| 02 September 2009
Tim Ruskell is in his contract year. This is the year when a sports figure is supposed to put his best foot forward and prove he's worth his next big contract extension. Paul Allen hasn't made a peep about a contract extension but that's not unusual for him. He's let more than one employee play out their final year before extending his employment including Holmgren.
There has been speculation that Allen might be talking with Mike Holmgren about coming back as GM next season but I think that's a long shot and so does Mike Sando. He wrote a piece about Holmgren last week and the fact that he had a conversation with Paul Allen. Then he answered a question from Kris from Everett in his mailbag today concerning the same subject. There's a couple of things that point to that not happening. First of all, Holmgren's already had a shot at the title of GM/Head Coach and ended up with results that were less than stellar. If they brought him back as the GM only, whoever was Head Coach would be in an uncomfortable position to say the least. Holmgren would of course insist that he bring in his own coaches and players. I doubt that it would work out with Jim Mora working for Holmgren so Mora would have to be fired after only having one year in which to implement his scheme and bear fruit. To put it simply, that's not Allen's way.
Holmgren, although having a much greater reputation that Mora, was given 5 years with no real improvement in the Seahawks record before he finally got the team staffed to his satisfaction and finally started to make progress. Allen has always given people he's hired the support and time to effect the changes they were brought in to make before being dismissed not only on the Seahawks but also on the NBA Trailblazers and his personal empire. It would be very much out of character to fire Mora after only one year particularly if he shows good progress with the team this year. Right now, there is a lot of excitement about the Seahawks that is expressly because of Mora and how he's handled the team so far. To continue reading the article click on Read more... below.Now, let's talk about Ruskell himself. He has a Super Bowl appearance and three NFC West titles on his Seahawks resume. Then, last year, he added a 4 - 12 season. Some fans have tried to give everyone but Ruskell credit for the three good seasons and all the credit for last season soley to him but that's not the way it works. If the buck stops there, it stops there good or bad. Ruskell has made some mistakes and fans have debated whether those mistakes were his to bear or ones that any GM would make in the normal course of attending his duties. The biggest debates concerned the Hutchinson move to Minnesota, trading a number one pick for Branch, and then some of his first round draft selections. Other concerns were about how he has gone about staffing the Seahawks and whether he has paid attention to both sides of the ball adequately.
He has done very well in the draft as Sando shows in this article showing the numbers of draft choices that are still on NFL rosters for the NFC West and comparing them to NFL averages. Seattle beats the NFL average for every year that Ruskell was here. Except for his first year when he had little time to prepare for the draft having been hired just two months before the draft took place, every draft choice he selected either made the final roster or practice squad in the year they were drafted. He still retains over 90% of his players from all years except 2005 when as noted, he couldn't make his usual thorough preparations. Ruskell has shown himself to be a very fine evaluator of talent as compared to the NFL as a whole. For those weekend warrior prognosticators who use their excellent hindsight to point out who Ruskell might have drafted, I say try doing it on draft weekend rather than one or two years down the line when it's obvious to everyone who could have drafted who. In re-drafts held periodically a year or two after the fact, not many GMs choose the same players again except maybe the very top choices and not always then. No one can accurately predict who will prove up and who won't. Ruskell has shown that he's one of the best at it over the years he's been here by how many of his choices make the team.
If we look at his contract year so far, he's hired a new head coach (actually hired last year but this is the effective year of his employment), had a very good draft by most everyone's assessment to include not only fans but sports analysts and writers (as calculated at this point in time and before anyone knows who will prove up and who won't), and he owns the rights to Denver's first round selection next year pretty much assuring that the Seahawks will have a chance at good players from the college ranks next year. He made trades and free agent acquisitions that brought us Colin Cole, Cory Redding, Ken Lucas, and T.J. Houshmandzadeh which have been instrumental in bolstering the Seahawks defensive line play which has been heralded by defensive coaches and Mora as very good so far in preseason as well as the receivers corps. Defensive coordinator Gus Bradley and defensive line coach Dan Quinn both said that they've never seen as many good defensive linemen on a team before final cuts in their careers recently in interviews. Most fans are salivating at the prospects at wide receiver this season and with Matt healthy, it looks as if we'll be fielding a potent arial attack once again. Without Lucas and with Trufant's injured back, we would have been looking at a disaster at cornerback if not for the Lucas signing. He's also uncovered a free agent in Michael Bennett who has a good shot at making the team or at the least, the practice squad if he clears waivers. Bennett is tied for third in sacks in the NFL this preseason. Not a bad piece of work for a contract year.
However, he has been unable to do the same for the offensive line and with Trufant injured, for the cornerback position. Although he's drafted or acquired through free agency offensive line players throughout his tenure here including Spencer, Sims, Willis, Williams, Vallos, Unger, and Wrotto, he's still having depth problems at left tackle due to Walter Jones being on his last legs and at center where Spencer has not improved as fast as the team had hoped and has been often injured. Criticism has been directed at Ruskell for not applying more attention to those specific areas of need over his career with the Seahawks and letting the problems fester until we're at a critical juncture this season with the offensive line which has been mentioned by almost everyone as the Seahawks biggest area of concern going into the 2009 season. Although cornerback was an area we didn't figure to be critical, when Trufant became injured a week before training camp started, it looked as if Ruskell might have had better depth there too but I'll be quick to point out that you can't cover every aspect of your team with extra depth just in case someone gets injured as there aren't enough roster spots to do so. While Walter Jones could be said to have been no surprise with his recent problems in past seasons, Trufant was a genuine surprise injury and not one that any GM could be totally prepared for.
Not many GM's in the league could boast 3 division titles and a Super Bowl appearance in his last 4 seasons going into this one. In fact, you could count those on one hand and leave your thumb out of it but it's a "what have you done for me lately" league these days. If Ruskell gets credit for a Super Bowl appearance in his first year when he was barely on board before the season started, he also gets the black mark of a 4 - 12 season last year when freak injuries took their toll. In truth, he probably wasn't much responsible for either one but that's the way the cookie crumbles in the NFL. If the Seahawks have another sub par year, I would say that Ruskell will have to account to Allen for it and the Ruskell/Mora era could be in jeopardy. On the other hand, if the Seahawks finish at or above .500, I think that Ruskell and Mora will be given more time to perfect their act as many others have by Paul Allen in the past and we'll see this team move forward from the beginnings we've been witnessing this season at it's inception.
As always, your comments are solicited and welcomed. Let's also try and show some respect for our front office here and refrain from using derogatory names when talking about them. Let's be a class act like I know we are. So, does Allen hire Holmgren and fire Mora without having a real chance like his predecessors got? Is Ruskell really on the hot seat and gone if he doesn't have a pretty good season or does he get a mulligan for last season due to all the injuries? What's your opinion of how well Ruskell's done over his tenure here in Seattle. Is he really one of the best GM's in the league today and worthy of a contract extension or just average or even sub par? You Addicts have the chance to set the world straight here so sharpen those pencils and get in the debate. This one should be a hornets nest with all the strong feelings that have been expressed on this blog concerning Ruskell over the last couple of years now. Let's hear from you guys and gals!
Hasta,
BillT
written by MMF, September 03, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by realspd, September 03, 2009
The secondary maybe wouldnt have been such a problem if we stopped drafting undersized CB's.
Ruskell is charged with:
Losing hutch;
Drafting small cb's;
Patching RB situation only to have them underperform and cut half the solution 1 year later (TJ);
Trading for Branch giving up 1st round pick for a solid #2 at best wr;
Continuing problems with WR talent - draft choices never developing, Nate never living up to solid #2 status;
2 first round picks w/ virtually no return (branch, lo-jack);
No QB of the future on the roster (maybe, maybe Teel but its way to early);
Complete failure to draft or bring in O-line help that was sustainable (whale was a good try though);
Having 2 kicker on the roster;
Not firing Marshall;
Brian Russel, nough said;
Credits include:
Gems at LB and in late rounds
Building solid D line depth (this could be argued though, this year looks great but we thought they did in previous years too but they have never really lived up to expectations -and a 1st round pick on Low jack seems to have been a miss);
John Carlson
; It seems like the problems are worse than the successes to me.
The arguement that we have more players on the roster that are drafted seems a bit skewed, we drafted Coutu who is on the roster and players like Jennings who probably shouldnt be playing execpt in dime situations. Just because you drafted them and they are still on your team doesnt actually mean they are any good it just means either you dont have anyone better or the organization wants to see them play.
-
- +0
-
-
written by AK Seahawk, September 03, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ryan Romano, September 03, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Seahawk Addicts, September 03, 2009
Would you rather Ruskell have signed that? Yes, he should have put the franchise tag and not the transition tag on, but a) Hutch was and is clearly the best guard in football, there's a chance someone would have coughed up the picks for the same poison pill laden contract; and b) Hutch wanted out and chose to leave the Seahawks.
I would much rather have a sub-superstar guard than a $49 million guaranteed contract out there.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Don Millard, September 03, 2009
I believe that the bottom line (wins/losses) is the best judge of Ruskell's work rather than individual transactions. The Seahawks did better with the Ruskell & Holmgren team than they did with the Holmgren & Holmgren team. Last year was an anomily (sp?) due to the unprecedented coaching situation and injuries beyond reason. I think Ruskell has earned the right (in Allen's eyes) to see what he can do with his hand picked coach.
-
- -1
-
-
written by MMF, September 03, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mook33, September 03, 2009
Another strength is getting quality players from round 2 on. Unfortunately, he hasn't gotten much impact from the 1st round. I think a little bit of that is his philosophy of drafting 4 year guys with proven track records that their ceilings are not too high but their floors are not too low either.
Honestly, if he could draft better in the first round, I think we have one of the top GM's around. He made a calculation error with Hutch that was a mistake, but it was a loophole that screwed him. Maybe he should have forseen that but it hadn't been exploited before or since to my knowledge (other than our retaliation with Nate).
Keep him around and hopefully Paul will have a heart to heart about improving the 1st round picks.
-
- +0
-
-
written by pawleec, September 03, 2009
As a long time fan, it pains me to say this, but when Ruskell got hired the hawks were a bunch of losers. Holmie had been here 6 years (close to getting fired) and the had not won a playoff game in over 22 years!! They were a bunch of chokers. Ruskell got rid of bad apples and replaced them with Darby, Fisher, Jerovious, Tatupu etc. All high character guys
He hasn't missed on a big Free agents, all have gone to Pro bowls...JP, Kerney, and TJ will. Name another Free agent a Seattle GM has signed and continue to go to a pro-bowl after signing? WHy doesn't he get credit for those decisions?
This year he's finally out of Holmgren shadow. He finally has HIS coach, a defensive guy. I liked Holmgren, but the game has passed him by. The hawks will be tougher and better coached this year.
-
- +0
-
-
written by BillT, September 03, 2009
I think he did pretty good with his first rounder this year. It's much harder to hit on first rounders in the bottom 10 picks of the first round that the top ten or even in-between. None of his first round picks was a reach where he picked them and the jury's still out on at least one of them (Jackson, who is considered number 4 on the list of the 10 Seahawks who will lead this team in the future according to Scout.com analyst Chris Steuber - See Chris Sullivan's article which provides the link to Steuber's work).
Four picks in five years isn't much of a statistical sample either. If he hits two more in the 2010 draft using Denver's pick and ours, he's batting .500 at the very least and that's probably as good or better than most GM's in the league who aren't drafting at the top of the heap every year.
Better to judge his first round hit/miss track record after he's been a GM for 10 to 15 years and has enough picks to smooth out good and bad runs. Like I said, if Spencer, Jennings, and Jackson are his first three (not a real good run), then Curry and two good picks next season constitute a run of three good ones in a row and bring his percentage from 25% now to 50% in one year.
Ruskell is just now entering his 5th year of being an NFL GM and being in charge of all aspects of the team. His first 4 were spent in the shadow of Mike Holmgren who had influence with Ruskell's boss and didn't share at least some of his philosophies. I'm sure Holmgren had a say in the direction their draft board was stacked and about final picks too so he's just now entering his first year as an NFL GM where he's firmly in control and doesn't have to be looking over his shoulder for a big man on a Harley stalking his every move.
For any normal GM job, this would be his first year after bringing in his own coach and truly having the control to not be second guessed by a powerful future HOF entity. This is now truly the Tim Ruskell show and what happens from here on out is truly on his watch and his watch alone. I think he deserves a chance to show that his plan administered without any opposition will work and get the job done. Of course, if the whole thing crumbles now, it's totally on his head and he should bear the consequences but if it turns out good, shouldn't he also reap the accolades?
-
- -1
-
-
written by kelphelper, September 03, 2009
we'll now see how well he picks coaches. mora looks the part, but we won't know how well-coached the team is until we actually start playing real games. this will be the real measuring stick for ruskell.
(and about the hutch fiasco: ruskell did go after dielman, who just used the offer to up his salary in sd. personally, i think we are better off in the long run without a $50 million guard..)
i cannot see paul allen changing everything around after one season in the new set-up.
-
- -1
-
-
written by andymuhs, September 03, 2009
-
- -1
-
-
written by S.TTBM, September 03, 2009
"For those weekend warrior prognosticators who use their excellent hindsight to point out who Ruskell might have drafted, I say try doing it on draft weekend rather than one or two years down the line when it's obvious to everyone who could have drafted who."--Billt
Not very classy to take a preemptive strike at anyone who might possibly read the tea leaves differently than you.
As for me, most of the players I had issues with Ruskell drafting at the time are the same ones I have issues with now. Jennings, Wilson, Greene, Jackson to name a few--all seemed big unnecessary reaches that overvalued character and undervalued measurables. Seemed that way at the time, seems that way now. Am I qualified to be an NFL GM? No. Am I qualified to take issue (via blogs) with my teams GM when I think he's made poor decisions? You bet your ass!
A GM is judged based on how his players turn out, now how good/bad his draft seemed at the time. And yes, if too many top picks dont turn out, a GM as involved in those choices as Ruskell takes the blame. Hindsight may be 20/20, but many people--bloggers, fans, sportswriters, ex-players, etc--took issue with these picks. So the criticism isnt just hindsight and sour grapes.
I feel Holmgren deserves most (not all) of the credit for our great seasons from 2005-2007. The offense that was built by Holmgren--and his play-calling--carried our team year after year, even several years into Ruskell looting it and dumping it into the defense--which has underperformed every year after 2005.
Ruskell deserves a good chunk of the credit for our Super Bowl appearance because he is the one who brought in the offensive and defensive free agents that put us over the top that year. Jurevicius on offense, and a host of second-tier free agents that worked like gangbusters on defense--for a year.
The last two or three seasons, it became apparent Rusekell was building a team for the Post-Holmgren years, not building one for Holmgren. The two-man tug of war was not working. Ruskells philosophies on having tiny DB's and rotating smaller shorter D-lineman failed, as did his theory that one doesnt need to draft O-lineman and WR's high.
Now we have a team nearly cleared of Holmgrenites, sometimes to the detriment of our talent and depth. Coach and GM are on the same page. So we will begin to see how good a GM we really have.
Its really too bad this is Ruskell's contract year. If we dont win a playoff game this year or we stink, the question of whether or not to extend Ruskell will be a tough one, at least in my mind. Especially because Ruskell likely wont sign an extension less than four years with a clause that pays him millions if he is fired. Anything short of a really good season will still leave questions about Ruskell.
If Ruskell had say two years on his contract, I still feel he would be even safer. Then, even if Mora and company had a bad year, it wouldnt be that big a deal to let him finish his contract--a-la-Holmgren. But as it stands, if his first year is a disaster I believe Ruskell may be canned. But barring a disastrous season, I think youre right Billt, and Allen extends him.
With Mora, its different, and I dont think Holmgren would necessarily be opposed to keeping him as his coach if hired as GM. Holmgren would probably want a new offensive coordinator, and as Knapps friend Mora might not go for that. So while not necessarily impossible, I think its a long shot.
My preference would be to give Ruskell another 2-3 years to see what this team can do now that he has it the way he wants and has his own coach. Given the money and freedom and the talent he started with, I feel Ruskell's Hawks should rank in the top 4 franchises in the NFL. If after 2-3 years we arent back up there, then maybe its time to look elsewhere for GM.
Plus, who else would we hire? Holmgren? Sure, but he wont wait--the guy will be GM or VP next year, if not here, then somewhere else.
My biggest issues with Ruskell's decisions over the last couple years are the C/RG/LT positions and the RB position. There really is no excuse for the failure of these positions given the money and time Ruskell has spent on them. I think it pisses me off so much because I saw it coming and he did exactly what I feared. And it looks even worse when seen in the light of all of Ruskells excellent decisions--the last two drafts barring Jackson, Housh, Cole, Redding, etc. How can you make such dumb decisions when youve just finished making so many good ones? I guess thats what it means to be human.
-
- +0
-
-
written by MMF, September 03, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by nightwulf, September 03, 2009
Loosing Hutch: Not his fault, he got blindsided by something he could not have foreseen coming. Could he have avoided it. sure, but he's not known for extending contracts before they end...
Drafting small CB's...did a bunch of research on this one, and it turns out, in hindsight, that he got the second best CB in each of those two drafts...and the best was long gone by the time we had a pick...CB's in the NFL are typically 5'10" to 6'...as I recall, Jennings is 5'11" and Wilson 5' 10"...would you rather have had a less skilled CB just because he was a bit taller?
I'll give you the RB situation, wiht the caveat that there are only so many holes a GM can fill each year...
Branch didn't have an injury history when we got him, and when he's been healthy, he's been a stud...
As it stands right now, Nate looks to be doing just fine as a #2, Housh is gonna be HUGE, Butler looks to be a serviceable #3, and Branch, used sparingly, could be very useful this year...the "young guns" of last year were mostly 7th rounders...not much of a surprise that they didn't light the league on fire...and there was this Jerevicous guy...
Already addressed the Branch situation, still waiting on LoJack...ask me this time next year...
Considering his amount of NFL experience, I'm really liking Teel, he looks better than Hass did when he came here, and at that time, Hass was a 2 yr vet...(of holding a clipboard, to be sure, but still...)
He went after Deilman instead of Faneca, only to find out that he was being used as a stalking horse...He did try with Whale, and it looks as if Sims may just be getting it (gasp)
Having 2 kickers on the roster...I don't get that one either...
Not firing Marshall? Holmy would've had a fit! (but I sure wish he'd have braved the wrath of Holmgren on that one)
Brian Russell looked like a decent pick up at the time, he was picked for his brains, rahter than his physical abilities...and there weren't that manh decent safeties available that year, we got about the best available with Deion.
He gets no credit for Mebane? No love for Unger?
Has he been perfect? Of course not...but he has most definitely been one of the better GM's in the league since he got here...Who would you replace him with? Holmgren? There's a reason Holmy got fired as GM...
Who else ya got?
-
- +0
-
-
written by nightwulf, September 03, 2009
until this year, Holmy was the man picking the QB's...So really, the only one that's truly his is Teel, and while it's way too early to tell, I'm liking what I see...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Scotia Seahawk, September 03, 2009
Tone was set at beginning. Agree, mildy disagree or GTFO because you don't know what you're talking about and I'll tell you why.
Personally I'm mild on Ruskell. Some good, some bad, some indifferent decisions. I think he plays a low baller game sometimes eg Hutch, Curry and then goes over the top eg Branch, Kerney, maybe Housh although he does look good so far
I would evaluate his decisions based on Free agency more than the draft. Does he get credit for Carlson btw? If so maybe he is the biz but who made the call on that one. It does seem strange how much love/hate he gets. The separation of powers in the NFL is interesting.
-
- +0
-
-
written by MMF, September 03, 2009
-
- +1
-
-
written by coach handbags outlet, September 08, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by ugg boots, October 20, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Coach handbags outlet, October 28, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ugg bailey button triplet, November 08, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by North Face UK, November 18, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by bridesmaid dresses, December 02, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
