The Top Ten Seahawks Stories That Weren't: #4: The Invulnerable Walter Jones
The end is near for Jones, but there's little reason to think he's any more likely to be injured this coming season than he was in 2006 or 2007. 34 sounds ancient in the sports world. It sounds especially ancient for football. But offensive tackles do not fit the standard aging curve. Concerns about Jones inability to take a pain killer stronger than Tylenol are no more valid today than they were last year or the year before. Jones has prospered despite that handicap. It is a handicap, no doubt, but we must conclude sometime in the last 12 seasons Jones has adapted. He's involuntarily missed but two games throughout his career. Discovery, it's one of the top 10 reasons I write this site. I think I just discovered Seattle won't need a new left tackle until 2011. -John Morgan
What a rube.
In retrospect, the entire reasoning behind this post was flawed. Did I expect the list of Hall of Fame enshrined tackles to be rife with malingerers and deadweights? That's assuming a list of three is capable of being "rife". Of my three examples, two, Anthony Munoz and Gary Zimmerman, ended their careers in part because of injuries. So too may be true of Walter Jones.
Jones underwent season ending microfracture surgery on December 11, 2008. I really don't know the severity of the injury. I do know that I can't cite a single case of successful microfracture surgery for an NFL lineman.
In my defense, the above was an island in a sea of draft a tackle,
1:43
Seattle has done many things well, but it frightens me that they - seemingly - fail to see offensive tackle as a need. It's a gamble and one with a serious cost. They need depth at the position, minimum, and I think Barton is a great value here...C'mon Ruskell, we need this.
Draft a tackle,
Combining the inherent value of the position, the age of the incumbent and the overall team depth, no position presents a greater need for Seattle than offensive tackle.
Draft a tackle,
Priorities
Draft a Long Term Replacement for Walter Jones
For most priorities I do not define exactly how the team should fill a need, but left tackle is an obvious exception. Top left tackles rarely see free agency, and when they do, are frightfully expensive. Further, this is a gangbusters draft for offensive tackle talent. If Seattle does not acquire a young offensive tackle this offseason, it will be hard to rate this offseason as anything but a failure.
Draft a tackle.
And a month later I would write:
In my soaring, many-buttressed vision of the 2008 season, a crack exists that spans roof to foundation. Best as I try, through faith and historical precedent, to patch that crack, it won't mend. And the ghouls that peak through, hungry, quick-footed and relentless, keep me awake at night.
Walter Jones is no longer the great left tackle he once was. The pattern of his failings makes me fear that injury, swift decline or an amalgam of each is very possible.
Seattle never signed a left tackle. Discounting Kyle Williams' brief and very tenuous success, Seattle never signed an offensive tackle of any impact. I was right with my criticism and wrong because my optimism. Blundering into the fourth spot gives Seattle a shot at almost any offensive line prospect they wish. In 2008, Seattle needed an offensive tackle. In 2009, Seattle is desperate for an offensive tackle.
0 recs |
159 comments
|
Comments
Which presents what could be an interesting dilemna:
If Stafford or Bradford are on the board, along with a top 2 or 3-rated offensive tackle, what is the move? What should be the move?
Furthermore, will there be OT prospects available in round 2 or 3 that could develop into a bookend tackle for us the next couple of seasons? Are there examples of such players? Your QB argument recently tells me that the QB is the tougher diamond to find later in the draft vs. the O-lineman.
Will our team give consideration to Jenkins?
by Misfit74 on Dec 30, 2008 2:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I know that I'm probably alone in this view here...
…but I would be mortified if we drafted a QB in the first
by Fearless Frog on Dec 30, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
because we don't need to rebuild, and we could draft at a position that could actually
come in and contribute rather than ride the pine for at least 3 seasons, and getting paid way too much. Plus, as soon as Hass has a bad game the idiot media and stupid fans will be calling for the new one to start. Also, we no longer have Holmgren to develop QBs.
by Fearless Frog on Dec 30, 2008 11:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True on all accounts, I agree.
But like John said, when you get the chance to draft a franchise QB, you damn well should.
I’m not all that excited about paying big bucks to a rook… though we’re going to have to fork out that much anyhow to whomever we draft. That’s why I really, really want us to trade down.
I think, however, that a franchise-type QB provides more than just good play. He brings a sort of energy to the franchise that attracts attention and makes bringing in quality FA’s and coaches to the team so much easier.
by djafrot on Dec 31, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stafford has looked terrible
today against MSU. He needs another year, or a team that can let him grow for two years. I would rather take Cantwell in the 4th and let him grow. Same potential.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Jan 1, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Based on Hass's injury history and age
I’d be thrilled if we took a QB in the first. Not every first round quarterback selection turns out to be Ryan Leaf.
by BrianL on Dec 30, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or.....
Rick Mirer or Dan McGwire….. or David Carr or Joey Harrington or Alex Smith.
The Seahawks QB history is not replete with 1st rounders. We have only ever had 2 first rounders start for us (Mirer and Dilfer) and we only drafted one of those (hint: not the one with a Super Bowl ring). Our most successful QBs include 4 undrafted guys (Zorn, Krieg, Moon, Kitna) and a 6th rounder (Matty; and yes I include Kitna in our list of successful QBs for that brief period of time in the late 90s when it was believed his mere presence on the field would turn back the clock and right all the wrongs).
Because QB is such an important position, the marginal examples get magnified, so maybe this is also true of a lot of other positions too, but it seems that there are numerous examples of 1st round busts or near busts, and also several high profile examples of late-round gems (Bulger & Brady were also 6th rounders).
The only truism I can deduce out of all this is that a QB’s chance of success if greatly increased if they can have a significant tutorial period under a very good or great QB. Matty benefited greatly studying under Favre and also having Dilfer around. Bulger learned under Warner, Brady under Bledsoe (though not for very long really), Young under Montana. So drafting a QB this year is probably a good idea, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be with the #4 pick.
by Kumar on Dec 31, 2008 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
John wrote a couple posts about this
but I think the last paragraph was the most compelling:
The real story of finding a great NFL quarterback is written: Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer…and not Drew Stanton, Jeff Rowe, Jordan Palmer, Charlie Whitehurst, Ingle Martin, Stefan LeFors, Adrian McPherson. Seattle has an excellent shot at the best overall quarterback in the coming NFL draft. It should not have such an opportunity again for at least a decade. A good team with a backbone of talent has the opportunity to draft a great quarterback to build its future around. I’ve yet to read a compelling argument why it shouldn’t. This is no slight of Matt Hasselbeck, who, beyond being 33, expensive, fit only for a short passing system, and perhaps chornically injured, is a free agent in 2011. It’s an acceptance of a need and an awareness of a great and truly rare opportunity.
Emphasis is mine. It’s not that there aren’t risks involved, but there are risks involved in any pick. And its not that you can’t find a QB in the later round, its that they’re the exception to the rule (just like any successful player taken late in the draft is). The first round is far and away populated with the most successful quarterbacks, probably even compared to all of the other rounds combined. The Hawks have an opportunity to draft a great player and when you look at how important a QB is to a football team you’d be remiss not to take a long hard look at one.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 11:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That paragraph should be bronzed and perminantly placed on the front page of this site.
by Jo-Jo on Dec 31, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It should be bronzed
for jumping to erroneous conclusions in a classic manner. Look at the rebuttals to that paragraph and you’ll find some great reasons for not wasting a high draft pick on a QB.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean the rebuttals from you and Right that were littered with logical fallacies?
Serious question time: why are you posting at FG? It seems that all you are here to do is pick fights with John, Doug, and other regular posters.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You should learn to appreciate good arguments
They lead to learning. “Me too” leads to nothing.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've learned a lot more from John than I have from your fallacious rebuttals.
Are you here for any other reason than to pick fights?
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think arguing about what is true is "fighting?'
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
`
It should be bronzed for jumping to erroneous conclusions in a classic manner.
There are much more tactful ways to disagree with someone.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you're complaining about lack of tact?
If so, how tactful is this:
“You mean the rebuttals from you and Right that were littered with logical fallacies? Serious question time: why are you posting at FG? It seems that all you are here to do is pick fights with John, Doug, and other regular posters.”
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This subthread is closed here.
Send me an e-mail if you wish to discuss this further.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They're not erroneous conclusions
you just differ with John and others about what you expect out of Hasselbeck next year. Or atleast thats what I’ve gathered from what you said in the two posts John had about drafting a QB.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 12:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hasselbeck
has a back injury that is very curable with exactly the exercize program he is using. This means that any quarterback drafted in any round is most likely going to be sitting on the bench for a year or longer.
No fallacies there.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Based an all of your posts
I’m getting the drift that you are vehemently opposed to drafting any player who will not immediately take any snaps. You’re caught up in the short-term gain while many others are looking at the long-term.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Not vehemently though. TheSeahawks can contend for the title next season. They will have a much better chance at the title with a player who can have an impact right away.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 4:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What's more important to you, though?
Contending for a title next season or creating a larger sustained window of opportunity?
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are not
mutually exclusive. An impact player next season will probably continue to be one into the future. Since the Seahawks have a Probowl level QB already on the team, along with a very very good backup, it seems like one of the postions that can wait a few years.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Likewise, competing next season and drafting a player who wont immediately contribute aren't mutually exclusive.
The more important question is this: Who is going to have the higher ceiling and contribute more in the long run, a 1st round drafted QB or someone else?
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don't think that's the right question
The right question to me is, which approach will give the Seahawks the best chance to win a championship? Let’s start off with one and worry about the subsequent ones later. I think many of the pieces are already in place now for a championship. Fill a hole here, draft an impact player there and Superbowl here we come.
Sit a high draft pick on the bench and subtract one impact player now and the chances of contending anytime soon are reduced aren’t they?
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate that perspective
However… the odds of a first round guy, no matter how high, turning into a MAJOR impact player right away is pretty slim. On average your typical first-rounder is, well… average.
The only player I can see making that big of an “instant” change is a WR… and WR’s take a notoriously long time to adjust to the WCO.
Compare all these questions with the opportunity to draft a franchise QB. We’re not just talking about a good player, either. The arrival of a franchise QB brings major mojo to an organization, allowing it better chances of bringing in FA’s and coaching staff.
ALSO: I don’t think we can underappreciate the potential of Hass tutoring a youngster for a couple of years.
by djafrot on Dec 31, 2008 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
Why can’t Ruskell, with the entire player pool minus 3 players, pick a major impact player?
Both times he has traded up he’s picked one, armed with the 4th overall pick and the 4th pick in the 2nd round, why shouldn’t he be able to get two impact players? If he is the talent evaluator some of us think he is this draft will really tell us.
Kind of like a punter, on a good team he might seem good, but you really find out what you have when you have a HORRID team and give him a true opportunity.
by cashless on Dec 31, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The title goddammit! v_v
If we won it all in 05 I wouldn’t care if we had losing seasons for the next 2 decades.
by Fearless Frog on Dec 31, 2008 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I read that whole line of comments
and I will post the same thing here as I did there
“The ‘Hawks are gonna get the 35th overall pick, which isn’t too terribly different than the 25th in talent based on needs. A high second round pick can come right in and start at the NFL level in many cases. So why not use the high first round pick to go after a QB.”
I used to share your opinion on this matter, and that post (along with the subsequent comments) made me think better of it. It was actually your comments that lead me to change my mind. You had no basis for your comments while Burke and John did a nice job of qualifying their position.
by Jo-Jo on Dec 31, 2008 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To build off that thought process a little bit
The Seahawks next year aren’t likely to look terribly different than the team we all expected to contend at the beginning of this year. The biggest changes are likely to come from three players: LeRoy Hill to free agency, Walter Jones if he can’t get back from injury, and Hasselbeck if his back continues to keep him out of games. A top 5 pick is great, but it’s not necesarily something this team needs. Using that pick on a LT or QB would build for the future and provide an insurance policy for two aging and rather important positions. You’re still able to fill in other spots (like, I don’t know, safety?) with the high second and third round picks.
It’s certainly not the only way to go, and there are both pros and cons, but I go back to that part about having this chance only once a decade, ideally, and find it hard to look outside LT or QB.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not the real story at all
If we operate under the assumption that “great quarterbacks win super bowls” then:
(Number of Super Bowls won in parenthesis)
Bart Starr was a 17th round pick (2)
Johnny Unitas was a 9th round pick (1)
Roger Staubach was a 10th round pick (2)
Ken Stabler was a 2nd round pick (1)
Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick (4)
Jeff Hostetler was a 3rd round pick (1)
Mark Rypien was a 6th round pick (1)
Steve Young was a 1st round supplemental draft pick (1)
Brett Favre was a 2nd round pick (1)
Kurt Warner was Undrafted (1)
Tom Brady was a 6th round pick (3)
Brad Johnson was a 9th round pick (1)
Additionally, there are four quarterbacks who were first round picks but Super Bowls with teams other than those who drafted them because they were widely considered to be busts (if assume that “great” quarterbacks taken with high picks generally do not leave their teams)
Len Dawson won a Super Bowl with his third team, the Chiefs, after stops in Pittsburgh and Cleveland
Jim Plunkett won a Super Bowl with his third team, the Raiders, after stops in New England and San Francisco
Doug Williams won a Super Bowl with his third team, the Redskins, after a stop in Tampa Bay and a season with the USFL’s Outlaws
Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl with his second team, the Ravens, after playing for Tampa Bay
To say that the way to find a great NFL quarterback is to draft one in the first round is to not look at the history of NFL drafts.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Super bowl victories can't be entirely attributed to the quarterback
There’s way too much outside of the control of the QB to make that a definitive measurement of QB success.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Which would be a great counter argument
If John hadn’t written an article titled “The Trend Fast Model For Winning A Super Bowl”, then written paragraphs about how that was to draft a quarterback early in the first round.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're missing the point just by a touch.
John was simply saying that QBs who put up good numbers, can run the offense well, and perform well relative to their peers provide a good foundation to create sustained success in the NFL. Those kinds of QBs are easier to find in the first round than in later rounds or free agency, so it makes sense to go after them in the first round.
The point was not to say that Superbowl victories is the way to measure quarterback success.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for Saving Me Trouble
This was the next thing I was going to look at, but now I don’t have to.
One note, Steve Young, at least, also won his Super Bowl with a team that did not draft him. He was originally in Tampa Bay and came to San Franciso as a consensus “bust.”
by Kumar on Dec 31, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
So obviously there are plenty of other ways to acquire a great QB, than spending a high draft pick on one because you believe your team is unlikely to have a high draft pick again for a while.
by VBJohnson on Dec 31, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fuck it then ...
let’s just sell off all our draft picks and build our team through other means.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 1, 2009 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No..
just don’t focus on QB for the first pick, because there are plenty of other ways to get a good one.
by VBJohnson on Jan 1, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of other ways to get everyone else too
your argument hold no solid ground.
And it’s not a focus, it’s an opportunity.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 2, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's an opportunity
to get everyone else too!
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not offensive tackles.
Elite tackles don’t grow on trees. Either you draft your own stud or go home, because even decent ones command huge money in free agency and low-tier tackles don’t suddenly develop into excellent ones.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 2, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Top OTs outside of the 1st round
Chad Clifton, Flozell Adams, Marcus McNeill, Jason Peters —> Top 10 OTs drafted outside of the 1st round.
If you mean “elite” as in Walter Joneses, Orlando Paces, and Jonathan Ogdens (all top picks), you could have a similar argument about QBs. Would you rather have Walter Jones and a good QB, or Peyton Manning and a good OT? I’d take Peyton.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 2, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I put him in the first group because he wasn’t a true first round pick because of the whole USFL/supplemental draft thing. Admittedly, he’s kind of a special case because had he not bothered with the USFL he would likely have been a first round pick.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not that you can't find them later
it’s just that you’re far more likely to find one in the first round. You’ve got 11 quarterbacks listed there over the span of 52 years, 3 of whom were drafted before the first Super Bowl and Staubach was a 27 year old rookie (might go to explain why he dropped).
It’s just not that impressive, especially when you consider all of the QBs drafted in the later rounds that don’t make it. Do you really want to bank the future of the Hawks on a 6th round pick panning out like Tom Brady? Or an undrafted QB turning out like Warner? They’re flukes, the majority of QB talent comes out of the first round.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you add up the numbers
23 super bowls have been won by quarterbacks not drafted in the first round or who were “busts”.
19 super bowls were won first round quarterbacks with their original team.
55% of all Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks NOT drafted in the first round. Basically a push.
And that doesn’t even take into account all the first round QBs who never win anything.
If someone else wants to tally up all the first round quarterbacks and do a comparison there of what percentage of them wins a super bowl, that would be awesome.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
except it's not a push
you’re comparing EVERY quarterback not drafted in the first round to QB’s drafted in the first round. Not considering years where they had more than 7 rounds or undrafted rookies, what you’re saying is that half of superbowl winning quarterbacks come from a pool of 1/7th of total quarterbacks.
50% of superbowl winning quarterbacks come out of a set of quarterbacks that make up 14% of the total QB population.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now you're arguing against something else
What I am simply saying is that given the history of the NFL, you are as likely to win a Super Bowl with a quarterback that was not drafted in the first round as you are by drafting a quarterback in the first round.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or I should say,
A super bowl is as likely to be won by a quarterback that was not drafted in the first round as you are by drafting a quarterback in the first round.
by ACassel on Dec 31, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But you're more likely to draft a super bowl winning quarterback out of the first round
than any other
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 4:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's just really misleading
to be comparing at least 76% of quarterbacks to 14% of quarterbacks and saying it’s even, ya know?
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
See VBJohnson?
This is a healthy argument.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 31, 2008 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
then what round should they draft a quarterback? Give that, and compair it to the success of 1st rounders. Your conclusion doesn’t reflect your research. Your proving yourself wrong.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 1, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How about just sign the next Drew Brees as a FA?
Basically no risk of a bust and wasted high draft pick.
by VBJohnson on Jan 1, 2009 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cassell, or even Losman.
Of course, Cassell will demand a lot of money, but the point is there are QBs lying around that have been too early declared ‘busts’ that would tremendously benefit from being under the tutelage of a premier QB like Hasselbeck.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 2, 2009 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really.
I know I’m sounding crazy, but Losman was set up to fail on a shitty Buffalo squad, and a lot of Bills fans will tell you they’d rather have him start than Trent Edwards. He has the tools, but not the football IQ, something that can be acquired by learning from a good QB like Hass.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 2, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, please let us know exactly whom
because if you don’t know of one, I do happen to have a Pro Bowl QB in storage under my bed.
by djafrot on Jan 2, 2009 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My argument
is that the Seahawks are set at QB for a few more years. They have a Pro Bowl level QB and the best backup in the NFL. We don’t need to find the next Drew Brees until then. The point is that we don’t need a high draft pick to get a great player. The team with the lowest draft pick can still pick up a free agent like Drew Brees when they become available. Are you saying that no QB of that caliber will become available at any time in the next few years? If so, lets see some support for that argument.
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is a bit harder to track
so I might leave out a name. Biggest non-drafted QB acquisition over the past few years:
2008 – Pennington, became available due to crazy BritFar saga.
2007 – Jeff Garcia, 37 years old at time of signing
2006 – Drew Brees, all pro
2005 – Kurt Warner – 34 at time of signing. Not successful until 3 years later.
2004 – AJ Feely?
2003 – Jake DelHomme and Plummer, Plummer (30) was ran out of Denver 3 years later and DelHomme has been throwing to Steve Smith
It’s not an awful list, except for 2004 where I’m probably missing someone. But it’s not really something you can look at and say thats a reliable and predictable way to build a franchise. The NFL is QB starved, so you’re likely competeing against 10-15 teams for your 30+ average quarback. It’s not how I want to see Seattle manage the most important position on the team.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 2, 2009 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Seahawks
remain open on all fronts: picking up a FA (you left Hasselbeck off your list), developing a lower round QB, seeing Wallace pan out, trading up in a subsequent draft, actually having a high draft pick in a subsequent draft, or seeing Hass continue at a high level for five more years, then there is no need to panic now and use the current high draft pick on a QB.
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The odds are stacked against all of those options.
by BrianL on Jan 2, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
.
"The odds are stacked against all of those options. "
Not when you look at the list of Superbowl QBs posted above
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets look at those options
1) “Picking up a FA”: Drew Brees is the only elite QB on that list. Next best is Pennington, and he wasn’t a FA – acquired by trade.
2) Developing a lower round QB: See John’s argument that was quoted above – “Stefan LeFors, Adrian McPherson, Jordan Palmer…” The list goes on. If all you need is time in order to develop a lower round QB into a superstar, every team would be doing this.
3) Seeing Wallace pan out: Jim Mora tried a running QB in the WCO. That imploded. Unless you’re implying Seneca Wallace is a better talent than Michael Vick. And outside of these past few games, Wallace has shown nothing in his career to indicate that he’ll be a great passer.
4) Having a high draft pick in a subsequent draft: If, as you say, 34-year-old Hass will continue to play at a high level for five more years, how will we get another high draft pick?
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 2, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Vicks ability to run isn't what made him a poor WCO QB
by Nate Dogg on Jan 2, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But his inaccuracy did.
His completion percentage was only 54, somewhat similar to Seneca’s 58. In a good WCO season, like the one Hass had in 05, he passed for 65.5%.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 2, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My mistake.
But in any case, he was a FA only because of the Favre trade, which led to Pennington’s release.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 2, 2009 8:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Beck was 01.
What Brian said. This isn’t baseball, you can’t take flyers and stash them in the minor leagues. Developing a low round QB isn’t something inherrent in every coaches repetoire. Wallace has been around for 4 years now, the dude has peaked.
It all comes back to whether or not Beck can continue to play at a high level. Age, injury history and a potential system change makes me think he won’t. It’s not panic, it’s planning. Ruling out drafting a QB because you might luck into something down the road is negligent.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 2, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His injury
is very amenable to exactly the rehab is currently engaged in. He’ll be fine. And how can you tell Wallace has peaked? This last season was his best and he has gotten better every season, exactly the way a guy would look who hasn’t peaked yet. Not to mention, he would look even better with a decent WR corps and a little better blocking.
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seneca Wallace benefited from an ungodly interception-free streak.
What you saw in 2008 was lucky Seneca Wallace. Chances are good he will regress.
by BrianL on Jan 2, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How can you be so sure that he'll be fine?
by Jo-Jo on Jan 2, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
I am an expert about the injury he has. Prognosis for short term recovery: very bad. Prognosis for long term recovery using the exact program he is using: very good.
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You are an expert, huh?
The guy is getting up there in age. He’s been battered for years now… how long has it been since he played a full season? Oh wait….
I love Hass… but he’s not going to play at a high level for (MAX) a few more years. Again, MAX, and that’s if every star re-aligns in our favour and defies the Gods of the NFL.
We have the chance to draft that franchise QB right now. Drafting high QB’s might be sketchy for crappy teams, we are not a crappy team. This is the BEST opportunity.
by djafrot on Jan 3, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What makes
you think he’s not going to play at a high level for a few more years?
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, lets put aside my skepticism that you are an expert on the spinal cord.
And let’s look at Hasselbeck from a non-football perspective. It’s pretty simple: we’ve got a 34 yr old male with back issues. Pretty serious back issues, too. If its hurting so bad that he can’t play a game where he’s getting paid millions to show up for work, its not your everyday arthritic pains. For any regular guy, you’d be right: long term prognosis is very good. In 5 years, I’d doubt he would have any spine issues at all. But the 7-8 months until training camp is NOT long term for a serious back injury.
So, to be optimistic, lets say he’s 90% at training camp. Now consider the fact that he is going to hammered by enormous lineman multiple times every week. You don’t have to be an “expert” to know that that is not good for the back.
I’m not saying Hass is going to be a terrible and a cripple next season. He’s got access to some of the finest rehabilitation facilities in the world. I just think its foolish to think that he’s going to be playing at a Pro Bowl level when he’s got a serious back injury and he’s at an age when many QBs start to decline.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 3, 2009 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, the last time Hass played a full season was in 07
Unless I’m missing something.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 3, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, he missed at least 4 games in '06
so unless I’m missing something, that would equate to roughly half of the past few (3) years.
And he was playing through injuries in ’07 as well.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 3, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're both saying
is that he can’t last a few more years because he has had a few different injuries over the last few years? That makes no sense to me.
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look VB
All I’m saying is that over the years it has been proven that players rate of decline increases when they hit Matt’s age, and it is evidenced by increased injuries.
Yes, there are exceptions, which I’m sure you’re willing to bet on, but I’m not. Your entire argument is predicated on a full recovery to Matt’s glory days, and while posible I think history proves that it isn’t probable.
At some point this team will have to replace him, and you and some others feel that Seneca Wallace is some sort of All-Pro stuck on the bench. If that is honestly how you feel, then I’m not sure what it is that you have been watching.
The only point I’m trying to make is this; given the fact that most of us believe that this team is much better than the fourth best team in the NFL, they will not have very many opportunities to get a #4 pick for quite a while (hopefully). When given the opportunity, I believe it should be taken to committ to making this team as good as it possibly could be for as long as possible. I believe that the QB position is the most important position on the field, and if you have the chance to get your hands on a potentially great one, you don’t pass it up. Hell, there might not even be that kinda a guy in this draft, but that’s a whole other discussion.
Regardless, you and I disagree on this point, and I believe that history proves your conclusions wrong, as you have repeatedly cited rarities as the backbone of you opinion. I would prefer to play the odd that are in my favor. For me, I have been a ‘Hawks fan my entire life, and I would much prefer this organization continuing to move forward, and not sit on an aging QB who most likely will not return to his highest level of play. I’m sure that the New England Patriot fans are happy that they decided to move on from Drew Bledsoe, rather than ride him into the ground, and out of the playoffs.
All that to be said, I flat out disagree with you, I think you’re dead wrong, and nothing you’ve said has conviced me otherwise, as I’m sure you feel the same about my opinion. So I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how the damn thing plays out.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 3, 2009 11:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We'll agree to disagree
I guess, but history is not on your side. Kurt Warner and plenty of other QBs with injury histories as extensive as Hasselbeck’s have come back and performed well at age 37 and 38. Since Matt has never relied on strength and speed, the two main things that decline with age, there is no reason to think he can’t continue to do what he’s been doing for a few more years.
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I'm not convinced
Current list of QB’s on NFL Rosters that are equal to or older than Matt Hasselbeck
Todd Bouman
Charlie Batch
Mark Brunell
Kerry Collins
Todd Collins
Brett Favre
Gus Frerotte
Jeff Garcia
Trent Green
Brian Griese
Damon Huard
Brad Johnson
John Kitna
Jaime Martin
Kurt Warner
How many of those guys are starters?
How many of those guys were supposed to be starters at the beginning fo the year?
I don’t understand how you could say that history is not on my side. I’m sure you’ll site Favre and Warner out of that list which is rediculous because in their prime Matt was never as good as either of them. And aside from those two names, I’m not real interested in watching Matt’s career decline like everyone else on that list.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 4, 2009 12:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not spinal cord,
Spine. Specifically, disc. Plenty of quarterbacks have recovered from similar (and worse) disc injuries. If Hasselbeck continues with his current core strengthening rehab for as long as he plays (he said recently he has never done core strengthening) then he will likely recover 100% function from his current back injury, just as he and Holmgren have said he would.
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 11:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Define "short term" and "long term" for me so that I understand
Have you rehabed professional athletes with this injury before?
by Jo-Jo on Jan 3, 2009 7:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nodody knew Drew Brees was going to blow up like that
The Saints didn’t take a risk because they had nothing to lose to begin with, and I’m sure that the ‘Hawks wouldn’t be the only team out there bidding to sign the “next Drew Brees as a FA.”
Look, I understand what you’re trying to say. My point is that you have nothing – NOTHING – solid about why you feel that way. You have given the least convincing disertation of this point that I have heard in months and your supporting analysis wreaks of fantasy team management.
Maybe you should be a Cowboys fan.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 2, 2009 9:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I can't respond to you
because you have not provided an argument against my arguments so I have no idea what you are saying. And Drew Brees was great before he was traded.
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Drew Brees was good before he left SD
I wouldn’t say that he was great. His best years have easily been the past three that he has spend in N.O. and that is what I meant by “blow up.”
I don’t have to make any more of an argument than has already been made.
I would rather be in the situation that S.D. was in three years ago, having to choose between a good veteran QB and an up and coming new player, than be caught with my junk in the wind when Matt doesn’t return to pro-bowl form and we are stuck with … who? Wallace? yeah, that’s a superbowl QB right there.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 2, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the list of Superbowl QBs above
Wallace can hold his own with plenty of them
by VBJohnson on Jan 2, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
WHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTT?
Give me a break.
by djafrot on Jan 3, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeeaahhh ...
Well, um … I’m going to have to go ahead and … disagree with you on that.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 3, 2009 7:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Presumably
you won’t disagree with him being as good as Trent Dilfer. And Plunkett never showed anything more than Wallace has at similar stages of their careers. Brad Johnson and Jeff Hostetler were certainly no better than Wallace. And Doug Williams and Mark Rypen were basically one year wonders who peaked and faded fast
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I will disagree with him being as good as Trent Dilfer
Dilfer played in a Pro-Bowl, won a Super Bowl, and at one point won 15 consecutive games as an NFL Starter.
Compairing to Wallace to Plunkett is apples to oranges.
Rypien was elected to the Pro-Bowl two years before he won that Super Bowl.
So really, we’re talking about Johnson, Hostetler and Williams here. All of those guys were caught in a perfect storm senario when they won their Super Bowls. So you are willing to take those examples to bolster your argument that Seneca Wallace is a Super Bowl calibur QB? Well, those guys did win Super Bowls, so I guess I can’t argue with your reasoning.
But once again, you are citing the exceptions to the rule to base your entire argument on.
by Jo-Jo on Jan 3, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd consider Seneca of this season to be as good as those chumps...
Granted, I don’t think he’s the future, but you are grossly underestimating him. At worst, he’s a serviceable starter for a lot of teams.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 3, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're never going to see the Seneca of this season again.
It’s been discussed before, but he went on an interception-free streak that was begging for regression. He was extraordinarily lucky this year.
by BrianL on Jan 3, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
What makes the all-time Seahawk record for passes without an interception “luck” and evidence that he’s not good??
The guy is very accurate. He doesn’t make many mistakes. He’s elusive in the pocket. Give him some decent receivers and pass protection and he would put up much bigger stats.
by VBJohnson on Jan 3, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A serviceable starter is a guy who doesn't make mistakes.
And makes enough plays to win a game. So if he’s a serviceable starter for a lot of teams “at worst,” what do you think he is at best? An All-Pro? A Pro-Bowl backup, maybe? I have a hard time thinking Seneca is that good.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 3, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's More the Selector, not the Selectee
Nate, I’m not sure I disagree with much of what you wrote, or what John had written before. Clearly there are risks, so the premium is then placed on the person or persons making the selection. Do they have the ability to spot the key strengths/weaknesses that will differentiate Matt Ryan from Alex Smith? If so, great! Have at it. If not, then I’m a little nervous.
The Hawks don’t have a lot of experience drafting 1st round QBs, and what experience they do have is all bad. Actually their track record with ALL drafted QBs is pretty abysmal. The only one to see significant (or any) starts was Mirer. Like I said before, the storied history of Seahawk QBs is largely written with undrafted people. Those that were drafted were not drafted by Seattle.
I just don’t want to see us pick a 1st round QB because of hype and internal/external pressure to follow conventional wisdom. That’s how you get Smith and Leinart. I’d also sound a cautionary note about Ryan and Flacco. They’ve had great rookie seasons, but that’s not a guarantee of future success. If we do pick a QB there, I want it to be because there is a strong reason to believe the guy can be great.
by Kumar on Dec 31, 2008 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Seahawks were being run under a much different administration the last time they selected a 1st round QB.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How Much Comfort Is That?
Ruskell has drafted 1 QB (Greene) and traded for another (Frye).
I’m not sure what that tells us about anything.
by Kumar on Dec 31, 2008 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It isn't supposed to comfort or frighten.
It’s simply irrelevant.
And yes, Ruskell has drafted one quarterback in Greene and traded for another in Frye (which was out of necessity). However, just because precedence doesn’t exist doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do something.
by BrianL on Dec 31, 2008 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
also...
I’m pretty sure Greene wasn’t particularly Ruskell’s choice.
by djafrot on Dec 31, 2008 7:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Can you clarify this statement? He drafted Tatupu and Hill in that draft… just wondering what the circumstances might have been to have someone else want him? (maybe Holmgren had more offensive drafting input?)
by LantermanC on Dec 31, 2008 8:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
um, yeah, pretty much.
It seems to have been that way throughout the Holmy/Rusky period… a lot of compromise. I really doubt that Ruskell really wanted a QB in the third round that year.
by djafrot on Dec 31, 2008 8:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but most first round QBs aren't Ryan or Flacco.
And Flacco isn’t even that great. He’s a big, mobile game manager in the Roethlisberger mold. I’d be less concerned if there were any QB prospects worth a damn in this draft. To me, all of them are going to be garbage in the NFL. Too bad Colt McCoy didn’t declare because I’m enamored with him.
by Fearless Frog on Dec 31, 2008 9:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Same. I really want McCoy
I’ll settle for Bradford…. but I’d rather have Oher, and perhaps the other two tackles (or Crabtree or Mays).
McCoy definitely seems to be the real deal. Bradford could be, but it’s so hard to tell since his supporting cast is so damn good.
by LantermanC on Dec 31, 2008 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Bradford is the next Jason White. Or Tony Romo. Trash masked by great surrounding talent that make them look better than they really are. Since no McCoy, I’d much rather have a great tackle that can fill in at guard, Crabtree, or whoever becomes the best safety prospect (Moore?).
by Fearless Frog on Jan 1, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradford is not the next Jason White
Jason White was undrafted and lasted maybe a week on his one camp invite from the Chiefs. Bradford is going to go in the first round, or at the very least the first day.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 1, 2009 8:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, not literally exactly like him, but..
both had great college careers because of the talent around them. Bradford reminds me way too much of Romo, and I’m not exactly consoled by how many times Oklahoma plays out of the shotgun, because that’s way too Alex Smith-esque for my liking.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 2, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradford has also shown a lot better durability than White.
White was chronically injured, had a weak arm, and had multiple surgeries on each of his knees. Not to mention, White was 25 at the time of the NFL Draft, meaning any talent he had was probably maxed out. Bradford’s a redshirt sophomore. I trust that there’s a reason that Bradford is considered a 1st round choice while White went undrafted.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 1, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Smith
Can we cross him off the list now that he has been suspended for the Sugar Bowl?
I’d be surprised if Ruskell took him over Oher or Monroe now.
by PascoJoe on Dec 30, 2008 2:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The offense he committed can't be considered the same as some others.
From all reportes, hes a standup guy. He consorted with an agent too early, which while “wrong”, is certainly not something that reeks of moral decay. Draft him.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Dec 30, 2008 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, doesn't sound like something Ruskell would view as a disqualifier.
by BrianL on Dec 30, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if anything
smiths suspension might help us. it’s pretty unlikely that the consensus #1 tackle falls to the fourth pick, but with “character issues” it is a little more possible.
i watched him pretty hard in the Florida-Bama game, and thought he got beat be speed rushers more than an elite NFL LT should. Might just be a small sample size or something easy to fix, but it gave me some red flags.
by cro-mag! on Dec 30, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I watched him get beat by a few speed rushes in a game this season too.
That may be a concern.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Dec 30, 2008 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Oher was the consensus #1 tackle
and best prospect at the position since Orlando Pace. Also, Smith has always been poor vs. speed- rushers, to the point where some analysts think he’ll make a great guard rather than tackle.
by Fearless Frog on Dec 30, 2008 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Emphasis on "was"
Some people are now questioning his consistency and desire.
Make of that what you will. Going into the draft, people are going to say a lot of things to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
by Mr Fish on Dec 30, 2008 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Second Round OT Prospects
Check some video of Oklahoma RT Trent Williams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzrlT5yBLWM.
He is currently “testing” the NFL Draft waters. He’s a RT but he has the talent and size to play on the left side. If he comes out, he’s probably going to make his way up to the early second round. His athleticism and football skills appear to be at least comparable to the first round OT’s (Smith & Smith, Oher, and Monroe) and he looks better (to me) than some other late first / early second projected OT’s (Black and Britton). Just a thought for the Seahawks if they decide to wait for the second round…
Oh, and then there’s that other guy in the video as well, I hope he likes Detroit…
by scratchandsniff on Dec 30, 2008 3:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
so many OT prospects, so it seems
Since we have such an early 2nd, I would think we could use our early 1st for something else (cough QB cough) and still get a tackle in the 2nd.
Can you imagine… finding Hass and Jones’ eventual replacements in our first two picks?
by djafrot on Dec 30, 2008 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
Here’s the link without the period at the end:
by scratchandsniff on Dec 30, 2008 3:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I know you're supposed to draft the best player available,
but I can’t help but hope our first three rounds go LT, QB, S, in some order.
1st Rounders: Bradford QB, Stafford QB, Andre Smith OT, Michael Oher OT, Eugene Monroe OT, Taylor Mays S
2nd Rounders: Patrick Chung S, Rashad Johnson S, Emanuel Cook S, Sam Young OT, Phil Loadholt OT, Russell Okung OT, Jason Smith? OT
3rd Rounders: Fenuki Tupou OT (draft on name alone), Alex Boone OT, Kam Chancellor S, Michael Hamlin S (mixture of Ken Hamlin and Michael Boulware), Rhett Bomar QB, Nate Davis QB, Graham Harrell QB, Josh Freeman QB
by LantermanC on Dec 30, 2008 4:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hope Rhett Bomar stays as far as he can away from the Hawks.
And Lanterman, I just watched Yes Man today, and the most I can say for Zooey Deschanel is that she’s borderline cute, in a quirky, goofy sort of way. And that’s only if you’re in the right mood. Also, if any one cares, the movie was very subpar, mostly because Jim Carrey is really old. Really old.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 30, 2008 7:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to buy it when it comes out anyways.
Top 5.
1. Zooey Deschanel.
2. Kate Beckinsale.
3. Jordana Brewster.
4. Olivia Munn.
5. Emma Watson.
Honorable Mention.
Laura Vandervoort.
Sienna Miller.
Kate from Lost.
Kara Goucher.
Lolo Jones.
Lola Glaudini.
by LantermanC on Dec 30, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As for football.
I don’t know much about Bomar (or Stafford), but Bomar’s strength is that he’s tall, but he’s wildly inconsistent. Stafford’s is that he has a cannon, but isn’t too smart or accurate? So for now both sound like duds to me.
by LantermanC on Dec 30, 2008 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stafford can make any throw
but he takes any throw. He’s made throws I have not seen ANY other college quarterback make; grown man’s throws. But he will throw into double coverage without so much as a 2nd thought. I don’t know that a guy unlearns that.
I wouldn’t touch him though. I saw a lot of UGa this season. He doesn’t read defenses at all. He should have completion percentages in the high 60s – low 70s in that offense (61.1%). Remember David Greene playing in that offense?
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Dec 30, 2008 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bomar's strength is that he's tall?
I’m 6’5, think I can get drafted?
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah that makes no sense. Football still suffers from the inane scouting world that
values physical attributes over performance. Sene/Petro/Swift agree that basketball has flaws as well.
I’m left handed, does that mean I can engage in dogfighting?
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Dec 31, 2008 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bob Hill drafted Sene because he could stand flat footed and grab the rim with both hands
He was absolutely floored by that.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 10:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am floored by spending a first rounder on someone who can't actually play basketball all that well.
To each their own
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Dec 31, 2008 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
but he could grab the rim without jumping!
if thats not basketball I don’t know what is.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Visibility over the line for throwing lanes is a strength
by vanrijn on Dec 31, 2008 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would consider a strength something you do and not something that you inherantly are
Height, to me, is a physical trait that you could “use to your strengths” but in and of itself is not a strength. Visibility over the line for throwing lanes is a physical advantage, not a strength.
A strength would be how well you throw the football, how well you read defenses, your poise in the pocket, etc. I don’t see Drew Brees’ lack of height as a “weakness” in his game. It doesn’t seem to bother him that much. So why would I consider a guy at 6’5" to have a strength of height?
by Jo-Jo on Dec 31, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now Rhett Bomar has "character" issues...
he took money for a “job” he had in name only from an OU booster. Now, you know you’re wrong when you do stuff like that.
Of course I put “character” in quotes. Hell, I think schools should spin off their athletic departments, take a licensing fee, and pay those kids. (Universities do that with their press houses. So it’s not like the business model doesn’t exist.)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Dec 30, 2008 8:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does this mean you've changed your mind about the importance of getting a new left tackle?
A while back you seemed to think the position would be in good shape with Locklear, and that the interior line needed more immediate attention.
by Mr Fish on Dec 30, 2008 4:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Seahawks don't
desperately need an OT. If they do get one in the draft he’ll spend at least one season sitting on the bench, maybe more.
by VBJohnson on Dec 30, 2008 6:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Considering that all our starters on the line are injured
I’m doubting that they all start next season. Even if they did, we’d most definitely see regression. No matter what position, the one we draft in the first round is assumed to start, so the Hawks would move guys around if that’s what it takes.
Sims could be shown the door this offseason unless he makes a god-like recovery.
by myx on Dec 30, 2008 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If the Seahawks
draft a tackle he’ll be the third best tackle on the team, so he’ll sit. As for the injuries, it looks to me like the second string lineman already on the team can probably provide at least one guy who can step into the starting role.
If a lineman is the best guy available when the team drafts, pick him, but they don’t desperately need one.
by VBJohnson on Dec 30, 2008 8:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Heaven help us if we draft a player and don't immediately play him.
That practice is absolutely unheard of in the NFL.
by BrianL on Dec 30, 2008 9:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know you're being sarcastic.
I’d be fine with Bradford or another QB sitting (obviously). If we drafted an Oher type, I’d just as soon play him at RG or LG for the first season then move him in for big Walt in year 2 or year 3.
by LantermanC on Dec 30, 2008 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd prefer it if we played a drafted OT at a guard position
but it wouldn’t hurt my feelings too much if he didn’t play right out of the gate. Now, if we drafted a safety and Brian Russell was starting ahead of him, I’d be singing a different tune.
by BrianL on Dec 30, 2008 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that tune would be:
It’s just one of those days when you don’t want to wake up. Everything is f******* and everybody sucks. You don’t really know why but you want to justify, ripping Russells head off.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Dec 31, 2008 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Or do like the Bears and use him as the goal-line TE!
Okay, not a good example.
Anyway, this seems to be why drafting high-potential tackles is generally fairly safe compared to other premium positions: if they “bust” as tackles, the downside is that you still have a pretty good guard. Leonard Davis comes to mind, although I can’t remember if he’s now a tackle again.
by busplunger on Dec 31, 2008 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is pretty uncommon for offensive lineman pick that high
although the usually just play somewhere else on the line.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2008 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















