Seattle's Four Positional Needs
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 12:58 PM PST
88 comments
As a follow up to my 'When Need Matters' post, here are my thoughts on Seattle's most pressing positional needs.
Defensive tackle: Starter Rocky Bernard will sign elsewhere as a free agent. Red Bryant played in only four games as a rookie. Depending on where Seattle sees Brandon Mebane's future, Seattle needs starter capable depth at right or left defensive tackle.
Potential FA Fits: Shaun Cody, Jovan Haye and Albert Haynesworth
Safety: Seattle could target a free safety, attempting to replace Brian Russell, or a strong safety, attempting to replace Brian Russell with Deon Grant. Seattle foolishly attributed 2007's sorta success from its secondary to the entire secondary, ignoring stellar contributions by Marcus Trufant and Deon Grant and utter failure by Brian Russell. Available free agents are either long in the tooth or a poor fit. Look for Seattle to draft a safety and open the position for him to win, but don't look for Seattle to cut Russell.
Potential FA Fits: Jermaine Phillips, Mike Brown, Jarrad Page
Offensive Guard: Tim Ruskell is content to draft power and potential and hope Mike Solari makes them something special. That philosophy makes Seattle an attractive destination for defamed retreads looking for a second chance. A powerful mauler with the intelligence to maneuver a zone block would do wonders for Greg Knapp's power rushing attack. I'm partial to Duke Robinson. That's unlikely. A thin free agent class and recent exorbitant free agent contracts will force Seattle to address this need through the draft.
Potential FA Fits: Stacy Andrews
Wide Receiver: Seattle has assembled ridiculous depth at wide receiver and from that depth there's a reasonable chance it will find its starting two. Deion Branch is a lock at flanker. Nate Burleson and Courtney Taylor should be in the running for split end. Mike Hass, Jordan Kent, Logan Payne, Billy McMullen, Michael Bumpus, Ben Obomanu and Trent Shelton will battle for the scraps. Only Branch and Burleson are safe. Seattle doesn't need numbers, but a boost in talent would help.
Potential FA Fits: TJ Houshmandzadeh, Bobby Engram, Koren Robinson
Seattle needs depth but no definite upgrade at offensive tackle, center, outside linebacker, running back, defensive end and backup quarterback. I think Seattle addresses defensive tackle through free agency. A low cost, high upside pickup like Shaun Cody makes a ton of sense. Cody bottomed out in Detroit, but is just 25. He doesn't block Bryant if Bryant steps up and wouldn't kill Seattle if forced to start. Safety and guard are best addressed through the draft. Seattle could sign a steady player like Houshmandzadeh or just as likely do nothing. It's worth mentioning that Seattle's wide receivers looked much more capable in Seneca Wallace's starts.
0 recs |
88 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
IMO, FA is the way to go for S.
I’d love to be able to draft a guy like William Moore, but after looking at the FA list I’m starting to think that S is one of the few deep positions in an other wise weak FA group … so IMO it’d be a better use of resources to get a guy there, and then save our picks for DL, OL, etc in the draft..
Phillips is really the only proven cover-2 S available but guys like Sean Jones, Kerry Rhodes, Atari Bigby, James Sanders would look a helluva lot better than Scrappy at SS, if Grant was moved back to FS and we played more cover-1/cover-3 (as I’m hoping Mora will do)
FYI – I don’t think Jonathan Babineaux is a FA. IIRC, he signed an extension with ATL. Bummer too, because I thought he’d be a decent replacement for Bernard.
by jteckmann on Jan 20, 2009 1:22 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good catch
I was using an outdated FA list.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hard to find an accurate list right now.
I used the one from kffl.com, but I notice it still shows Chris Gamble as an UFA. Heck, for all I know, half the Safeties I’m wanting aren’tavailable.
by jteckmann on Jan 20, 2009 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I seem to remember one of the draft blogs saying Moore is a poor pass defender
… so, if you think what we need is more run defense from the safeties, he’d be a good pick. Otherwise, not.
I vote for “not”.
by Mr Fish on Jan 20, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, more run D & effective blitzing from the S position would be sweet.
That’s one of the main reasons I want an upgrade. I’m pretty tired of B-Buss’s dead-cat bounce, as gritty as it is.
But a lot depends on what we’re even going to ask our Safeties to do. If we stick with a base cover-2 scheme, then yeah, we’ll need a Russell replacement who’s much better vs. the pass. But, if we’re going to more cover-1/cover-3 (like what Mora ran in ATL & SanFran) then a more traditional SS is called for.
That’s the main reason I’m paying attention to S this offseason, because IMO what moves they make there will be a big indicator about what type of scheme they plan on running next year, and just how much “tampa-2” influence Bradley is bringing in.
I’ve read conflicting stuff on Moore, and stuff that says he was a very good pass defender in ‘07 but his injury along with Mizzou’s regression on D as a whole contributed to a poor ‘08. At any rate, I don’t think he’s a realistic draft option for us. With Mays staying in school, Moore probably becomes the best S available, and maybe even goes late first. If we do pick him, it’d probably have to be with our second rounder … and with the depth of S in the draft, and all our other needs, I dunno if we spend a pick that early.
by jteckmann on Jan 20, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Moore can do anything.
He’s certainly much better than Taylor Mays at pass coverage but can still lay the wood against the run.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just to add...
Missouri’s front seven was pretty good against the run but didn’t generate much pass rush. In response the coaches bulked Moore up, put him in the box, and blitzed him this year… a lot… and not to very good effect. MU was an AWFUL blitzing team this year, just awful.
Moore is a better center fielder than blitzer—more Ed Reed than Brian Dawkins. He is most effective in deep zone coverage reading the QB and getting a jump on the receiver without taking a lot of gambles. He also has excellent hands, evidenced by the 7 or 8 picks he had in ’07.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 9:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sold.
I don’t want to sound like a borken record, but goddamn am I excited for this draft. Number 2 pick for the Mariners and a number 4 pick for the Hawks? Of course after getting so damn excited the last 2 years over number 2 and number 4 for the Sonics, I might tone down the excitement.
Best case scenario for me right now is Oher in the 1st, Moore in the 2nd, Duke Robinson in the 3rd, sign TJ and Haynesworth, go to the superbowl against the Steelers, win 56-0 sacking Big Ben 15 times for a SB record.
by LantermanC on Jan 21, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mine is Crabtree, Moore, and Unger (providing some magical draft fall like Red Bryant)
All can step in and contribute. I definitely share your optimism over the draft. Picking that early every round is really going to add to the team, and a decent FA period and we’ll turn this disaster of a season around no problem.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Duke Robinson in the third is a pipe dream.
The rest of that is fine.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 21, 2009 3:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm going to keep smoking that pipe,
you’re welcome to take a hit if you’d like.
by LantermanC on Jan 21, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe a pipe dream...
But if you look at Mel Kiper’s mock draft (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/insider/news/story?id=3849927)
He has Oher going 28th overall! Which means if we trade down to get Oher, we could trade up to get Duke.
Though obviously this mock draft sucks for several reasons… 1, it’s way too early. 2. It’s Mel Kiper. 3. He has Josh Freeman going 19th overall.
by LantermanC on Jan 22, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
bleh, not an Insider
but it seems it’s not a smart purchase if he has something as moronic as Josh Freeman going that high.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 22, 2009 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did Oher start bumping off hookers or something?
how else would he fall to 28th?
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 22, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do not take Kiper's mock draft seriously.
Oher goes top 10, book it.
by redwolf75 on Jan 22, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Brown would be great
until he got hurt and Russell went back in
by Nate Dogg on Jan 20, 2009 2:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kerry Rhodes resigned..
He also had a pretty underwhelming year.
Sean Jones would be worth a look see. But I think safety is best addresed in the draft. Outside of Will Moore in the 1st round the rest of the draft is pretty deep with starting capable guys. Personally I’d love to see Derek Pegues taken with our 3rd, one of the better cover-2 safety prospects I have seen.
DT; Jovan Haye and Shaun Cody would be worth a look, maybe Rob Meier too.
If only this was next year and we were picking between Eric Berry, Gerald McCoy and Marvin Austin at #4.
I’d also throw Michael Bumpus in the mix for a wr spot.
by puerto on Jan 20, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
FYI
This is meant to reflect Seattle’s needs as I think Tim Ruskell sees it and not my personal opinion about Seattle’s needs.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 2:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Would converting Tapp ever work?
Atkins showed up late in the year, Jackson has room to improve, and we should have Kerney back so maybe Tapp could flex in at OLB a bit? I mean you could make sure not to put him out there against 4 WR of course.
by michaelfox99 on Jan 20, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He would only be good as a blitzer and likely worse than if he were playing off the line.
I actually think Tapp factors in Seattle’s future. 5.5 sacks out of a 24 year old defensive end is nothing to sneeze at.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee Ruskell does his best to retain Hill, including Franchising him if need be.
But supposing we follow that train of thought, wouldn’t it make sense to move Kerney there instead? He was a Pro Bowl OLB when Atlanta experimented with a 3-4, right?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can play OLB in a 4-3 better than Patrick Kerney. But seriously,
OLB in a 3-4 is essentially equivalent to DE in a 4-3 — the OLBs are basically rushing the QB on each and every play, as DEs do in a 4-3.
In a 4-3 however, Kerney would have two very important duties just as important (if not more important) as rushing the QB — run support in space and coverage. I shiver at the thought of Kerney taking on those duties.
He’s wayyyy too big and slow.
by redwolf75 on Jan 20, 2009 8:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure Seattle franchises Hill.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 4:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The market seems to demand it doesn't it?
I don’t see a realistic replacement who can come right in and provide anything close to that level of production.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
I thought there were a lot of FA LB’s out there.
Some of the lists I’ve seen, Hill isn’t even in the top five.
by djafrot on Jan 21, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And I'd prefer it stay that way.
Lest some team delude him into thinking he’s a perennial All-Pro and sign him off for a massive contract.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 12:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't pay close attention to him (or any of the regular seahawks for that matter)
at the end of the season. What was his injury? Anything serious? Did we not play just for precautionary reasons?
by LantermanC on Jan 21, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Stinger he suffered when he stuffed Marion Barber at the goalline during the Thanksgiving game.
Apparently he lost feeling in his shoulder and it slowly recovered, until the end of the season. He isn’t injury prone and it isn’t serious, but he’s been nicked up a lot his career here so far.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On the lists I've seen
The FA’s that are ranked higher than Hill are either OLB’s from a 3-4, MLBs or older guys who will be short-time hired guns (like Lewis, if he leaves BAL) The one FA OLB that I personally consider to be better than Hill is Bart Scott – and that’s because he appears so versatile & well-rounded.
by jteckmann on Jan 21, 2009 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any word on Walter Jones and/or what we might be looking at w/r/t OT next season?
by Matthew on Jan 20, 2009 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
No word on his recovery
other than the normal platitudes. Sean Locklear could be Seattle’s left tackle of the future and I think Tim Ruskell has fooled himself into thinking Kyle Williams and Na’Shan Goddard represent depth.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is
I hope he adds talent at tackle. If not a first rounder, at least a capable reserve.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, I hope to god we resign both Engram and KoRo.
Engram because he will accelerate Hass’ recovery, KRob because he is our best WR.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 4:38 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
KRob is not our best WR.
Nonwithstanding the fact his knee is toast (through which he’s lost the agility and speed that had him drafted 9), he showed an annoying tendency later in the season to run lazy routes. Not to mention the comeback of his bad hands.
I hope he’s not starting next year. As a 4th receiver signed to a cheap short term deal I’m fine with him.
by redwolf75 on Jan 20, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What? K-Rob looked pretty good this season, I thought...
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Jan 20, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy him going forward as a starting receiver.
by redwolf75 on Jan 20, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But, if not a starter, at least a more dependable third or fourth than what we have
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Jan 22, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
K-Rob makes all the hard, "WTF how'd he catch that?" catches, in exchange for dropsies on the gimmes.
His routes aren’t great but he still has decent speed, and considering Dallas gave up a first round pick and a huge contract for an overrated version of him in Roy Williams I’d say it’d be a smart move to keep him.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 23, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas's retardation doesn't in itself validate keeping him.
I don’t disagree with you on keeping DrinKyrob, but how they chose to waste resources in no way should determine how we do ours,
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Jan 23, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But Roy Williams is a decent WR.
Not elite by any means, but clearly slightly above average. That’s K-Rob. But since we all agree, let’s end this.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 23, 2009 10:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As for guard, I personally still favor Wahle if his health permits.
However, I would be tremendously relieved if we drafted a jack of all trades like Unger for starter-quality depth.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 4:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think Wahle is a poor fit for the system, chronically injured and likely on his way out.
I endorsed Seattle retaining him, but the more I think about it, the more I think he’ll be out with the first wave of cuts.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can't argue with the injury part. A shame because Wahle really relied on his strength.
But poor fit for the system, how you figure? Is he bad as a zone blocker or something? And I would much rather have him demoted or something rather than have players of Rob Sims’ caliber manning the depth chart.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Wahle playing in Holmgren's system
but he’s more of a good-footed technician and Seattle need a powerhouse that can move well in space and make decisions on the move.
Rob Sims is good.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A good pass blocker, but I thought he was a poor run blocker? And a penalty machine when he was LG in 2007 I think.
And since what little I know about personnel is based from your analysis, I thought Wahle was an “oddly capable pull blocker” who did a good job recognizing the need to cut upfield and engage Patrick Willis early in the season, which theoretically fits with what you say Seattle needs. Or I could be completely off the mark here, but a minor explanation would be nice.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very good pull blocker, but his power is gone.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh. That sucks.
I really liked him but if that’s the case, the writing is probably on the wall.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He was overmatched as a pass blocker
and that’s job one.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I noticed his pass pro had clearly taken a dive since his GB days.
Just not stout at the point of attack anymore.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 7:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And while we're on the subject of the o-line, what are the odds of retaining Ray Willis?
And what are some pros and cons of that move?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Seattle retains Willis
He has a place to start in Seattle and I just don’t see the market being that great.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good. Thanks.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, Sims could turn into an adequate run blocker
especially in a zone system.
by John Morgan on Jan 20, 2009 5:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For what its worth
We still haven’t seen what Sims looks like in Zone, but I’m optimistic. Here is what he said last summer:
“Last year, we did a lot of man-on-man stuff. This year, we’re doing more zone stuff, and that’s what (the players) wanted to do last year anyway. In the NFL, you’re going against the best of the best. When you’re man-on-man every single snap, you can get beat. It’s one of those things where, if you’ve got five guys going man-on-man, they’re more likely to get beat.”
This is probably about as close as you will get to hearing an NFL player admitting that he’s a poor run blocker 1 on 1. A zone system will benefit Sims here. It may not turn him into an all-pro, but it will marginalize his biggest weakness, and he’ll still be a solid pass blocker.
by kearly on Jan 20, 2009 6:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
shauncody75.com
shauncody75.com <—Don’t do it! endless links to gay porn. and I thought wikipedia was a reliable source for links… :(
Question: is Cody a 3-tech tackle? Also, is Mebane set opposite the 3-tech, or does he have the ability to be one?
by Misfit74 on Jan 20, 2009 6:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
HAHAHA
Wikipedia is awesome. Also, 75 was Cody’s number in Detroit.
by kearly on Jan 20, 2009 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know...signing Shaun Cody might actually be a shrewd move that could possibly pay huge dividends.
Although I’m fairly certain the team is going to give Red Bryant the chance to start. In Mora’s presser, when he was talking about consistent pressure from the front 4, he specifically named Tapp, Jackson, Kerney, Mebane, and Bryant. That basically tells us Rocky Bernard is done as a Seahawk, and they like what they see from Bryant.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 7:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am very excited with what red bryant can go.
Just stay healthy Red!
I hope his injuries last year were an aberration, and not the sign of what’s to come.
by redwolf75 on Jan 20, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Marcus Tubbs v2...?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 20, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I wanted him out of the draft a few years back. To me, he’s a better version of Craig Terrill. If you depend on him to play every snap you’re not a good team. If he’s part of a rotation where he can stay fresh I think he helps you. I can’t imagine that reuniting him with his buddy Lofa Tatupu in a system that is fundamentally similar to what he ran in college couldn’t hurt either.
I’d add that although this draft seems to lack game-changing DTs, it has some admirable depth. There should be some nice Red Bryant-type bargains available well into day 2.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Free Agent WR
I realize they are long shots, but do the Seahawks consider TB’s Bryant if he hits FA, or Philly’s Hank Baskett if his RFA designation is reasonable? Also, would Jabar Gaffney be worth looking at for a modest contract?
by kearly on Jan 20, 2009 7:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
more Cody
From what I see, Cody is a 3-tech, and has good skills that haven’t yet developed. Good coaching (and change of scenery) could cause him to blossom. I guess I can see why you list him as a ‘fit’.
more on Cody: http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2008/06/scouting_report_shaun_cody.html
by Misfit74 on Jan 20, 2009 7:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
another S fit?
John, what do you think about O.J. Atogwe?
by Misfit74 on Jan 20, 2009 7:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The reason Seattle's receivers looked much more capable
in Wallace’s starts is because they were. That’s when Engram and Branch returned to form.
by VBJohnson on Jan 20, 2009 7:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That, but Hass seemed to have some poorly thrown passes.
And his recognition seemed a second or two slower than it has in past season, not sure why since that doesn’t seem like it would be a back problem.
by LantermanC on Jan 20, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he looked bad
because his wide recievers were totally covered almost always.
by VBJohnson on Jan 20, 2009 9:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt ws awful against the Giants, Redskins and Cardinals with the same WR's Wallace had.
Plus, of that group only Washington has a top flight secondary.
by MFAN on Jan 21, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You should have watched the games
The WR were covered.
by VBJohnson on Jan 21, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heavily, I might add.
It was remarkable how unable the WRs were to get open at all until later in the season.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
..when the starting receivers who were injured finally returned to form
by VBJohnson on Jan 21, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, yes, that likely stemmed from injury. O_o
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jan 21, 2009 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jamar Adams
Do we still see him as part of the mix? I doubt he is being considered as a replacement, but does he remain in the mix as depth?
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Guard depth
I am assuming that Wahle is shown the door. I’m assuming that we re-up with Chop on a 1 year deal and Willis on something more substantial. The likely starters are Sims at one guard and Pork Chop/Wrotto/Willis (among the candidates on the current roster) at the other. One of those three is also the likely starter at RT.
John mentioned Stacy Andrews as guard depth. I’d add Trai Essex as a low cost/decent upside option. I think Trai was miscast at tackle, though he could play it in a pinch. He could also make a nice zone-blocking guard. I doubt he’d cost a ton either.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 10:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Receiver
I’m not counting on it, but I just think we’re gonna end up with Crabtree. There’s a long, long way between now and the draft. However, I don’t see the basic dynamic at the position—lots of depth, very little true playmaking ability—between now and the spring.
I think the board is going to fall in a way that will make Crabtree the obvious best value at #4. He projects to reach his prime quickly and to have a very long one (barring injury). Further, I think it’ll be especially hard to move down in this draft because a) it’s generally bottom-heavy, and b) neither QB really rates as a franchise QB.
If for some reason Ruskell decides to go in a different direction, I think he probably just goes with what we have. (That is, other than re-signing Bobby Engram.)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 10:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
However, I don’t see the basic dynamic at the position—lots of depth, very little true playmaking ability—between now and the spring.
I meant to say “However, I don’t see Ruskell changing the basic dynamic at the position…”
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 21, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
