So What Are The Seahawks Needs?

by John Morgan on Apr 17, 2008 1:18 PM PDT in 2008 NFL Draft

Offensive Tackle

Walter Jones is no longer an elite left tackle. Where once Jones was irreplaceable, he is now simply inadequately able to be replaced. That is, Jones is not so good that the Hawks couldn't hope to replace his production with another player; they just don't have that player on roster. Sean Locklear wouldn't be lost at left tackle, perhaps deficient, but not disastrous or crippling. His replacement on the right, though, presumably Ray Willis, would jeopardize any hopes of contention. Willis may yet develop into a serviceable starter, but we're far from knowing that. 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.

3-Tech Defensive Tackle

Without the proper personnel upfront, Seattle's too-small linebacker corps suddenly becomes too small. In 2006, featuring the same 3 star linebackers as in 2005 and 2007, but with Bernard hobbled, Tubbs lost and the 1-tech manned by Chartic Darby, Seattle's rush defense fell apart. Leroy Hill, Julian Peterson and Lofa Tatupu do many things well, but do not consistently shed blockers. With Brandon Mebane proving to be a rock at the 1, Howard Green contributing enough to spell Mebane without outright failure and the impending free agency of Rocky Bernard, Seattle needs a 3-tech. Craig Terrill is a situational one gap specialist and valuable in that role, but he falls apart against the run and would lay in tattered pieces strewn across the turf if ever pressed into extended service. Further, Seattle's relies on their 3 to provide vital interior pressure. Nothing preempts the opposing passing offense like fast arriving inside pressure. Combining the value of the position within the Seahawk's scheme, the age and contract of the incumbent and the overall team depth, no position other than offensive tackle represents a greater need for Seattle than the 3-tech defensive tackle.

Positions like tight end, wide receiver and backup quarterback would benefit from better talent, but I do not consider them needs. Mike Holmgren has never needed top talent at tight end or wide receiver to field a productive passing attack, and I don't think 2008 will be any different. And though Seattle ceases to contend without Hasselbeck, so too can be said about nearly every team without its franchise quarterback. Them's the breaks in the NFL. Offensive and defensive tackle are the only two positions I believe Seattle needs to fill in the draft. And other than those two positions, I hope Seattle consistently picks best available talent regardless of position. Even if it means starting Jeb Putzier, Joe Newton, Nate Burleson and Courtney Taylor.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Seems pretty simple

Who's your Offensive Tackle of Choice?

Is there a 3-tech you hope drops to us?

We've seen the picks of Sam Baker and Trevor Laws, but both seem like Round 2 picks, are there players your at these positions your hoping fall to us? (Obviously not Long, and Dorsey)

by Justise on Apr 17, 2008 3:06 PM PDT 0 recs

Instead of answering that here...

I'll give you round by round picks over the weekend.

by John Morgan on Apr 17, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yay!

Its like Christmas

by Justise on Apr 17, 2008 4:46 PM PDT up 0 recs

TE & WR

Holmgren has never needed star TE's or WR's, but he's always had very dependable ones. Freeman in his first two, and Engram and Jurevicius in his third. If you look at his superbowl teams he had great production out of the TE spot.

1996 - Keith Jackson, 40 catches, 500 yards, 10 TD
1997 - Mark Chmura, 38 catches, 417 yards, 6 TD
2005 - Jerramy Stevens, 45 catches, 554 yards, 5 TD

Engram's production should be about half of what it was last year, and Jeb isn't going to be close to that kind of production. And, I hate saying this, but Hasselbeck is no Brett Favre. WR and TE and more than just luxuries.

I'm with you on DT as a need, but I don't see OT as a pressing need yet. Of course you can never have too much depth on either side of the line, so I'd be happy to see them draft an OT. But as far as need goes I think that RB is as much a need at this point as o-line is.

For someone who has made quite a case against Russel I was surprised that safety didn't make your list.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 17, 2008 4:45 PM PDT 0 recs

In spite of Russell's suck

I've never really thought that Safety was a significant problem. He's not great talent, but the Defense can thrive even with him in the lineup. I don't think you could say the same about having Craig Terrill or Ray Willis starting.

by Will Kier on Apr 17, 2008 6:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

Haha

Funny how fans always assume players are declining when they get older.

Jones not only made the Probowl, he was All Pro. You can't get much more elite than that. The votes of coaches and players who still consider him the best in the NFL, those who see him on game film all the time, proves it. It doesn't matter who or what the Seahawks get at left tackle, if they get anyone, they won't take Jones's place for at least two seasons, probably longer.

by stephentrapani on Apr 17, 2008 9:25 PM PDT 0 recs

Lifetime achievement awards.

The Pro Bowl has never represented the best players in the league. It's a showcase of stars and is regularly filled with players like Chris Chambers, Delta O'neal, Roy Williams and the aged John Lynch that are simply not the best player at their position. Like nearly any All-Star game in any sport, it is not a reliable yardstick for how a player has played in the most recent year.

Jones has declined significantly. He's not nearly as quick around the edge (it got bad enough that the Hawks resorted to pop blocks), dominant pull blocking, or reliable in general. In 2004-2005, Jones allowed 2.5 sacks total. In 2006-2007, Jones allowed 16.5. I watched every play of the 2007 season multiple times over, Jones has declined. He's still an above average left tackle, but he is no longer among the great left tackles in the NFL.

by John Morgan on Apr 18, 2008 9:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

This blog is seriously off base on some things..

"no position presents a greater need for Seattle than offensive tackle"

Really? REALLY?

Even though we have Walt who still can hold down the left side, and a RT we just dished out a big contract to, and NO NFL CALIBER TE ON THE ROSTER, T is still our biggest NEED?

No. It isnt. I'm sorry, but in no way is it our biggest NEED. Is it most in need of DEPTH? Maybe you could argue that. MAYBE. But these hyperbolic statements really need to stop.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 18, 2008 2:43 AM PDT 0 recs

Speaking of hyperbole

"NO NFL CALIBER TE ON THE ROSTER"? Umm . . . not so. Putzier's a good receiver from the position, if a weak blocker; Heller's a good blocker, though he's not strong as a receiver; and I'm not writing off Joe Newton yet, either. Even if Newton doesn't succeed, though, we have a workable platoon at the position, even if it's less than ideal.

by The Ancient Mariner on Apr 18, 2008 7:30 AM PDT up 0 recs

Capitals do not an argument make.

So, you don't think having a backup for our 34 y/o left tackle with chronic shoulder problems represents a need? Seattle's passing attack was 9th in all of football with Marcus Pollard manning the tight end position. Jeb Putzier is 9/10ths Pollard, at his worst. Tell me, where do you think Seattle's passing offense would rank without Walter Jones? You are seriously overvaluing a non-premium position. Seattle could use and upgrade, but tight end absolutely does not represent a need.

by John Morgan on Apr 18, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up 0 recs

You missed the point.

I know you hate having someone disagree with you, but it is not an adhominim attack, and I have a right to disagree with you without you writing something snarky everytime. And FYI capitals don't make an argument, they highlight things so you don't miss the point, even though you managed to do so...

I never said having a backup to our aging, yet still extremely capable, LT wasnt a need. I said it no way can you argue say that it is the greatest need on the roster.

I think seattle's passing offense would be terrible without Walter Jones, that is not my argument.

You provide no proof in how TE is not a need. This offense thrives with a good TE, look at our Super Bowl run. If we have a TE who can stretch the seam, block capably, and roll out into the flat our offense is so much more productive.

I disagree with you - deal with it. That doesn't make your opinion less valuable.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 18, 2008 2:29 PM PDT up 0 recs

Jerramy Stevens was a good tight end?

I really don't mind you disagreeing with me. I like people disagreeing with me. I have a background in debate (that's a mighty nerdy admission) and I think debate inspires thought.

My problem is, you come on really strong, but you don't seem committed to researching your claims. You seem to want to speak your opinion, which is fine, but speak it as if it's FACT. I don't mind you using capitals, I do that too (see), but I think you use them to make it seem like just because you say something, it's true. It's not.

Jerramy Stevens wasn't a very good tight end. He couldn't block, and he wasn't much of a downfield threat. In fact, in 2005 he only had one reception of 30+ yards. Much of Stevens' perceived production was the awesome play of all those around him. Seattle sported the third best offense in football. The rushing attack was such that teams were forced to walk a safety into the box. Stevens played on the sunny side of a great team, but when Seattle faced the kind of team that could mitigate the run without walking a safety into the box (see: Pittsburgh's 1st ranked rush defense), Stevens crumbled.

Now, if you wish to argue that and support your claims, I think this is a potentially interesting discussion, but I think it's obnoxious, something akin to heckling, to say "This blog is seriously off base on some things" without providing evidence for your arguments.

by John Morgan on Apr 18, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up 0 recs

Again, read more carefully please

I appreciate your shift in tone, thanks.

I also feel that I provide as much evidence as you do when warranted. When you've supplied mostly opinion, I feel that I can disagree with mostly opinion.

There is no way I will try and build a case for "Jerramy Stevens - well rounded tight end", but his value in the passing game is undeniable. Matt Hasselbeck was quoted many times praising Stevens for his role in the offense.
A few things to note:

The man is 6'7, 260 pounds. Breaking off 30+ yard runs regularly would be incredible. That was not his game. His game was picking up first downs - he averaged 12.3 ypc. 31/45 of his receptions went for first downs. Good for 68.8% of his catches. Other TEs that year...Tony Gonzalez had 35/78 for 57.7%. Alge Crumpler had 42/65 good for 64.6%, Shockey's was the exact same.. i could go on but the point is he moved the chains and provided a lot to the WC offense.

Also, it is easy to write off a player as a product of his environment, but you could make the case that other players benefited from Stevens ability to attack the middle of the field and draw safety help.

Now, look at 06 and 07 when our Tight end play was in the toliet. So was our running game, and our passing game was also without a piece. Throw in that player who demands linebacker coverage and maybe even a double from a safety, and you are looking at an important piece of the offense, one that is often underestimated in my opinion.

I apologize for coming across as brash or pretentious, I just think there is too much homerism in some of these comments.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 18, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think you're crediting the player...

for the system. As I argued here, Mike Holmgren has been able to get substantial production from borderline tight ends. That trend seemingly extends to wide receivers, too. Antonio Freemen's production steadily dwindled from the time Holmgren left, despite being in his prime. Looking through Holmgren's career, I can't find a single tight end or wide receiver who flourished leaving the Holmgren offense.

Regarding whether Stevens drew safety help or the running game forced the safety into the box, which would you defend?

The Running Attack: Shaun Alexander (56.3 DPAR) + Maurice Morris (6.6 DPAR)

Jerramy Stevens: 16.4 DPAR

Anyway, feel free to respond (of course), but I've got to bounce. If I have time tomorrow (Field Gulls is migrating Monday, so I doubt it) I'll continue this, but, otherwise, I think we can disagree. I think Seattle can win a Super Bowl with a less than stellar tight end (a Kevin Boss, if you will), but not with a left tackle on roster who's not Walter Jones, much less a right tackle on roster who's not Sean Locklear.

by John Morgan on Apr 18, 2008 3:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

"Borderline" tight ends

is where i take issue.

Jerramy Stevens was a first round pick. He had phenomenal talent. Do you think he was not gifted physically? I mean look at Pollard's production in the same system, he was garbaggio.

Christian Fauria's best season was half the season Stevens posted in '05.

Also, I can't go along with the DPAR values because, yeah, Alexander had a great year, but who's to say - without going back and looking at every single snap - whether Stevens running a pattern caused the safety to move over onto him, or if they moved up before the snap? I have a feeling it was a little of both. Our offense was well rounded.

I agree on the tackle thing too, but we have Jones and Locklear, and both have proven to be sturdy. If we take a tackle in the third round or fourth, that is perfectly fine with me.

I think we do need to address tight end more though, in terms of immediate, pressing need for this coming season. If we could get one of the top 4 TEs, one of the better DTs and some safety and tackle depth I think this draft will be a rousing success.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 19, 2008 12:28 AM PDT up 0 recs

I do agree on the DT part, however.

We also need Strong Safety help and depth at WR.

I cannot stand people who think Obomanu/Kent/Taylor/Payne are going to develop into the next DJack or something. They are all extrememly low ceiling players who lack enough athletic talent to turn into anything more than practice squad/5th WR fodder.

The only caveat to that would be Kent who has the athletics but a severely lacking football background, and Obomanu who has flashed workman-like skill in pre-season.

We need a playmaker at receiver. Our offense right now looks anemic with no TE, a 35 year old top WR, and some new RBs in the backfield. Ugh.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 18, 2008 2:47 AM PDT 0 recs

You know...

you need to support your argument with something or this just turns into shooting your mouth off. Why will none of those players develop? You need to support that claim, just saying it is meaningless. Taylor is bigger (6'2"/204 v. 6'/197) and faster (4.50/40 v. 4.58/40) than Jackson, has a 36" vert, and was highly productive 3 year starter in the SEC. How do you know that they are low ceiling players?

I mostly ignore your comments because no matter the conviction behind them, they are never supported. But when you comment numerous times under each post, and neither fact check nor support your claims, it becomes a nuisance. This isn't a sports bar. The loudest person in the room doesn't win. Instead of commenting a bunch of times under the same post, why not make one intelligent, supported comment that furthers the discussion? Alright?

by John Morgan on Apr 18, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

Seriously?

Ok, I could write the same pithy comment about you. He was not a "highly productive 3 year starter" unless you and I have vastly different opinions on what is highly productive. Every highly ranked team he played against he got shut down. 1 catch for 10 yards against Georgia, 3 for 30 against Florida, 3 for 22 against LSU.

That is how I say he is a low ceiling player, and it is a completely viable claim.

There is no track record to rely on for any of these players. We have a fast-closing Super Bowl window. We need help at the position, not these young developing players who might become viable in a few years.

Also, you have the complete wrong mentality about sports discourse if you think this is about "winning". There is no winning, we are bringing different opinions to the table. Stop making this into something personal.

And I am furthering the discussion. Just because you don't agree does not diminish what I think about the players.

BTW youtube clips aren't film. You cannot use those to analyze players.

by ASUBoyd on Apr 18, 2008 2:42 PM PDT up 0 recs

The team that dominates the interior dominates

Completely agree with your draft choices for one other reason expressed in my subject. That is a truism which has meant success for the perennial successful franchises. Outside of QB the interior line is far and away the most important component and on the distaff side a quality front seven can make the CBs and Safeties in to Pro Bowlers. OTs, OGs, and NTs are what the Hawks need. Reminds one of the successful Parcells teams (not Dallas where JJones diluted Parcells impact). Parcells once commented that he took pride in the fact that his skill position players were rarely memorable.

by bigmaq on Apr 18, 2008 11:32 AM PDT 0 recs

Is it me my clock or yours?

What's up with the posting times?

by bigmaq on Apr 18, 2008 11:33 AM PDT 0 recs

All Pro and Probowl

The All Pro team is a better measure of ability than the Probowl. Jones was one of the two All Pro tackles selected this season. So most knowledgeable football people disagree with you. Factor in Jones's shoulder injuries and if there has been a decline, it won't show up on the field next season. Any Seahawk high draft pick on OT would be a huge waste for the two seasons or longer.

by stephentrapani on Apr 18, 2008 12:39 PM PDT 0 recs

The draft isn't about the 2008 season

it is about building a foundation for the team for the next 3-5 years, at least. The offensive and defensive lines (as well as QB and RB) are the foundation for any successful football team. Can we count on Walter Jones remaining an all-pro left tackle in the NFL in 2012? I wouldn't. Teams that draft primarily on what they need for the upcoming season usually find that (a.) the rookie, no matter how coveted, usually isn't ready to perform consistently in his first year, and (b.) by the time the draftee is in his "prime", the team could very well have needs elsewhere; a position they neglected in the previously-mentioned draft. Saying an OT would be a "waste for two years" is missing the point: you WANT to draft for two years down the line.

Anyway, how do you KNOW that Walter Jones won't show any decline this upcoming season? How do you know his shoulder injuries aren't chronic? I'm not saying we have to draft a tackle at #25 (it seems half the teams that pick before us are eye-balling offensive line help themselves) but we need to think about the future before it catches up with us and bites us on the ass.

by JL White on Apr 18, 2008 9:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

No, not All Pro

No, Jones will not be an All Pro in 2012, but numerous Superbowls have been won without an All Pro left tackle. He could still be good enough in 2012 to help the team accomplish just that. He's that kind of talent, ie once in a lifetime. If anyone lineman can kick ass until they are 36 or 37, he can. I don't know he won't decline, but I do know that he was Pro bowl and All Pro with the shoulder injuries. He gets them fixed and he's going to decline? And you get a high draft pick to replace your best player because he might decline?

Not to mention, I don't think teams necessarily should aim for 3-5 years away when they pick draft picks. If you want to contend every year, you have to get as many players playing well now as you can. Getting a high draft pick who won't even play for two years doesn't do that. I've seen enough in the NFL to know that when a coach is as close to winning it all as Holmgren has been for the last four years, you grab that opportunity with both hands. Yeah, Mora could be great, but he could suck too. We need to give Holmgren every opportunity to win it all, without sacrificing the future too much.

by stephentrapani on Apr 19, 2008 10:42 PM PDT 0 recs