| 24 November 2009
The Offensive Line Rebuild
I think that everyone can freely acknowledge that the offensive line is in shambles. We're going to take as a given that something needs to change. [One caveat I will add is that not all great teams have great offensive lines. We look at the 2005 team as our barometer because that's how WE were successful, but that was a team with a clear offensive identity. This team does not have that same identity (do they have any identity?). The 2012 Seahawks will likely be more like the 2007 Ravens than the 2005 Seahawks if we continue on this trajectory.]
Assuming that there is no uncapped year in 2010, which looks less likely every passing day but still ought to be our baseline assumption, Rob Sims and Chris Spencer will both be unrestricted free agents after this year. Ray Willis will be a UFA in 2011. What do we really need to rebuild this line? Read on...
Right Tackle
Locklear is fine at RT, Willis is better -- more of a mauler -- but his chronic knee pain continues to concern me. How long can you rely on a guy who is in pain all the time? I don't know the answer to that. Behind Willis and Locklear is Brandon Frye who looked decent at LT in his first three starts, but his injury could potentially be career threatening (not that anyone has cared enough to update us). Kyle Williams is not an option. Still, we're okay at RT for at least another year.
Right Guard
Max Unger has been really stepping up the last two weeks and is arguably the best zone blocking lineman we have right now. He still needs a fair amount of work, but don't be surprised if the Hawks keep Unger at guard for another year. We all view him as the long-term center, but it takes a long time for most centers to get right in the NFL. Robbie Tobeck, for example, played guard for most of his early career before moving over and becoming a very good center. If Unger does slide over next year, Manny Wrotto or Sean Locklear could play guard. Neither is a particularly appealing answer, but I still believe it will be Unger.
Center
Chris Spencer has been playing quite well this year, even over the last two games with a broken right thumb. People appear to finally be laying off the guy, and I think if the Hawks can sign him to a reasonable contract in this offseason, he is a fine fit at center for the next couple of years while we let Unger mature. If not, Unger goes in early. Either way, we may draft center/guard depth, but it seems unlikely with the team trusting Vallos as that depth.
Left Guard
Rob Staton has pointed out a fine physical specimen at guard and I'm sold. Rodney Hudson is a junior at Florida State University and is an absolute stud. I know it can be painful to watch the Seminoles play, but if you get a chance, check him out. He's a beast, and, if he declares, he's probably the most complete interior lineman in the draft. Could the Seahawks spend two first round picks on the offensive line? Why not? At this point, it's unlikely the Hawks are very good next year, so build the offensive line up this offseason and give the running game and Matt a chance to succeed. More important than incredible skill on an O-Line is chemistry and familiarity. That's what the 2005 team had, that's what the Giants have had, that's what the Steelers have. If you have Unger - Hudson - Okung (see next section) playing 16 games straight together (injuries notwithstanding) they will start melding and you could end up with a very, very good line sooner rather than later.
Left Tackle
This is the obvious one. Sean Locklear is not the answer, period, end of story. He's not even the multiple choice option that tricks students, he's (D), the "oh, that wily teacher of mine, Ha!" answer. Unfortunately, Ruskell didn't realize he was being ironic when he paid Lock LT money. Not only is Locklear not the answer at left tackle, but he's our second best right tackle and possibly a better fit to play guard than either tackle spot. Realistically, Damion McIntosh outperformed Locklear in his two starts despite having only been in the system two weeks. He also faced easier tasks, but still.
So we need a left tackle, we need one who can start quickly, and we need one who is young. We attack this spot in the draft. Currently, the Seahawks are slated with the #5 pick in the draft (five teams have a 3-7 record, the Hawks have the worst strength of schedule thus far with .488). The only tackle worth taking at that spot is Russell Okung out of Oklahoma State. It is rare for the best tackle in the draft to slip to #5 of late, but there are a lot of potential superstars in front of Okung: Ndamakong Suh, Eric Berry, whoever the top two quarterbacks end up being between Bradford, Clausen, and Locker.
Summary
So, really, our O-Line is not good, but it's not atrocious. We need two key spots filled, and really, we're only desperate for the Left Tackle if we can re-sign Rob Sims, who has played very well considering. Rodney Hudson would be an upgrade over him though, and Sims could presumably go back to RG if we did keep him. My ideal line entering the 2010 season: Okung - Hudson - Spencer - Unger - Willis. What do you guys think? Is there any chance the Seahawks would spend two firsts on the Offensive Line? It seems highly unlikely, especially when we clearly need a big presence on the defensive line... still. Your thoughts?
Comments (61)
O-Line
written by LouieLouie, November 24, 2009
written by LouieLouie, November 24, 2009
One thing to remember is that this starting O-Line has only played a game or two together. It takes time to gel. The Steeler O-Line was not very good two years ago. I'm not intimately familiar with their personnel moves, but I don't recall any major moves last year.
We do need a legitimate Left Tackle though. A young one would be able to learn this system from the beginning of his career, which does argue for finding one in the draft. Even in the 2nd or 3rd round it may be possible to find a kid who can play within the system. Many of the better Left Tackles were taken after round one.
We do need a legitimate Left Tackle though. A young one would be able to learn this system from the beginning of his career, which does argue for finding one in the draft. Even in the 2nd or 3rd round it may be possible to find a kid who can play within the system. Many of the better Left Tackles were taken after round one.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by What the, November 24, 2009
written by What the, November 24, 2009
This line is confusing because individually they seem alright but as a group they suck. I don't know much about the zone blocking scheme but I remember Denver running it with alot of success and there linemen always seemed to be cut blocking to open up holes (which the Seahawks never seem to do).
This line never seems to get a push off the line is that the personel or the scheme? I don't know and I bet Ruskell doesn't know ethier.
I would love to see 2 o-lineman and a d-lineman with our first three pick and build this team from the inside out.
This line never seems to get a push off the line is that the personel or the scheme? I don't know and I bet Ruskell doesn't know ethier.
I would love to see 2 o-lineman and a d-lineman with our first three pick and build this team from the inside out.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by myjackrebel, November 24, 2009
written by myjackrebel, November 24, 2009
you are going over the top in your assesment of Willis as the RT. he hasnt been able to get a consistant push in the rungame, and hasn't been stout enough in pass protection. i think if you slide Locklear back to RT, he would beat Willis for the job in an open competition next season.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Seahawk Addicts, November 24, 2009
written by Seahawk Addicts, November 24, 2009
Myjackrebel - Locklear was our starting right guard entering the preseason when Jones was "healthy." Willis had beat him out as RT based no the coaches' assessment.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by Riggle, November 24, 2009
written by Riggle, November 24, 2009
I would love to see an offensive line made up of mean-spirited, athletic giants who maul opposing linemen and backers, and work seamlessly together as one.
Your formula looks like a good one to get the team there, Chris. It is better than the Ruskell one.
We need a better pass rush (again), too. Do we use free agency?
Your formula looks like a good one to get the team there, Chris. It is better than the Ruskell one.
We need a better pass rush (again), too. Do we use free agency?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
No doubt, this team needs to draft their next LT. There are others besides Okung... and really, when was the last time the 1st LT taken turned out to be the best? Far from a scientific method to be sure, but hey, Walt was the 2nd tackle in his draft class, Denver's Clady was 2nd, and Oher was what... 4th? They can still find a very good LT if Okung is off the board when they pick.
After that, any upgrade would be welcomed. Great center staring you in the face?.... take him. Hudson declares and is sitting there in the 2nd round? Absolutely. But I do think they need at least a couple studs on the OL however they go about doing it.
After that, any upgrade would be welcomed. Great center staring you in the face?.... take him. Hudson declares and is sitting there in the 2nd round? Absolutely. But I do think they need at least a couple studs on the OL however they go about doing it.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by What the, November 24, 2009
written by What the, November 24, 2009
A huge problem is health, Spencer has a bad back and I don't think he can stay healthy as an NFL starter. I think if we resign him it should be with the mindset of a backup C/G, But if someone wants to overpay him let him walk.
Willis's has cronic knee problems, so I hope we arent going to consider him the future at RT or G.
Hopefully Locklear and Sims can put the injuries behind them and so far Ungers health is fine.
I would like to see Okung-Hudson-Unger-Sims-Locklear with Spencer, and Willis as backups. This would be a young O-line that could play together for years and build some much needed chemistry. Although Im still not really sold on the skill of either Unger or Sims as Unger is good at pulling but doesn't seem to have much push.
Anouther possible LG would be Justin Boren form Ohio State he's only a junior and damn is he strong!
Willis's has cronic knee problems, so I hope we arent going to consider him the future at RT or G.
Hopefully Locklear and Sims can put the injuries behind them and so far Ungers health is fine.
I would like to see Okung-Hudson-Unger-Sims-Locklear with Spencer, and Willis as backups. This would be a young O-line that could play together for years and build some much needed chemistry. Although Im still not really sold on the skill of either Unger or Sims as Unger is good at pulling but doesn't seem to have much push.
Anouther possible LG would be Justin Boren form Ohio State he's only a junior and damn is he strong!
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
Sims prefers to play LG, where he played in college. After years of watching the shuffling of lineman fail, I dont really want to see Sims playing RG. We need to sign a FA RG or draft one if Unger is moved to C. God I wish Pork Chop had stayed--but Ruskell in his infinite wisdom didnt want the guy who can play three positions. Oh well, too late now. But next year better see immediate drastic improvement on the line.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by jeff bernard, November 24, 2009
written by jeff bernard, November 24, 2009
How long will it take TR to fix the talent lacking oline? 8 months 20 months 32 months 44 months?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by BillT, November 24, 2009
written by BillT, November 24, 2009
Unless we lose out, which I doubt is going to happen, and even if we do, there are teams that will likely end up worse than 3 - 13 so to get Okung (who is the real stud LT in this draft), it will likely cost us both of our first rounders to move up into the rarified top of the draft where the great LT's are taken. Don't give me this crap about finding one in the 2nd or 3rd round of the draft or even out of the top 10. Last year Phil did the research and there is a very small chance of findidng a great LT out of the top 5 to 7 players. Okung won't last past the top 3 or 4.
I say it's worth our first two picks especially having seen what a very good LT can do for your franchise over a decade with big Walt. Is there any doubt that we'd never have gone to the Super Bowl if we didn't have Walter Jones? We use our 2nd rounder on the best guard left and figure that's our draft this year except for the usual projects taken in the 4th round and below (we don't have a 3rd rounder). If we can package our 2nd rounder with either some of our later round picks or a player such as Hawthorne and move up to get Hudson, that would be a good move too. If we could get Okung and Hudson out of this draft, I would give up all our draft choices or our two firsts, our second, and a player. That would fix a majority of our offensive and by extension our defensive problems right there.
Especially if this is an uncapped year, there are no offensive free agents worth talking about that will be available. First of all, players will need 6 years of service to become unrestricted free agents and second of all, teams will be able to retain whoever they want since there's no cap to force them to not resign anyone. Go look at the list.
There are some defensive players though and if we could find a good pass rusher, that will give us the three players we most desperately need.
Right now, those three players (Okung, Hudson, and a pass rusher) are worth our whole draft and our top free agent acquisition. Assuming we don't lose any of our free agents creating a hole we don't currently have, that would go a long way towards fixing this team.
I say it's worth our first two picks especially having seen what a very good LT can do for your franchise over a decade with big Walt. Is there any doubt that we'd never have gone to the Super Bowl if we didn't have Walter Jones? We use our 2nd rounder on the best guard left and figure that's our draft this year except for the usual projects taken in the 4th round and below (we don't have a 3rd rounder). If we can package our 2nd rounder with either some of our later round picks or a player such as Hawthorne and move up to get Hudson, that would be a good move too. If we could get Okung and Hudson out of this draft, I would give up all our draft choices or our two firsts, our second, and a player. That would fix a majority of our offensive and by extension our defensive problems right there.
Especially if this is an uncapped year, there are no offensive free agents worth talking about that will be available. First of all, players will need 6 years of service to become unrestricted free agents and second of all, teams will be able to retain whoever they want since there's no cap to force them to not resign anyone. Go look at the list.
There are some defensive players though and if we could find a good pass rusher, that will give us the three players we most desperately need.
Right now, those three players (Okung, Hudson, and a pass rusher) are worth our whole draft and our top free agent acquisition. Assuming we don't lose any of our free agents creating a hole we don't currently have, that would go a long way towards fixing this team.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by elroy, November 24, 2009
written by elroy, November 24, 2009
LT Charles Brown- 1st round 8th overall
LG Rob Sims
C Max Unger
RG Sean Locklear
RT Ray Willis
Backups:
T Veteran FA/ Walter Jones
G Iupati- 2nd round pick
G Wrotto/Vallos
C Veteran FA
LG Rob Sims
C Max Unger
RG Sean Locklear
RT Ray Willis
Backups:
T Veteran FA/ Walter Jones
G Iupati- 2nd round pick
G Wrotto/Vallos
C Veteran FA
-
- +0
-
-
so we are accepting the wait
written by centorhawk, November 24, 2009
written by centorhawk, November 24, 2009
if we started two rookies on the left side and a first year center next year. i am okay to see that and watch them improve through the year and promise of the future, but a lot of people should remember their words when they are pissed next year.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by 12, November 24, 2009
written by 12, November 24, 2009
I will be excited if we have another quarterback by the time the offensive line is rebuilt. The Hasselbeck era is over. Hass has better receivers than Peyton Manning yet he does not release the ball fast like the elite QB's do. Matt is not great at finding his targets and making decisions quickly. Now he is an even slower scrambler with below average arm strenght. Hass is the best quarterback the Seahawks has ever had, but never a 4000 yard or even 30 TD man even with a good line and receivers. When Seattle finally pushed the running game with league MVP Shaun, the Hawks offense finally had Super Bowl quality balance. I will be excited about the future when Seattle has new leaders and a new face.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by bruto5676, November 24, 2009
written by bruto5676, November 24, 2009
I hate to be a realest and i havent really posted on here in sometime now, prolly since draft weekend due to my lack of internet resources but i am back and i am ready to chime in everyday with you guys.
First off, Chris , no offense, but you need to think outside the box with this team for NOW ON! their is no answer on this offensive line except Unger. i personally am not a Football avid reasearcher and study the line play to play but i know when a line is doing its job. I can see it when i watch the Pats, the Colts, The Chargers, The Saints.
Noone on this squad should even have a starting job come next mini camp. For anyone to sit here and Praise Ruskell, and yes i coming into this year like many othert avid Seahawk Addicts beleived:
A. All his moves have been stellar
B. His drafting was unheard of good
C. Was the right man for this job
I have taken a different perspective when looking at this team now. Locklear is getting payed what your typical Pro Bowl Caliber LT would be paid. Who made that Call??? i get so fired up when i write these i go so far off topic its unreal so i will stay on the OL for now.
Their was answers in front of us for so many years and we never pulled the trigger. I wont get started on the Alan Faneca situation but i will go back to draft weekend where i was even blind to what was in front of us. Look what Andre SMith has done for CIN this year, have you seen and of his games , the guy plows people at the line and Look how well a player of Cedric bensons abilities has done this year.
First off, Chris , no offense, but you need to think outside the box with this team for NOW ON! their is no answer on this offensive line except Unger. i personally am not a Football avid reasearcher and study the line play to play but i know when a line is doing its job. I can see it when i watch the Pats, the Colts, The Chargers, The Saints.
Noone on this squad should even have a starting job come next mini camp. For anyone to sit here and Praise Ruskell, and yes i coming into this year like many othert avid Seahawk Addicts beleived:
A. All his moves have been stellar
B. His drafting was unheard of good
C. Was the right man for this job
I have taken a different perspective when looking at this team now. Locklear is getting payed what your typical Pro Bowl Caliber LT would be paid. Who made that Call??? i get so fired up when i write these i go so far off topic its unreal so i will stay on the OL for now.
Their was answers in front of us for so many years and we never pulled the trigger. I wont get started on the Alan Faneca situation but i will go back to draft weekend where i was even blind to what was in front of us. Look what Andre SMith has done for CIN this year, have you seen and of his games , the guy plows people at the line and Look how well a player of Cedric bensons abilities has done this year.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Seahawk Addicts, November 24, 2009
written by Seahawk Addicts, November 24, 2009
Bruto - Andre Smith has not played a game in the NFL.
http://www.nfl.com/players/andresmith/profile?id=SMI038279
Beyond that, what more do you want? Four new O-Linemen? That'll take at least three years to get cooking. What has Willis done wrong? Really, what has Sims done wrong? The key is for an offensive line is for them to play together, but Locklear is a huge weak link and Spencer is still hard to read.
http://www.nfl.com/players/andresmith/profile?id=SMI038279
Beyond that, what more do you want? Four new O-Linemen? That'll take at least three years to get cooking. What has Willis done wrong? Really, what has Sims done wrong? The key is for an offensive line is for them to play together, but Locklear is a huge weak link and Spencer is still hard to read.
-
- +0
-
-
FA pool
written by effrin herrera, November 24, 2009
written by effrin herrera, November 24, 2009
ok, before we continue I need to find a list of potential free agents coming up this off season. Anyone know where I can find that?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Phil N dBlanc, November 24, 2009
written by Phil N dBlanc, November 24, 2009
Frankly, I am not writing Jones off as a LT for about 2-3 more years, this of course assumes the same assumtion that I made last year, that his microfracture surgery would take a extra season to heal. I posted a bunch of prospects for LT earlier and am not gonna re-post them, but think a "human" (as opposed to super-Walt)(read:better than any prospect we have now) LT will be available to us around 14-16 (likely location of the Denver pick)
As for the interior line, I find myself respecting the play of Chris Spencer more with every game, Simms is looking about 8000% better at LG than he did at RG, wonder if they ever tried him as a backup center?
Unger will be our best interior lineman in 2 years, no doubt about it.
If either of them drops to us with our pick (assuming #6-#10) I would take Okung or Locker, the former giving us an above average LT the latter a very solid QB pospect to play behind MH for a year or 2, then take over and lead a 5-7 year window of opportunity for bigger and better things.
As for the interior line, I find myself respecting the play of Chris Spencer more with every game, Simms is looking about 8000% better at LG than he did at RG, wonder if they ever tried him as a backup center?
Unger will be our best interior lineman in 2 years, no doubt about it.
If either of them drops to us with our pick (assuming #6-#10) I would take Okung or Locker, the former giving us an above average LT the latter a very solid QB pospect to play behind MH for a year or 2, then take over and lead a 5-7 year window of opportunity for bigger and better things.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by mike kelly, November 24, 2009
written by mike kelly, November 24, 2009
The singles biggest problem with our O-Line is not talent but health. I do not care how talented Spencer and Sims are if they cannot stay on the field. We need a new LT from the draft and to resign Macintosh as well. We may be able to get by with Sims although I would prefer Hudson as well. We need to use our 2nd 1st rounder in case a good talent drops (how we got Hutch afterall.)
I expect next year to be uncapped therefor many teams may cut overpriced vets because there is no cap penalty and we may see a glut of free agents as well as a rush of juniors into the draft. Could be a fantastic opportunity to get alot better if we have the RIGHT guy making the decisions. Ruskell's FA pick ups have been mostly duds so far. Not sure I trust him to be better this off season
I expect next year to be uncapped therefor many teams may cut overpriced vets because there is no cap penalty and we may see a glut of free agents as well as a rush of juniors into the draft. Could be a fantastic opportunity to get alot better if we have the RIGHT guy making the decisions. Ruskell's FA pick ups have been mostly duds so far. Not sure I trust him to be better this off season
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by mantis, November 24, 2009
written by mantis, November 24, 2009
no one here is qualified to say any one player is good or bad on the OL, at times the whole line looks terrible and at other times some guys stick out as good (unger?), the point is that coaches have to look at the game tapes and analyze what the play call was and how they performed over several games and the season as a whole and decide who is worthy of staying or going.
-
- +0
-
-
Geez, it sucks to be talking draft in November *sigh*
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
Bill,
package both 1st rounders? wow. That seems way too steep to me. Ya, Okung will likely be gone by the time the Hawks pick, but there are a few other notable candidates at LT that should be available. Kinda wasteful considering the other needs on the team and the lack of a 3rd rounder.
Just glancing at top 5 LTs doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, seems like they could do just as well anywhere in the 1st round. Was that written up as a post on here?
I agree that a LT and another quality guard would do wonders for the team, defense included. But either way you go about getting that, where does the pass-rusher come from? The 2nd rd is unlikely to produce an improvement over Tapp and Jackson. That pretty much leaves FA... and it's way too early of course, but Peppers is the only name I've heard mentioned and the only guy I can think of who is can't miss. And wasn't he quite selective about where he'd be willing to go? Sounds like another Abraham deal to me... using the Hawks for leverage if he even talked to them at all.
btw, interesting that someone brought up the Bengals. Their starting LT was drafted the same year as Sims. Kinda gives a reference point for where his and Spencer's development SHOULD be at this point in their careers??? I dont know, just throwing that out there...
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
Bill,
package both 1st rounders? wow. That seems way too steep to me. Ya, Okung will likely be gone by the time the Hawks pick, but there are a few other notable candidates at LT that should be available. Kinda wasteful considering the other needs on the team and the lack of a 3rd rounder.
Just glancing at top 5 LTs doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, seems like they could do just as well anywhere in the 1st round. Was that written up as a post on here?
I agree that a LT and another quality guard would do wonders for the team, defense included. But either way you go about getting that, where does the pass-rusher come from? The 2nd rd is unlikely to produce an improvement over Tapp and Jackson. That pretty much leaves FA... and it's way too early of course, but Peppers is the only name I've heard mentioned and the only guy I can think of who is can't miss. And wasn't he quite selective about where he'd be willing to go? Sounds like another Abraham deal to me... using the Hawks for leverage if he even talked to them at all.
btw, interesting that someone brought up the Bengals. Their starting LT was drafted the same year as Sims. Kinda gives a reference point for where his and Spencer's development SHOULD be at this point in their careers??? I dont know, just throwing that out there...
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
Effrin,
Walterfootball usually has a list of free agents, but of course that will change dramatically by the end of the season....
written by TacomaHawk, November 24, 2009
Effrin,
Walterfootball usually has a list of free agents, but of course that will change dramatically by the end of the season....
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by myjackrebel, November 24, 2009
written by myjackrebel, November 24, 2009
Don't forget about scheme. if we are going to continue to develop a ZBS, then we need guys that can fit into that system.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
12--What do you mean Hasselbeck has better reciever's than Peyton Manning??!! HA ha! Now THATS funny! Seriously, they have Reggie Wayne, perhaps the best WR in the NFL, certainly up there with Andre Johnson and FitzNemesis. Then there's his TE and Gonzalez. Housh is better than Gonzalez, Carlson has looked pretty useless most of this year, and Nate Burleson is what we thought he was--an occasionally exciting player who drops third down passes and disappears from whole games, a dressed up number 3. To say we have better WR's than Manning is utterly laughable.
Billt--I too would love to see us get both Okung and Hudson, but I wouldnt trade our whole draft for them, thats silly. Two players wont fix our team--they wont make Mora a leader, they wont make Knapp's playcalling any more imaginative nor his tired schemes any less tired, nor will they teach Gus Bradley how to run a defense. Until those things are fixed, even world-class talent will only make us execute crappy plays more precisely. The end result will still be too many Losses.
Billt--I too would love to see us get both Okung and Hudson, but I wouldnt trade our whole draft for them, thats silly. Two players wont fix our team--they wont make Mora a leader, they wont make Knapp's playcalling any more imaginative nor his tired schemes any less tired, nor will they teach Gus Bradley how to run a defense. Until those things are fixed, even world-class talent will only make us execute crappy plays more precisely. The end result will still be too many Losses.
-
- +0
-
-
Burleson
written by Texashawk, November 24, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 24, 2009
I too tire of watching Burleson ALMOST make a great catch. ALMOST does not cut it in the NFL. Burleson is a great 3rd receiver on any team but a liability as a starter. IMHO.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by omar little, November 24, 2009
written by omar little, November 24, 2009
Who do you think we be drafting top 5? Lets assume its Cleveland, Oakland, Kansas City, Tampa and St. Louis, I think we can all agree that these are the worst teams in the NFL. Out of these teams the only one that needs LT help is Oakland, and my money is on Al Davis drafting Taylor Mays or Carlos Dunlap (both athletic freaks). Okung could very well fall out of the top 5, if this is how it plays out.
I also think Charles Brown and Bruce Campbell will make excellent LTs in the NFL. They may be there with the second pick if we decide to go DL/DB/QB with the first pick.
I also think Charles Brown and Bruce Campbell will make excellent LTs in the NFL. They may be there with the second pick if we decide to go DL/DB/QB with the first pick.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by cameltoes, November 24, 2009
written by cameltoes, November 24, 2009
7-19 in last 26 games. An offensive line that is truly offensive. Mr. Allen please fire Ruskell now so that there is at least a glimmer of hope for the future.
-
- +0
-
-
Pray for line picks, well it hasn't helped yet.
written by Hotlead, November 24, 2009
written by Hotlead, November 24, 2009
Your evaluation is way too kind, and too optimistic.
I have been following draft day with lots of study of both Ol and DL positions since Hutch left. Was I the only one thinking we were in deep shift with our always injured line after 2005?
I have been very disappointed with the lack of effort by Seattle to upgrade the OL! Being a Ducks fan, Unger both delighted me and was a surprise.
I think we need to upgrade at 4 positions on the OL to be competitive.
The interior DL is just as bad!
Redding was never the answer!
Yes DL is bad, just look at our awesome sack numbers! Seattle's lack of pressure on QBs, and interceptions is obvious! The last time we had good presure on QB's, we gave Trufont a new big contract. You have to have a good rush from the interior limeman to give the outside guys a chance to get there!
I will be yelling at the TV again this year on draft Day. Get us some linemen!
I have been following draft day with lots of study of both Ol and DL positions since Hutch left. Was I the only one thinking we were in deep shift with our always injured line after 2005?
I have been very disappointed with the lack of effort by Seattle to upgrade the OL! Being a Ducks fan, Unger both delighted me and was a surprise.
I think we need to upgrade at 4 positions on the OL to be competitive.
The interior DL is just as bad!
Redding was never the answer!
Yes DL is bad, just look at our awesome sack numbers! Seattle's lack of pressure on QBs, and interceptions is obvious! The last time we had good presure on QB's, we gave Trufont a new big contract. You have to have a good rush from the interior limeman to give the outside guys a chance to get there!
I will be yelling at the TV again this year on draft Day. Get us some linemen!
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by 12, November 24, 2009
written by 12, November 24, 2009
"Housh is better than Gonzalez, Carlson has looked pretty useless most of this year, and Nate Burleson is what we thought he was--an occasionally exciting player who drops third down passes and disappears from whole games, a dressed up number 3"
Why so hard on Burleson? He's our #1 receiver, he still edges Housh out in stats and he was on a roll last season before he was hurt when Holmgren had him doing everything including kickoff returns. Housh is a top notch #2 receiver for short/mid field yardage that the Seahawks are paying #1 money for. Carlson rocks! The OL has big problems right now but it's getting a bad rap taking all the blame for the Hawks team failure. The quarterback still could execute more often with our receivers just as the other ones in the league do even with OL problems. I like Hass but sometimes I wish the die hards would consider taking the great Matt "I want the ball and I'm going to score" Hasselbeck off his exempt from any blame pedestal following a loss also, because he is accountable just like everyone else.
Why so hard on Burleson? He's our #1 receiver, he still edges Housh out in stats and he was on a roll last season before he was hurt when Holmgren had him doing everything including kickoff returns. Housh is a top notch #2 receiver for short/mid field yardage that the Seahawks are paying #1 money for. Carlson rocks! The OL has big problems right now but it's getting a bad rap taking all the blame for the Hawks team failure. The quarterback still could execute more often with our receivers just as the other ones in the league do even with OL problems. I like Hass but sometimes I wish the die hards would consider taking the great Matt "I want the ball and I'm going to score" Hasselbeck off his exempt from any blame pedestal following a loss also, because he is accountable just like everyone else.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Rob Staton, November 24, 2009
written by Rob Staton, November 24, 2009
I must admit I'm not a big fan of Russell Okung, who is hugely over rated. I'd give him a late first round grade at best. The best offensive tackle in this class (and it's a poor class) is Charles Brown from USC. He needs to add 15lbs (in the same way Jason Smith did last year and achieved that) but as long as it doesn't affect his athleticism, and it shouldn't he could be a substantial rise up the draft boards.
If Okung goes top ten, it's because some team over drafted him to fill a huge need in a year when offensive tackles are in short supply. But Brown, assuming he can add the bulk, is a step above for me particularly when it comes to footwork, assingment recognition and run blocking. There's not a great deal of difference in their pass protection skills, but Brown is the better package.
If Okung goes top ten, it's because some team over drafted him to fill a huge need in a year when offensive tackles are in short supply. But Brown, assuming he can add the bulk, is a step above for me particularly when it comes to footwork, assingment recognition and run blocking. There's not a great deal of difference in their pass protection skills, but Brown is the better package.
-
- +0
-
-
Everybody Wang Okung Tonight!
written by Synchro, November 24, 2009
written by Synchro, November 24, 2009
Funny I was just going to refer the Okung fans to your assessment and then you posted.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by bruto5676, November 24, 2009
written by bruto5676, November 24, 2009
Good Point 
i dont know why i used him lol. Theirs just ways outside of this franchise and whos on it to make it a better OL. Is the zone blocking rreally the answer? i thought we were guaranteed to be a top15 Rushing attack under knapp. what happens when knapp gets fired? is the zone blocking going down with it? another new system in 2 years? these are the questions i want answers to
i dont know why i used him lol. Theirs just ways outside of this franchise and whos on it to make it a better OL. Is the zone blocking rreally the answer? i thought we were guaranteed to be a top15 Rushing attack under knapp. what happens when knapp gets fired? is the zone blocking going down with it? another new system in 2 years? these are the questions i want answers to
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by What the, November 24, 2009
written by What the, November 24, 2009
Best case senario for the hawks would be to draft Suh 1st (although it would take a miricle for him to drop out of the top five.) Select Okong or Charles Brown with our 2nd first rounder and the best guard available Hudson, Lupati, or Justin Boran with our 2nd round pick.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
Nate dropped 8 passes in three games. Stats bedamnded, the guy drops passes as badly as D-Jack at his worst, yet doenst perform anywhere near Jacksons level. Nate hasnt even had a 700 yard season with us in four years. Thats just sad.
Burleson just cant be counted on to perform at an NFL level. Most games he utterly disappears, and he is horrible on third down with the dropsies.
I am just tired of waiting for a real number 1 WR to replace D-Jack, and irritated we are paying number 1 and number 2 money to number 2 and number 3 performing WR's.
And it bothers me that Hawkfans slobber all over him despite his inadequacies. As long as Nate isnt expected to be the main guys, he is a fine third option and a decent punt returner--though his punt returns this year have been as bad as Seneca Wallace's retarded running out of bounds business.
How many times has Nate had a 100-yard game in a tight game and caught the winning TD? Jackson did that regularly. I miss that, and Im very frustrated with our WR situation. And besides that I am grumpy today so please factor that in.
But seriously, taking a good hard look at Nate's career here, its been the most frustratingly undaracheiving mess ever at the WR position--right up there with Hackett's injury issues ruining a promising career and the whole Branch debacle.
Burleson just cant be counted on to perform at an NFL level. Most games he utterly disappears, and he is horrible on third down with the dropsies.
I am just tired of waiting for a real number 1 WR to replace D-Jack, and irritated we are paying number 1 and number 2 money to number 2 and number 3 performing WR's.
And it bothers me that Hawkfans slobber all over him despite his inadequacies. As long as Nate isnt expected to be the main guys, he is a fine third option and a decent punt returner--though his punt returns this year have been as bad as Seneca Wallace's retarded running out of bounds business.
How many times has Nate had a 100-yard game in a tight game and caught the winning TD? Jackson did that regularly. I miss that, and Im very frustrated with our WR situation. And besides that I am grumpy today so please factor that in.
But seriously, taking a good hard look at Nate's career here, its been the most frustratingly undaracheiving mess ever at the WR position--right up there with Hackett's injury issues ruining a promising career and the whole Branch debacle.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 24, 2009
And Carlson, while a monster talent and one of only a handful of REAL TE's left in the NFL, has dropped tons of passes and run horrible routes all year. The guy is definitely having issues adjusting to the new offense. Every time its third and long and he runs a pass pattern, Im screaming at him to turn his head, the balls coming early, we have no line! but the fool just runs his route like he has no brain, and Hass hits him in the back...Seriously, this has happened like 10 times this year. No wonder they keep him in to block.
Hopefully they teach him to turn his head a little early when the line isnt holding, and he plays up to his huge potential. But he really hasnt been that good this year. A major disappointment.
Hopefully they teach him to turn his head a little early when the line isnt holding, and he plays up to his huge potential. But he really hasnt been that good this year. A major disappointment.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by What the, November 24, 2009
written by What the, November 24, 2009
The whole offense seems confused the line doesn't know who to block, the recievers don't know what routes to run. Im suprised Matt's head hasn't exploded yet. We would be better off firing Knapp and letting Matt call the offensive plays in the huddle.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by nightwulf, November 24, 2009
written by nightwulf, November 24, 2009
From the look of things, between Lock and Willis, we have RT covered.
Unger needs to go to C and learn that position, he'll be there for a while. Which leaves us open at RG. We can get a good RG in FA. Jheri Evans is a free agent this year, and is a stud RG. Getting him would be huge.
C I just covered, and unless we can get Spencer to sign for a bargain basement price, let him shop around and find that no one else wants him.
Sims is a very good backup LG, if we can fins a good one in FA who just finished his rookie contract, we should go for him. Hudson is also an option.
LT, obviously, is something we MUST address in the draft. Phil, I love your optimism, but in reality, we have to act as if Big Walt is done, and regard it as a delightful surprise (and a gift from the football gods) if he proves us wrong.
Chris, I don't know what games you were watching where Spencer was playing decently, but from what I've seen, his "pass blocking' seems to consist of staying a half step away from Hass at all times...
If the draft were held right now, the Lions, TB, SL, and Cle would be picking before us. The Lions have Jeff Backus as their starting LT, and he's pretty decent. They have way too many holes to fill to be using their early 1st round pick to replace someone who is already doing a decent job, and is only in his ninth year. Tampa Bay has Donald Penn at LT, (don't know much about him, so I'm guessing he's nothing special, nor is he atrocious...and they also have a huge laundry list of holes to fill...
The Lambs have Alex Barron, and are in desperate need of WR's, a QB, and a host of other players...
Cleveland has Joe Thomas at LT, so I doubt they're in the market.
So, at the moment, we may well be still in the running for Okung...and if we miss out on him, we should be able to get Brown with our second pick...and if Hudson makes it into the second round, we have a very good chance at him.
Just for fun, if we got Suh, Brown and Hudson, that would fix most of our holes...(I think more highly of our receivers than most, because Matt hasn't had a chance to ever get set and make a decent throw...if Hass had ANY time in the pocket, I'd be willing to bet our WR's would look much better.I think Carlson's main problem is that he's having to do so much blocking that it's thrown his timing off...A better line would help that too...
All we need after that is A) a season for the line to gel (sorry, folks, no matter what we do, don't go buying SB tix for next year, we won't be there...
and B) we need Santa Claus to drop a kick ass RDE in our laps (or, next year, when we have a high draft pick again, find one in the draft...)
Unger needs to go to C and learn that position, he'll be there for a while. Which leaves us open at RG. We can get a good RG in FA. Jheri Evans is a free agent this year, and is a stud RG. Getting him would be huge.
C I just covered, and unless we can get Spencer to sign for a bargain basement price, let him shop around and find that no one else wants him.
Sims is a very good backup LG, if we can fins a good one in FA who just finished his rookie contract, we should go for him. Hudson is also an option.
LT, obviously, is something we MUST address in the draft. Phil, I love your optimism, but in reality, we have to act as if Big Walt is done, and regard it as a delightful surprise (and a gift from the football gods) if he proves us wrong.
Chris, I don't know what games you were watching where Spencer was playing decently, but from what I've seen, his "pass blocking' seems to consist of staying a half step away from Hass at all times...
If the draft were held right now, the Lions, TB, SL, and Cle would be picking before us. The Lions have Jeff Backus as their starting LT, and he's pretty decent. They have way too many holes to fill to be using their early 1st round pick to replace someone who is already doing a decent job, and is only in his ninth year. Tampa Bay has Donald Penn at LT, (don't know much about him, so I'm guessing he's nothing special, nor is he atrocious...and they also have a huge laundry list of holes to fill...
The Lambs have Alex Barron, and are in desperate need of WR's, a QB, and a host of other players...
Cleveland has Joe Thomas at LT, so I doubt they're in the market.
So, at the moment, we may well be still in the running for Okung...and if we miss out on him, we should be able to get Brown with our second pick...and if Hudson makes it into the second round, we have a very good chance at him.
Just for fun, if we got Suh, Brown and Hudson, that would fix most of our holes...(I think more highly of our receivers than most, because Matt hasn't had a chance to ever get set and make a decent throw...if Hass had ANY time in the pocket, I'd be willing to bet our WR's would look much better.I think Carlson's main problem is that he's having to do so much blocking that it's thrown his timing off...A better line would help that too...
All we need after that is A) a season for the line to gel (sorry, folks, no matter what we do, don't go buying SB tix for next year, we won't be there...
and B) we need Santa Claus to drop a kick ass RDE in our laps (or, next year, when we have a high draft pick again, find one in the draft...)
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by BillT, November 24, 2009
written by BillT, November 24, 2009
The one common theme among most of our comments seems to be that it ain't going to get fixed soon. Even if we get the players we need to fix the glaring holes, because the most glaring are on the offensive line, they will need a season to gel and whatever players we bring in will need time to learn our systems. Next season, we need to show progress but don't expect that team to be a real contender yet either.
That means we're going to have to settle for progress as our barameter until maybe 2011 or 2012 no matter what happens after this season is over. As I pointed out in a recent thread, Holmgren's Seahawks lost the 10th game of the season in 2002 (his fourth in Seattle) to Denver at home 31 - 9 to fall to 3 - 7. Deja vu strikes again.
Chris Gray (who was at the Minnesota game on the sidelines), brought the obvious comparisons to light and said that was when that team finally started getting it together and it was 3 more years until they finally got to the Super Bowl but they became stronger every year after that. If we get the players we need to form this young offensive line this coming off-season we've all been talking about, we're probably looking at a similar path as that 2002 Holmgren team had.
I just hope we're not going to all be in this doom and gloom frame of mind for the next year an a half until they have that chance to get the ship turned around and headed in the right direction. We're starting from a point of having quite a bit of talent on the team right now and with actually just a handful of pieces (albiet some of the most critical) to find and set in place to make that turnaround.
The alternative is to really blow it up and start from a much less talented position with an entire new staff and go through first the player purges as those players who don't fit the new regime's plan are released and new ones brought in. That is an even longer process but may be necessary if the team is in a similar state this time next year without any real progress to point to.
I think we fans had too high expectations when we thought that Mora was on staff for two years previous to taking over and therefore would just take over the team as if nothing had changed and we'd keep on truckin'. So did management. Well, we were all wrong. It was a much bigger change than anticipated and injuries, the potential retirement of our all-star LT and other factors showed us all it just ain't as easy as we all thought. NOw we're coming back down to earth and we hit hard but I think we're all grounded now. Liek most transitions in the NFL this one is going to take two or three years to bear fruit and we fans can be miserable along the way or enjoy the climb like we did with Holmgren. Before anyone goes off on me, I offer the disclaimer that this observation assumes that we show progress from season to season that justifies the journey. We won't know if that's happening until we go through our next off-season and see who we acquire and how next season is going. So relax everyone and resign yourselves that there are no quick fixes for this situation we're currently in.
That means we're going to have to settle for progress as our barameter until maybe 2011 or 2012 no matter what happens after this season is over. As I pointed out in a recent thread, Holmgren's Seahawks lost the 10th game of the season in 2002 (his fourth in Seattle) to Denver at home 31 - 9 to fall to 3 - 7. Deja vu strikes again.
Chris Gray (who was at the Minnesota game on the sidelines), brought the obvious comparisons to light and said that was when that team finally started getting it together and it was 3 more years until they finally got to the Super Bowl but they became stronger every year after that. If we get the players we need to form this young offensive line this coming off-season we've all been talking about, we're probably looking at a similar path as that 2002 Holmgren team had.
I just hope we're not going to all be in this doom and gloom frame of mind for the next year an a half until they have that chance to get the ship turned around and headed in the right direction. We're starting from a point of having quite a bit of talent on the team right now and with actually just a handful of pieces (albiet some of the most critical) to find and set in place to make that turnaround.
The alternative is to really blow it up and start from a much less talented position with an entire new staff and go through first the player purges as those players who don't fit the new regime's plan are released and new ones brought in. That is an even longer process but may be necessary if the team is in a similar state this time next year without any real progress to point to.
I think we fans had too high expectations when we thought that Mora was on staff for two years previous to taking over and therefore would just take over the team as if nothing had changed and we'd keep on truckin'. So did management. Well, we were all wrong. It was a much bigger change than anticipated and injuries, the potential retirement of our all-star LT and other factors showed us all it just ain't as easy as we all thought. NOw we're coming back down to earth and we hit hard but I think we're all grounded now. Liek most transitions in the NFL this one is going to take two or three years to bear fruit and we fans can be miserable along the way or enjoy the climb like we did with Holmgren. Before anyone goes off on me, I offer the disclaimer that this observation assumes that we show progress from season to season that justifies the journey. We won't know if that's happening until we go through our next off-season and see who we acquire and how next season is going. So relax everyone and resign yourselves that there are no quick fixes for this situation we're currently in.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
Billt--The one thing you refuse to address or consider is that the current coaching staff's schemes might just suck. In my opinion, unless every coach makes drastic changes, the best our team will ever do will be one and done in the playoffs, no matter how talented our personnell. For the money ALlen is spending, that is abject failure.
It isnt out of the realm of possibility that some, or all, of our staff is incompetent. Youre right that the line is so bad its hard to see the big picture, but some thing's are pretty clear: namely, that Knapp is a lousy play-caller in the red zone, that many of his plays look as if they were drawn up by a High Schooler, etc--and the defensive coaches seem even more clueless.
And I for one am not willing to give Ruskell 7 years (to 2012) to field a winning team. Ridiculous! I want to see MAJOR progress, or the coaching staff and FO deserve to get canned.
I certainly didnt enjoy Holmgren's "climb" the first few years--his ego ruined one season by refusing to start Dilfer and putting a very un-ready Hasselbeck in charge. Not until Hass finally got it together and the Hawks went 4-2 to close out the season, and the WCO offense finally began to click did I enjoy the climb.
And a ball-control offense and a majorly underachieving Tampa 2 defense dont seem like likely super bowl contending schemes to me.
I guess it boils down to if you believe in Mora/Knapp's ball-control ZBS offensive scheme and the Tampa 2 Ruskell D, and believe we can win a Super Bowl or two with those schemes. I suppose if you believe in the schemes, its worth waiting another two-three years to see a winning season.
I would have to say I had reservations from the start with both--and now I firmly beleive the NFL has figured out how to utterly stymie both schemes. So I now dont believe our current direction will bring us anything but mediocrity. I want to see this ship, scheme-wise, changing direction. And I am not willing to wait two-three more years for radical improvement.
And I dont think Allen is willing to wait that long either.
I also dont see whats wrong with voicing frustration--I'd say us Hawk fans have a right to be pissed!
It isnt out of the realm of possibility that some, or all, of our staff is incompetent. Youre right that the line is so bad its hard to see the big picture, but some thing's are pretty clear: namely, that Knapp is a lousy play-caller in the red zone, that many of his plays look as if they were drawn up by a High Schooler, etc--and the defensive coaches seem even more clueless.
And I for one am not willing to give Ruskell 7 years (to 2012) to field a winning team. Ridiculous! I want to see MAJOR progress, or the coaching staff and FO deserve to get canned.
I certainly didnt enjoy Holmgren's "climb" the first few years--his ego ruined one season by refusing to start Dilfer and putting a very un-ready Hasselbeck in charge. Not until Hass finally got it together and the Hawks went 4-2 to close out the season, and the WCO offense finally began to click did I enjoy the climb.
And a ball-control offense and a majorly underachieving Tampa 2 defense dont seem like likely super bowl contending schemes to me.
I guess it boils down to if you believe in Mora/Knapp's ball-control ZBS offensive scheme and the Tampa 2 Ruskell D, and believe we can win a Super Bowl or two with those schemes. I suppose if you believe in the schemes, its worth waiting another two-three years to see a winning season.
I would have to say I had reservations from the start with both--and now I firmly beleive the NFL has figured out how to utterly stymie both schemes. So I now dont believe our current direction will bring us anything but mediocrity. I want to see this ship, scheme-wise, changing direction. And I am not willing to wait two-three more years for radical improvement.
And I dont think Allen is willing to wait that long either.
I also dont see whats wrong with voicing frustration--I'd say us Hawk fans have a right to be pissed!
-
- +0
-
-
just to clarify..
written by Phil N dBlanc, November 25, 2009
written by Phil N dBlanc, November 25, 2009
My position on Walter Jones has not changed 1 centimeter in the past year-odd.
I felt last year from what I had read about microfracture surgery, that having him back for 2009 was excessively optimistic, having him back for 2010, seems like a realistic chance, and frankly, I would rather have Walter Jones at 75% than Locklear at 10,000% or most anybody else at 150%.
We obviously need to draft a slightly better than mortal LT and it needs to come in April. A QB of the future would also seem indicated (MH is only under contract through 2010 (IIRC) and is also getting older.)
Just sayin...
I felt last year from what I had read about microfracture surgery, that having him back for 2009 was excessively optimistic, having him back for 2010, seems like a realistic chance, and frankly, I would rather have Walter Jones at 75% than Locklear at 10,000% or most anybody else at 150%.
We obviously need to draft a slightly better than mortal LT and it needs to come in April. A QB of the future would also seem indicated (MH is only under contract through 2010 (IIRC) and is also getting older.)
Just sayin...
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by BillT, November 25, 2009
written by BillT, November 25, 2009
STTBM,
I have my limits on how long I want to wait to see progress too but if we're playing for the right to be in the conference championships by 2012 or actually there, even if we lose, that's not when I would pull the plug.
OTOH, if we're still mired in mediocrity in another couple years trying to get back to being a playoff team at all, that's enough for me too unless there are some very convincing mitigating circumstances. Ruskell and Mora have to show progress. I just don't think you can determine what could be achieved in the future by using a new regime's first season and one in which they started off with an unusually high number of injuries as your measuring stick. This off-season and next will go a long ways towards determining whether there's any hope for the current power structure.
If Mora and/or Ruskell don't want to fire Knapp and believe that his system will work with an offensive line rebuild, they are putting their fate in that same basket. If they don't want to build that great offensive line and as a result, the team doesn't improve, they will be held accountable. Even East coast sports writers who don't know anything at all about the Seahawks are saying Seattle's greatest needs are at left tackle and building their offensive line. If Ruskell/Mora can't see that, they deserve to be gone.
The whole front office and coaching staff will be under intense scrutiny this coming off-season to start fixing the core problems and not be applying bandaids. The fans also have to understand that there are no quick fixes and that they can only do so much in any given year. It's how they go about it and what they consider inportant that will be the telling evidence.
If we get at the least a young highly rated left tackle and guard this offseason and build that young offensive line, you have to give it a year or so to gel before you can say it was successful not try to determine that after the first two games into next season. Offensive lines take some time to gel and what you look for is them getting progressively better from game to game. If we end next season with a much improved offensive line, a better record, the offense showing that Knapp's scheme works, and the team poised to become a legitimate contender in 2011, that's progress and I doubt if anyone will still want to blow up the franchise at that point. If we're still where we are now with major holes to fill, still mired at the bottom of the standings, and with none of the off-season activities having made much difference, I'll personally lead the charge into Ruskell's fort to clean house as painful as it will be to know there's a rebuild on the way that will take several years to complete. At that point though, it will have become necessary.
I don't think we can determine if we're at that point now beause of the coaching, scheme, and core personnel changes that have just been made or will need to be made in the coming off-season. We need to clear the smoke and clearly see what we really have and what the current front office's understanding of the problem is before we make any stupid decisions and unfortunately that will take at least another year. I expect the true picture will be much better in focus by this time next year.
Unfortunately, all of us were wrong when we thought having our next coach on the payroll for a couple of years before he took over would insure a smooth turnover and allow the team to just carry on without a hitch. It turns out that any turnover in the NFL where you're bringing in a new set of coaches, schemes, and core personnel has a break-in period that will take time to implement and get everyone back on the same page. Nothing to be done about it but be patient until that point in time where the success of said implementation can truly be determined and then what is considered to be the best course of action has a good chance of being the right one. Right now, firing everyone in sight is a knee jerk reaction and could be exactly the wrong thing to do.
I believe that's why Paul Allen is a successful business man. He gives any course of action a chance to show it's true merits before prematurely cutting it off. Erickson, Whitsitt, and Holmgren the GM and coach were all give ample opportunity to show themselves to be worthy before being either let go or allowed to continue. None were fired after their first failure to make their course of action work and all were given enough chances to be sure that what was ultimately considered the right course of action in their final disposition was the right thing to do. I believe that the Ruskell/Mora team will be given that same opportunity.
Of course, that doesn't mean all of us armchair GM's, Head Coaches, and Coordinators can't give them all the advice we want along the way as they go about their respective chores now does it?
I have my limits on how long I want to wait to see progress too but if we're playing for the right to be in the conference championships by 2012 or actually there, even if we lose, that's not when I would pull the plug.
OTOH, if we're still mired in mediocrity in another couple years trying to get back to being a playoff team at all, that's enough for me too unless there are some very convincing mitigating circumstances. Ruskell and Mora have to show progress. I just don't think you can determine what could be achieved in the future by using a new regime's first season and one in which they started off with an unusually high number of injuries as your measuring stick. This off-season and next will go a long ways towards determining whether there's any hope for the current power structure.
If Mora and/or Ruskell don't want to fire Knapp and believe that his system will work with an offensive line rebuild, they are putting their fate in that same basket. If they don't want to build that great offensive line and as a result, the team doesn't improve, they will be held accountable. Even East coast sports writers who don't know anything at all about the Seahawks are saying Seattle's greatest needs are at left tackle and building their offensive line. If Ruskell/Mora can't see that, they deserve to be gone.
The whole front office and coaching staff will be under intense scrutiny this coming off-season to start fixing the core problems and not be applying bandaids. The fans also have to understand that there are no quick fixes and that they can only do so much in any given year. It's how they go about it and what they consider inportant that will be the telling evidence.
If we get at the least a young highly rated left tackle and guard this offseason and build that young offensive line, you have to give it a year or so to gel before you can say it was successful not try to determine that after the first two games into next season. Offensive lines take some time to gel and what you look for is them getting progressively better from game to game. If we end next season with a much improved offensive line, a better record, the offense showing that Knapp's scheme works, and the team poised to become a legitimate contender in 2011, that's progress and I doubt if anyone will still want to blow up the franchise at that point. If we're still where we are now with major holes to fill, still mired at the bottom of the standings, and with none of the off-season activities having made much difference, I'll personally lead the charge into Ruskell's fort to clean house as painful as it will be to know there's a rebuild on the way that will take several years to complete. At that point though, it will have become necessary.
I don't think we can determine if we're at that point now beause of the coaching, scheme, and core personnel changes that have just been made or will need to be made in the coming off-season. We need to clear the smoke and clearly see what we really have and what the current front office's understanding of the problem is before we make any stupid decisions and unfortunately that will take at least another year. I expect the true picture will be much better in focus by this time next year.
Unfortunately, all of us were wrong when we thought having our next coach on the payroll for a couple of years before he took over would insure a smooth turnover and allow the team to just carry on without a hitch. It turns out that any turnover in the NFL where you're bringing in a new set of coaches, schemes, and core personnel has a break-in period that will take time to implement and get everyone back on the same page. Nothing to be done about it but be patient until that point in time where the success of said implementation can truly be determined and then what is considered to be the best course of action has a good chance of being the right one. Right now, firing everyone in sight is a knee jerk reaction and could be exactly the wrong thing to do.
I believe that's why Paul Allen is a successful business man. He gives any course of action a chance to show it's true merits before prematurely cutting it off. Erickson, Whitsitt, and Holmgren the GM and coach were all give ample opportunity to show themselves to be worthy before being either let go or allowed to continue. None were fired after their first failure to make their course of action work and all were given enough chances to be sure that what was ultimately considered the right course of action in their final disposition was the right thing to do. I believe that the Ruskell/Mora team will be given that same opportunity.
Of course, that doesn't mean all of us armchair GM's, Head Coaches, and Coordinators can't give them all the advice we want along the way as they go about their respective chores now does it?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Papahawk, November 25, 2009
written by Papahawk, November 25, 2009
Cleveland has a LT. KC has one too. Oakland makes bad decisions. Nobody really wants a top five pick. Suh will be highly sought after. Okung could be there for Seattle. What's wrong with trading up to get a guy who you believe will be great? We traded up to get Walter, I'd say that did work out.
The question is: Is Okung more like Walter Jones or more like Alex Barron? I'd be happy with Suh, Berry, Okung, or any of the other studs. Really, the team just needs more dominant players. The way you get there is by hitting on your high picks.
The question is: Is Okung more like Walter Jones or more like Alex Barron? I'd be happy with Suh, Berry, Okung, or any of the other studs. Really, the team just needs more dominant players. The way you get there is by hitting on your high picks.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
Thanks for the thoughful and articulate response, Billt.
I never felt Erickson was given a fair shake, I wanted to see him given one more year. However, it was his own fault he signed Ricky Watters, then tried to ride him to the playoffs instead of integrating Ricky into our team built pass-first. And Holmgren was hired to replace him, so how could I complain?
Knapp is obviously calling plays much too conservatively in the red zone, and I havent seen that change enough to suit me. And I have yet to see a team build a perennial Super Bowl contender using decade old schemes and philosophies--which is what Ruskell Mora and Knapp are doing. I dont trust a ball-control offense with small lineman using the zbs, and I dont like not having a number 1 WR. I have a little more faith in the Tampa 2, but what I really want is to see some innovation, by coaches and coordinators, on both sides of the ball.
Holmgren's WCO has been pretty much the only offensive scheme that has worked well for decades and seems to work no matter what, as long as the players execute well. That said, I complained long and loud when Holmy got too predictable and wouldnt tweak his offense.(And those pathetic shifts and motions that started out looking like split recievers or trips, only to end up back in Holmy's Pro Set by the snap didnt fool anyone!).
IF our front office and coaching staff shows serious improvement soon, and shows some innovation and change, as well as acts aggressively to fix our broken (destroyed?) offensive line and woefully inconsistent defense, I wont scream too loud to see them return for a couple more years. But I want continued improvement, with no backsliding.
Otherwise, Im gonna be eating my heart out while Holmgren brings another franchise where we were only three years ago.
I never felt Erickson was given a fair shake, I wanted to see him given one more year. However, it was his own fault he signed Ricky Watters, then tried to ride him to the playoffs instead of integrating Ricky into our team built pass-first. And Holmgren was hired to replace him, so how could I complain?
Knapp is obviously calling plays much too conservatively in the red zone, and I havent seen that change enough to suit me. And I have yet to see a team build a perennial Super Bowl contender using decade old schemes and philosophies--which is what Ruskell Mora and Knapp are doing. I dont trust a ball-control offense with small lineman using the zbs, and I dont like not having a number 1 WR. I have a little more faith in the Tampa 2, but what I really want is to see some innovation, by coaches and coordinators, on both sides of the ball.
Holmgren's WCO has been pretty much the only offensive scheme that has worked well for decades and seems to work no matter what, as long as the players execute well. That said, I complained long and loud when Holmy got too predictable and wouldnt tweak his offense.(And those pathetic shifts and motions that started out looking like split recievers or trips, only to end up back in Holmy's Pro Set by the snap didnt fool anyone!).
IF our front office and coaching staff shows serious improvement soon, and shows some innovation and change, as well as acts aggressively to fix our broken (destroyed?) offensive line and woefully inconsistent defense, I wont scream too loud to see them return for a couple more years. But I want continued improvement, with no backsliding.
Otherwise, Im gonna be eating my heart out while Holmgren brings another franchise where we were only three years ago.
-
- +0
-
-
Coaches
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
I think that Mora should get another shot and I also think that Ruskell should be there with him being that Mora is Ruskells guy. I also believe that Ruskell does a good job of learning from his mistakes and is a shrewd busines man who is willing to take chances. Unfortuantly this has had both good and bad results but I agree with his hard stances. I also believe he is an aggresive drafter who will make moves. Bradley was highly praised by a very respected caoch and deserves another chance. Knapp however has not wowed me and and as much as I believe that people should get a chance to prove themselves sometimes you need to call a spade a spade. Knapp IMHO needs to go sooner rather then later.
I was a big proponent of Zorn being promoted to OC. I would still like to see how that would work.
If Holmgren was to be brought in I actually believe he would stay with Mora. Mora did work under Holmgren for two years and would therefore be one of his guys. I think he would also stay with Bradley. Who els would he bring in please not our last DC (Brain freeze cant think of his name) I was glad we finally got rid of him. I think that Holmgren knows offense enough to see Knapps short comings as a OC and fire him.
So Ruskell or Holmgren would be fine with me. I like Mora for now and think Bradley needs to be given time. Kanpp needs to go he just doesnt seem smart enough (perhaps i am wrong but that is what it appears to be).
I was a big proponent of Zorn being promoted to OC. I would still like to see how that would work.
If Holmgren was to be brought in I actually believe he would stay with Mora. Mora did work under Holmgren for two years and would therefore be one of his guys. I think he would also stay with Bradley. Who els would he bring in please not our last DC (Brain freeze cant think of his name) I was glad we finally got rid of him. I think that Holmgren knows offense enough to see Knapps short comings as a OC and fire him.
So Ruskell or Holmgren would be fine with me. I like Mora for now and think Bradley needs to be given time. Kanpp needs to go he just doesnt seem smart enough (perhaps i am wrong but that is what it appears to be).
-
- +0
-
-
Also...
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
I think that having Holmgren would make the possibilty of having Zorn return very high another of Holmgrens guys.
-
- +0
-
-
Another thought on holmgren mora combo
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
The more I think about Holmgren/Mora the more I like it. We would have a offensive minded GM who would be able to see offensive talent and yes I think Holmgren will have learned from previous mistakes he is too intellegent and introspective not to. Holmgren also understands the value of an OL.
Why I like the Mora side of the equation is that we would then have a defensive minded head coach who could advise and help identify Defensive talent.
Holmgren would make sure that we have the offensive talent to succeed (this is an offensive driven league after all). Mora would assure that our defense is playing hard and fast. Make no mistake a good offense can make a defense look great. The colts are a good example. They are a defense that plays with the lead alot they are built pin their ears back and attack.
It is also obvious that Mora has alot of respect for Holmgren which is why he stayed and turned down HC jobs elsewhere. I think this is a combination that would work great. I personaly love Ruskell and what he stands for but am leaning towrd Holmgren/Mora. It just seems like a match made in heaven.
Why I like the Mora side of the equation is that we would then have a defensive minded head coach who could advise and help identify Defensive talent.
Holmgren would make sure that we have the offensive talent to succeed (this is an offensive driven league after all). Mora would assure that our defense is playing hard and fast. Make no mistake a good offense can make a defense look great. The colts are a good example. They are a defense that plays with the lead alot they are built pin their ears back and attack.
It is also obvious that Mora has alot of respect for Holmgren which is why he stayed and turned down HC jobs elsewhere. I think this is a combination that would work great. I personaly love Ruskell and what he stands for but am leaning towrd Holmgren/Mora. It just seems like a match made in heaven.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by diehard82, November 25, 2009
written by diehard82, November 25, 2009
I made the assumption that our O-line hasn't received enough attention in the draft over the years and looked at the 12 best O-lines in the league (sacks, rushing/gm, subjective) and was shocked to see that only the Jets and Boys have expended higher picks on average than Seattle. It was also clear than most O-lines are filled with guys who went undrafted, but who are now in their late 20's, when men hit their physical peak from a strength stand-point. That said, in my humble opinion, drafting Okung and/or Hudson won't in and of themselves make us better next year. 4-5 years from now when they re-sign, sure. While not a huge fan of Spencer's play thus far, I'd like to see he and Sims re-signed as I think their best is yet to come. Locklear may not be elite, but if he can hold down LT in an average manner, that would probably be good enough. Thus, I'd much prefer to see Lock, Sims, Spencer, Unger, Willis with Frye and Wrotto for depth and spend a 5th round pick on OG like Zane Beadles (OT-Utah, but projected to OG). Spend the 1st round picks on D-line and a playmaker like DJ Spiller. I could see him in a Brian Westbrook role, 20 touches per game including rush/pass/return. He could turn a nice 15 yard play by Forsett or Jones into an 80 yd TD, and I think the Hawks need an offensive weapon that strikes fear in the opponents. We don't have that, all deference to Housh, Burly, JJ and Forsett.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
written by S.TTBM, November 25, 2009
diehard--I hear what you are saying. But I dont think the hawks need another small running back. Forsett is a very good change of pace back, and Rankin has even more speed and has decent size. Neither is a 25-carry a game guy, but they both could offer a good 1-2 punch along with O Schmitt for the heavy. What we need at RB is a star every-down back, or a brusier with speed like Jacobs--if we draft a RB high.
What we need is a real do-it-all WR, since we dont have one. Each of our WR's is limited in what they can do. Take a look at whats happening with Minnesota: three years ago they had NOTHING at WR, drafted and signed some young guys with size AND speed, and brought them along. Now they have 2-3 very good up and coming WR's.
Contrast them with the idiots Ruskell brought in who were also severely limited athletes--one great athlete non-football player (Kent), and a bunch of blocking WR's who havent done squat because they lack the size and speed: Payne, Obo, Taylor (who should be on this team, not Obo). It didnt have to be this way, but Ruskell didnt do well evaluating WR's. One of the things we suffer the most from is a WR who can do it all--its much more difficult to gameplan for an offense if they have two do-everything WR's because you never know what they are gonna do. With Seattle, you know what routes each of the WR's cant do--and they all have these limitations--so I believe its easy to gameplan them.
Add to that an offensive system that looks so basic as to be silly, and its no wonder we cant move the chains, not including our atrocious line. So I want a WR with size and speed, if not two of them. A Sidney Rice or Visanthe Shiancoe.
I thought Frye and McIntosh played fairly well (Frye's last game he was hurting) so it might make sense to bring them back and lets see who is the best at each position. I still think we need to draft at least one lineman in the first--a LT or G so Unger can play C.
Not only that, we need a real DE, another large stud DT, and a CB with size and speed. Oh, and a safety would be nice. Man, looks like we better pick some of those guys up in FA because we dont have that many draft picks!
What we need is a real do-it-all WR, since we dont have one. Each of our WR's is limited in what they can do. Take a look at whats happening with Minnesota: three years ago they had NOTHING at WR, drafted and signed some young guys with size AND speed, and brought them along. Now they have 2-3 very good up and coming WR's.
Contrast them with the idiots Ruskell brought in who were also severely limited athletes--one great athlete non-football player (Kent), and a bunch of blocking WR's who havent done squat because they lack the size and speed: Payne, Obo, Taylor (who should be on this team, not Obo). It didnt have to be this way, but Ruskell didnt do well evaluating WR's. One of the things we suffer the most from is a WR who can do it all--its much more difficult to gameplan for an offense if they have two do-everything WR's because you never know what they are gonna do. With Seattle, you know what routes each of the WR's cant do--and they all have these limitations--so I believe its easy to gameplan them.
Add to that an offensive system that looks so basic as to be silly, and its no wonder we cant move the chains, not including our atrocious line. So I want a WR with size and speed, if not two of them. A Sidney Rice or Visanthe Shiancoe.
I thought Frye and McIntosh played fairly well (Frye's last game he was hurting) so it might make sense to bring them back and lets see who is the best at each position. I still think we need to draft at least one lineman in the first--a LT or G so Unger can play C.
Not only that, we need a real DE, another large stud DT, and a CB with size and speed. Oh, and a safety would be nice. Man, looks like we better pick some of those guys up in FA because we dont have that many draft picks!
-
- +0
-
-
STTBM
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
Visanthe Shiancoe is a TE. We have that in Carlson. This year is dissapointing for him for sure but he is still a good TE. If used correctly he can be that player but better IMHO.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
This are my 'two cents" :Ruskell, Mora and all of his coaches must be fired together with our trainers' staff (to many un-necessary "freak" injuries) Ruskell should have been dismissed right after the Hutch fiasco and not allowed to reduce this team from a SB participant to a bottom dweller. Mora "lost" this team after the game with the Bears when he blamed the kicker for the loss instead of blaming his own lousy play calling (that continues to this day).
My FO "dream team" is made of : Holmgren as the Prez, Eric Da Costa (Ravens'
Ozzie Newsome right hand, or Kokinis ( 14 years w/Ravens and ex Browns GM) for our GM and Brian Billick as HC. With Holmy naming the OC (himself or jim Zorn) and Billick getting whom he wants for the DC position. MH is an ICONIC figure in NFL for his offense mind: Billick is an defensive genius and (ex Raven ) GM to tie it all up.
I'd keep Rankin and MacIntosh . Try to trade Hill for 2nd or 3rd rounder, Try to rework Branch' contract; if not --let him go. Cut Kerney and trade JJ for anything of value.Lock and Burley should be on the "short leash" for the rest of this season.
As BobbyK (Seahawk insider resident poster) suggested , we should get our OGs through the FA market (Saints Jahri Evans and College from the Pacs) , and keep Ungar on C.
Our 1st selection should be Suh or the best LOT( Hope for Okung), with Denvers' pick we should take (my favorite) Cyron Black from LSU who can play both tackle positions ( big,bad, fast and tough). Now, if we can't take Suh with first pick, then our second pick should be NT Terrence Cody from Alabama. We may get lucky with Cyron Black in the second round. The only RBs I like so far are : Ingram from Alabama and Gerhart from Stanford. Since Locker will be taken before we pick, I wouldn't take anyone else in the first two rounds.Nor I care for any upcoming USC players.
My FO "dream team" is made of : Holmgren as the Prez, Eric Da Costa (Ravens'
Ozzie Newsome right hand, or Kokinis ( 14 years w/Ravens and ex Browns GM) for our GM and Brian Billick as HC. With Holmy naming the OC (himself or jim Zorn) and Billick getting whom he wants for the DC position. MH is an ICONIC figure in NFL for his offense mind: Billick is an defensive genius and (ex Raven ) GM to tie it all up.
I'd keep Rankin and MacIntosh . Try to trade Hill for 2nd or 3rd rounder, Try to rework Branch' contract; if not --let him go. Cut Kerney and trade JJ for anything of value.Lock and Burley should be on the "short leash" for the rest of this season.
As BobbyK (Seahawk insider resident poster) suggested , we should get our OGs through the FA market (Saints Jahri Evans and College from the Pacs) , and keep Ungar on C.
Our 1st selection should be Suh or the best LOT( Hope for Okung), with Denvers' pick we should take (my favorite) Cyron Black from LSU who can play both tackle positions ( big,bad, fast and tough). Now, if we can't take Suh with first pick, then our second pick should be NT Terrence Cody from Alabama. We may get lucky with Cyron Black in the second round. The only RBs I like so far are : Ingram from Alabama and Gerhart from Stanford. Since Locker will be taken before we pick, I wouldn't take anyone else in the first two rounds.Nor I care for any upcoming USC players.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
In other words :1st NT Suh (Nebraska),2nd OL Cyron Black(LSU),3rd OL Ulatoski (UT)or, RB Gerhart (Stanford) 4th OL Jerry (OleMiss)
Or, 1st OL Okung(OSU), 2nd NT Cody (Alabama),3rd Cyron Black OL (LSU) or, RB Gerhart (Stanford), 4th. OL Jerry (OleMiss)
The rest of the draft should be all DBs ( corners and safeties). Maybe a good QB if one falls to the 5th round.(Dan LaFevour from Central Michigan)
Or, 1st OL Okung(OSU), 2nd NT Cody (Alabama),3rd Cyron Black OL (LSU) or, RB Gerhart (Stanford), 4th. OL Jerry (OleMiss)
The rest of the draft should be all DBs ( corners and safeties). Maybe a good QB if one falls to the 5th round.(Dan LaFevour from Central Michigan)
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by BillT, November 25, 2009
written by BillT, November 25, 2009
I always get a huge laugh reading these 25+ move scenarios that people put forth that would fix the team and present us with a completely new team from the coaches down to half the starters in one fell swoop.
Real GM's put a lot of work into just engineering one or two such transactions a season plus creating a draft board and being very flexible as the draft proceeds and as players they wanted come off the board. Here we have around twenty five separate transactions that no GM could hope to make over a decade being touted as what we should do in one off-season.
Come on guys, get real.
Real GM's put a lot of work into just engineering one or two such transactions a season plus creating a draft board and being very flexible as the draft proceeds and as players they wanted come off the board. Here we have around twenty five separate transactions that no GM could hope to make over a decade being touted as what we should do in one off-season.
Come on guys, get real.
-
- +0
-
-
Right On!!
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
written by Texashawk, November 25, 2009
Thank you for saying that Billt. People need to remember that the real NFL is not a madden video game. You cannot engineer these type of moves in real life!!
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
Dear BillT, if "25+move scenarios" are to much for your intellect to comprehend, then you should consider reading just one per month and after "paying deep thoughts" ---read another one. I am glad you got a good laughter from my post.
It was intended for more intelligent audience though.
It was intended for more intelligent audience though.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
written by makhawk, November 25, 2009
WOW, this blog is starting to look like "One flew over the cuckoos nest" to me.
I am out of here.
I am out of here.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by TacomaHawk, November 25, 2009
"Billick is an defensive genius and (ex Raven )"
- Wasn't Brian Billick an offensive coordinator??
written by TacomaHawk, November 25, 2009
"Billick is an defensive genius and (ex Raven )"
- Wasn't Brian Billick an offensive coordinator??
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by MMF, November 25, 2009
written by MMF, November 25, 2009
We only need one move Bill and you know deep down what it is.We can make it sooner or we can make it later but how can it not be made.The Ruskell experiment has failed.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by jeff bernard, November 25, 2009
written by jeff bernard, November 25, 2009
Wow Like I said before Lets play war Who do you want in your foxhole.choose one (A) Timmy ruskell (B) Mike Holmgren (C) BillT. Makhawk Lots of interesting stuff. I liked it, and you are absolutly right it has been crazy in here lately.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by jeff bernard, November 26, 2009
written by jeff bernard, November 26, 2009
Would this new team produce more than 7 wins in the next 26 contests? I wonder, People stop making losing acceptable. Losing sucks.Everyone earns a paycheck in this league. they are Pros. UNACEPTABLE work.
-
- +0
-
-
NO FA OL?
written by bobbyk, November 26, 2009
written by bobbyk, November 26, 2009
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jahri Evans an UFA at RG? He's also the best RG in the NFL, right (say "yes" or you're wrong)? How can someone say we can't sign someone to make an immediate impact on the OL?
And to say Okung is a future Walt? I doubt the teams who drafted Tony Mandarich, Robert Gallery, etc. thought they were going to get crappy left tackles either. At least Gallery is a decent guard.
And to say Okung is a future Walt? I doubt the teams who drafted Tony Mandarich, Robert Gallery, etc. thought they were going to get crappy left tackles either. At least Gallery is a decent guard.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Unger looks very mediocre to me, but I think he has the talent to play G or C. I want to see what he can do at C before this season is over. He may or may not be big enough to cut it in the NFL, but I think he's got the smarts and work ethic to do it. And Spencer has proven how important it is to have a smart guy at C.
I would love to land either Okung or Huson, but I doubt we get Okung at 5. He will be gone by the third pick. Sims has stepped up and played better, but if Hudson is there you take him. Willis is a pretty good RT, better than Lock, but his knee issues are a huge concern. I believe he is signed through next season though. His knee is also part of the reason the coaches dont really want him at RG--he isnt agile enough to pull--which is what ZBS G's do.
Lock is overpaid and hasnt been very healthy or played well for a couple years. IF we can replace him with someone better at RT we should. Wrotto aint cutting it, and neither is Vallos though he had his moments.
I still think we need to resign McIntosh, who played well (better than Lock--so why isnt he starting?!) and sign at least two starting-caliber lineman from FA. Let them all compete at thier natural position--no more shuffling--and see who wins the spot.
Ruskell has got to realize his handpicked guys arent starting-caliber talent, with the exception of Willis the chronically injured, and Unger the young and mistake prone. Time to fix your mess--in a hurry this time Timmay! This has been going on for 4 years, enough is enough!