Here's to Health in 2009
First off, there's the receiving corps. Right now we're running a Robinson-Colbert-Engram split end, flanker, and slot rotation. It's not terrible, but it could be better. And in 2009, it will be. Assuming we keep Robinson (and why not, he's cheap and has been very good) we could potentially run sets of Branch-Robinson-Burleson-Taylor. It will be a position of depth with Kent, Bumpus, and potentially a draftee taking a bigger role. The receiving corps next year shapes up to be sure-handed and athletically gifted.
Secondly, the quarterback position. We've seen three quarterbacks line up under center for our beloved Seahawks this year, all due to a hit that should have been considered illegal on Matt Hasselbeck. Admittedly, he was hurting before then, but the prognosis of his injury seems to be better than we expected. Can we count on Hasselbeck in 2009? The man is a warrior, it's hard to say no, but we'll have the second half of the Season to see if his back injury hinders him from being an elite, championship-level quarterback in 2009. With a guy like Hasselbeck, my money is on him returning to form.
Next, Red Bryant has turned into quite the monster at defensive tackle. Paired with Brandon Mebane, it's possible we won't even look to re-sign Rocky Bernard. And if we do, great, we have incredible depth. Patrick Kerney being out isn't as terrible as we may think, because it gives Lawrence Jackson some time to learn on the job is a lower-pressure situation. It's not impossible that we draft another end this offseason, but a mature Tapp and Jackson will look good. Anything Kerney can give you in 2009 is just gravy.
Additionally, Locklear missed the start of this season, so our line took some time to get up to full strength. Not to mention Rob Sims missing the entire year is a little bit of a drawback. However, we may learn that Willis can be an even better right guard than Sims. It's a positional battle that leaves the Hawks well-served either way, as we have a good right guard and good depth behind him.
Add all this together with a new, modernized coaching staff (hey, we may even get a shotgun formation!) and most likely (hopefully) a new Safety to replace Brian Russell as well as any standouts from the draft (long-term replacements for Walter Jones, and/or Hasselbeck), the outlook on 2009 can't be anything but bright. Lofa's injury wasn't serious, and the biggest thing we may have to deal with is losing Leroy Hill. Worse comes to worse, the Seahawks can compete with D.D. Lewis taking Hill's spot. Injuries happen; they're a part of the game. But it's safe to assume the Seahawks won't be this injured in 2009. The thought of this team being healthy in 2009 should strike fear into the hearts of teams all around the NFL.
Here's to health in 2009.
(Tagged players are those with injury issues, those who may depart in free agency, or horrible horrible players. Kind of crazy to realize just how many Hawks got injured this year, huh?)
3 recs |
12
comments
Read Related
Comments
Nice post.
Add in the development of Josh Wilson, and (hopefully) some steps forward for Kelly Jennings and we have the makings of the very good defense we should have had this year.
by Phildopip on Nov 10, 2008 2:32 PM PST 0 recs
Agreed on the optimism.
Though I am always optimistic!
The injuries have really murdered us this year, let’s just hope it was an aberration and not symptomatic of our strength and conditioning staff.
by djafrot on Nov 10, 2008 3:18 PM PST 0 recs
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this.
What we have is a team with some good talent that’s both underperforming and dealing with a ludicrous number of injuries. I don’t think we even need to think in terms of rebuilding, but rather tweaking.
We’re lucky. There aren’t a whole lot of teams with this record that can look towards next season and be legitimately excited.
by BrianL on Nov 10, 2008 3:47 PM PST 0 recs
I'm not really an optimist
But I definitely understand what you’re saying. No exaggeration when I say we’re the team most affected by injuries this season. In 2009 we’ll see Pro Bowl years from Truf and Wilson, with 24.5 sacks by Brandon Mebane. Worst case scenario, we’ll see 202 tackles with 20 INTs by Brian Russell. Hows that for optimism? Boo-yah-ka-sha!
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Nov 10, 2008 5:02 PM PST 0 recs
Well there's optimism
then there’s drinking the Kool-aid.
by BrianL on
Nov 10, 2008 5:26 PM PST
up
0 recs
Branch-Robinson-Colbert-Burleson
Don’t you mean Branch-Robinson-Engram-Burleson?
Still, that receiving corps looks mighty sharp, especially compared to what we had to deal with this season.
by aerozeppelin on Nov 10, 2008 8:19 PM PST 0 recs
I doubt we re-sign Engram. He's getting old.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on
Nov 11, 2008 12:31 AM PST
up
0 recs
I doubt Rocky will be back =(
And I have my doubts about Weaver, Branch, and Engram. This is going to be a very, VERy interesting offseason.
Dick Dastardly and Muttley with sick laughter
by Wayward Llama on Nov 10, 2008 10:03 PM PST 0 recs
Optimism is great
but there are issues other than just injury and bad luck to think of. Will Hasselbeck be able to succeed in a Coryell offense given that his greatest weakness is throwing an accurate deep ball? Will Branch’s WCO skillset translate? Will our O-line, not generally known for it’s sustained pass blocking, be able to hold long enough for a vertical offense to work? Will we have a new defensive coordinator? One that can best utilize our defensive talent? Can we find a receiver whose hands aren’t crafted of Blue Utah Granite?
I have hope but will feel much better after a couple of well executed preseason games.
by Majic on Nov 11, 2008 7:30 AM PST 0 recs
Why assume Coryell-style offense in the future?
Just curious, because I’ve seen that thought repeated in a few other threads as well.
But what’s the evidence to suggest that the team will make a dramatic change in offensive scheme? AFAIK, Mora should have no problems keeping a WCO-based attack. There’s the possibility Haskell could remain as OC and be given greater control of things (since Mora’s a D guy). Or, if all the rumors about Mora being tied to Knapp as OC are true, he ran a WCO in San Fran and ATL.
I heard a lot of the Coryell talk when Solari came on as OL coach – I guess because he worked under Saunders in KC. But Solari also has strong WCO ties – he coached TE’s and OL for 5-6 years in San Fran in the 90’s. It’s not like the OL schemes between the 2 offenses are drastically different.
If I had to bet on it, I’d wager the ‘Hawks stay a WCO based team after Holmgren’s gone, albeit one that’s probably a little more run-heavy in the play calling.
by jteckmann on
Nov 12, 2008 1:44 AM PST
up
0 recs
I think that's probably true
There were threads of evidence that supported Seattle might switch, but nothing conclusive. I can say at least this with confidence, they won’t adopt an offense that plays against Hasselbeck’s strengths. If they make a switch, they will so gradually.
by John Morgan on
Nov 12, 2008 12:37 PM PST
up
0 recs














