49ers were one of them. That fact is central to this discussion.
Again, I know this is a skinniest kid at the fat camp kind of discussion but Harris in a Redskins jersey does not equal an improved defense.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:40 pm

Fios wrote:I know what you're getting at but, for the purposes of this discussion, there were teams with worse pass defenses and the 49ers were one of them. That fact is central to this discussion.
Again, I know this is a skinniest kid at the fat camp kind of discussion but Harris in a Redskins jersey does not equal an improved defense.

Can you think of 1 pass that was defended? Dropped ints don't count.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:56 pm

Fios wrote:I know what you're getting at but, for the purposes of this discussion, there were teams with worse pass defenses and the 49ers were one of them. That fact is central to this discussion.
Again, I know this is a skinniest kid at the fat camp kind of discussion but Harris in a Redskins jersey does not equal an improved defense.

I agree with you about Harris.

. . .as for who's the worst pass defense, point noted, but leave me to my misery. :cry:

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:16 am

This is exactly what "change of scenery" and "fresh start" mean.
Walt Harris was a pleasant surprise for the '9ers. There were no expectations for the team, other than a hopeful improvement.
I wouldn't want him back here. For whatever reason, he wasn't the answer.