Can Ruskell do offense?

by michaelfox99 on Jul 28, 2008 10:01 AM PDT

With John Carlson finally taking the field and turning heads initially at training camp, we can begin to ponder what the success or failure of Carlson will do to Ruskell's reputation as a talent evaluator. First a little review:

Ruskell inherited a strong offensive team when he took over. The core pieces were already in place for the offense (Jones, Strong, Hasselbeck, Jackson, Stevens, Alexander, Hutchinson, Locklear, Tobeck). The defense needed work so the next drafts and FA signings were focused on that side of the ball.

Here is a look at Key additions and busts from the Ruskell era. I am ignoring very late round picks and cheap FA signings, in other words, low risk propositions which did not involve significant resources and therefore do not weigh heavily in grading Ruskell.

Key additions (good or great moves):

Defense:

FA - Kerney, Grant, Peterson

Draft - Tatupu, Hill, Jennings, Tapp, Mebane

Offense:

FA - Burleson

Draft - Sims

Questionable additions:

Defense:

FA - Russell

Draft - None

Offense:

FA - Pollard, Branch (trade)

Draft - Willis, Spencer

Busts:

Defense:

FA - None

Draft - None

Offense:

FA - None

Draft - David Greene

Not enough info yet:

Defense:

FA - None

Draft - Wilson, Bryant, L. Jackson, Atkins

Offense:

FA - Wahle, Jones, Duckett

Draft - Carlson, Wrotto

One of the first thing one notices is that Ruskell has only once used a high pick (4th or higher) or top-FA dollar on a true bust. That distinction goes to David Greene, who missed his window to convince the coaching staff he was a legitimate backup. Defensively, Ruskell has clearly been an ace, with almost all the defensive starters being recent Ruskell acquisitions. The only misfire Ruskell has had on defense was Russell, who still has the opportunity to get on the key additions list with a strong 2008 (unlikely though). Still, Russell was not a major signing and hasn't been a total bust. The offense has been a different story. The only bona fide hits Ruskell has had on offense have been Burleson and Sims. Even these two aren't perfect though and both could slip to the questionable list if they have a poor 2008. While there haven't been any other total busts other than Greene, the Branch trade is looking like more and more of a reach, as are linemen Spencer and Willis.

I am not considering 'non-moves' such as not resigning Hutch, or not resigning Hamlin. I am also ignoring re-signings such as Tatupu and Trufant. This is because deciding what to do with players on your team who your coaches already have extensive experience with is obviously a lot different from scouting the outside.

Unfortunately, I still do not think we will really know whether Ruskell can evaluate offensive talent for a while longer. Even in this past year's draft we took defensive players with two of our top three picks. Carlson is the x-factor here. It wasn't a huge gamble since he was a second rounder. He also fits the usual Ruskell mold of being very likely to contribute, but not likely to be confused with the league's best player at his position. Still, since he was the top TE drafted, expect criticism for Ruskell if he doesn't turn out to be the best TE in his class. He has the advantage of being #1 on the depth chart immediately and playing in a good pass offense. We should finally get an extended look at the young receivers, but none of them were drafted any higher than Taylor with a 6th round pick. Young OL projects Willis and Wrotto probably won't crack the lineup this year unless there are injuries. Wahle will be considered in a similar light to Carlson, a sub-blockbuster move that is likely to end up as another high-value contributor.

In conclusion, while Ruskell has been a genius on Defense, he has been able to ride the talent that was here when he arrived on offense. With a lot of defenders locked up for a while now, next years draft and FA period will probably be Ruskell's most offense-oriented to date and we'll have to wait and see for that. If Wahle and Carlson meet or exceed expectations and Spencer and Sims improve on a setback 2007, then Ruskell's 2008 will be less crucial to his offensive rep.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting points

It’s true that Ruskell simply hasn’t had to do too much on offense, though I would argue that all three of his worst moves impacted the offense. 1) The Hutch fiasco, 2) Drafting Spencer with a 1st round pick, and 3) Resigning Shaun (though realistically there was nothing else he could do in that situation, and I personally applauded him for it at the time). #4 would probably be the Deion Branch trade, actually. So I DO think we can say at this time that Ruskell is weaker on the offensive side of things, but hopefully he has learned some valuable lessons…...

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Jul 28, 2008 11:01 AM PDT 0 recs

Well...

I don’t think Spencer qualifies as a ‘worst move’ yet. He had a fair 2006 and 2007. The question is what happens this year now that the line’s holes have been addressed and Spencer can focus on his matchup.

Losing Hutch definitely in the books as a misfire, as is resigning Shaun.

The Branch deal requites a miracle at this point to right. We’ll see though…

by michaelfox99 on Jul 28, 2008 11:48 AM PDT 0 recs

I guess my "worst move"

is there mostly because Spencer was considered a huge reach in the 1st round, as most analysts had him going no sooner than the 3rd. Thus, you are looking for a real difference maker in the 1st round, and Spencer just didn’t seem to fit the profile even then, and nothing to this point has made me feel any differently.

Again, since Ruskell doesn’t really make bad moves, his version of a “worst move” is still MUCH better than, say, Bill Bavasi or whoever the GM of the SuperSonics was before this late guy (you know, the guy who drafted Swift, Petro, and Sene in consecutive drafts), but I still think that it qualifies as one of HIS worst moves.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Jul 28, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Everything I saw

had him as normal value where we picked, and no great surprise at all—raw, yes, but a tremendous physical talent. The question is, after his shoulder injuries/surgeries, can he recover enough of that physical talent to live up to the pick?

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 29, 2008 7:07 AM PDT up 0 recs

Spencer & Carlson

From what we’ve seen of Spencer, I think it’s reasonable to say that if he doesn’t turn out to be a really good player, it will be because of the shoulder injuries—and that’s not something you can hold against Ruskell.

On the other hand, I don’t think you can really give him credit for Carlson, either, since Carlson was a Holmgren pick—it was Holmgren’s eye for offensive talent that was in play there, not Ruskell’s.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 28, 2008 12:55 PM PDT 0 recs

How do we know it was Holmgrens call?

I agree on Spencer, I don’t remember him being a reach at all. Injuries are unfortunately a part of the game, you can’t knock a GM because a player would up getting hurt.

by Nate Dogg on Jul 28, 2008 3:48 PM PDT up 0 recs

Those have been the reports

that Ruskell took Carlson because Holmgren said this was the guy—“he had the look of a ten-year starter in this league” is the way one of the ex-Tacoma guys with ESPN put it.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 29, 2008 7:08 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't think you can really call the acquisition of Brench a "questionable move."

Seattle needed a receiver, and they acquired one of the best available in Branch. Yes, he’s been injured, but it’s not fair to look back at these roster moves in hindsight. At the time it was the correct decision to make.

I’m not all that great with football analysis, so I’ll use a couple of baseball trades to illustrate this point.

It’s generally accepted that the trade of RHP Freddy Garcia for C Miguel Olivo and “SS” Mike Morse was a bust. However, any GM would have made that move. It’s a trade that makes a lot of sense, moving a good RHP for a young catcher with a lot of projected upside and a shortstop who could be an impact player. The only problem is that the players didn’t pan out as we had hoped, but that’s not the GM’s fault.

The Seahawks were in a position to compete, but needed depth at receiver. Therefore, it made sense to offer a draft pick for Branch. It was a smart move that didn’t play out as well as envisioned, but that hardly makes it a “questionable move.” It was a good decision that just didn’t live up to expectations.

by BrianL on Jul 29, 2008 9:43 AM PDT 0 recs

Umm . . .

Olivo didn’t have “projected upside,” though he certainly looked like a better player at the time than he was in Seattle, and there was zero chance Morse was going to be much more than a spare part; he was a throw-in. The main return was Olivo and Jeremy Reed, whom you forgot to mention at all, who at the time looked like he could be a poor man’s Lenny Dykstra.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 29, 2008 11:26 AM PDT up 0 recs

Olivo had a high ceiling as a catcher, and yes I forgot Reed.

Point still stands, though. Moves like that or trading a 1st round pick for a player like Branch aren’t questionable moves, they’re good decisions that simply didn’t pan out.

by BrianL on Jul 29, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up 0 recs

I disagree. A first round draft pick is an extremely valuable commodity.

Even one that is towards the bottom of the first round (actually, research has shown that those draft picks, and the ones at the beginning of the second round, are THE most valuable picks). During that year, we already had DJack, Engram, Hackett, and Burleson. Wide receiver was not a pressing enough need to qualify for a 1st round pick. I mean, look at this year. We are still considered a contender with Engram, Burleson, Taylor, and Obamanu. We lost a cheaper, probably productive player for an older, expensive, more injury-prone player. To me, that represents a questionable decision.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Jul 29, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

But when Branch has been healthy

he’s been dynamite. It was a gamble, and while I can’t say it paid off I’m not willing to say it wasn’t a good idea. He took a shot and Branch hasn’t held up so far.

by Nate Dogg on Jul 29, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, fair enough.

There is definitely an argument to be made in that direction. Again, I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible move. Really, the only move of Ruskell’s that I would deem horrible would be the Hutch move. That was really, really bad. This one, and the Spencer move, I would consider to be towards the bottom of the moves he has made, but I think that should be a pretty good indication of how well Ruskell has done.

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Jul 29, 2008 5:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Definitely a questionable move.

A very important factor: Branch had a significant history of injuries before we traded for him. He was missing games every year.

Injuries are not necessarily predictable, but existing injury red flags should affect a player’s value. Ruskell was right about Branch’s skill and his ability to succeed in the system. He was wrong to trade a first round pick though. I am NOT arguing this on the basis of information not available to Ruskell at the time ( I am not that naive ). I am NOT saying that it was a good move but we got unlucky with the injuries. IT WAS A BAD MOVE BECAUSE BRANCH, AT HIS AGE AND WITH HISTORY OF INJURIES, WAS NOT WORTH A FIRST ROUND PICK. That is NOT WORTH IT AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE.

Hope that clarified things.

Someone above said WR was not a need and I don’t think that is true. We did need a WR, we just didn’t need to blow a first rounder on one. We did have Jackson, Hackett, and Burleson (engram was injured for almost all of 2006, remember). However, Jackson and Hackett were both already known to be injury prone. The last thing we needed was to reach for another guy who can’t stay healthy.

2007 was an amazing WR draft class…

Remember though, I am still listing the Branch move as ‘questionable’. If Branch can come back by mid-season and play well in 8-10 games + playoffs then he will be back on track. Throw in a 14-16 game time machine performance next year and the trade looks pretty good (in retrospect). It will always be a BAD trade because we gave more than Branch was worth. The trade can be somewhat vindicated if Ruskell turns out to be exceptionally right about what Branch can do for us when healthy.

So I think we over-reached regardless of what happens, but if Branch can be effective when healthy then it offers some redeeming value to the deal.

by michaelfox99 on Jul 30, 2008 8:33 AM PDT 0 recs

I honestly don't know, but was Branch really known as an injury-prone receiver before we traded for him?

by BrianL on Jul 30, 2008 8:43 AM PDT up 0 recs

He's only had 1 full season

and he’s most likely looking at the second season in his career where he will miss significant playing time (unless you consider last year as missing significant time, and I couldn’t argue with you if you do).

Branch was always nicked up before coming to Seattle, mostly stuff that caused him to miss practices and what not but you always knew he’d be out there come Sunday. Now the Sunday’s are questionable too.

Let’s not pretend like Ruskell simply overlooked the injury history. Again, this move was a gamble, there was the risk that Branch wouldn’t be able to stay on the field, and so far it’s worked out that way. But from a talent stand point, a production standpoint, Branch has been worth a first round pick when he’s been healthy. It was a risk/reward situation, and so far it hasn’t been worth the risk.

Having said all that, it is really hard when you go back and see Joe Staley and Anthony Gonzalez picked in the 8 picks after the Hawks would have picked.

by Nate Dogg on Jul 30, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

John Carlson

wasn’t the first overall TE chosen, Dustin Keller was drafted by the Jets at #30 in the first round… I remember because when the Jets picked him I was hoping he wasn’t who the Seahawks wanted, and who knows.. .maybe he was, but they’re not going to tell Carlson that.

by Jordon on Aug 5, 2008 7:51 PM PDT 0 recs