GM Tim Ruskell breaks his silence.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 9, 2009 12:02 PM PST
Email
Printhttp://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2009/01/08/p36115#more36115
Tim Ruskell opens up about how the season went, how the team will approach the draft and free agency, and how he feels that the team needs tweaking rather than an overhaul to become competitive again. Worth a read, and I personally felt pretty encouraged by it. He seems to realize Olindo Mare and Koren Robinson's contributions were pretty significant, which dispels my fear that our special teams will be an abject disaster next season.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sweet
On whether Greg Knapp’s emphasis is more on the run game than the passing game: "It could. You know, what they’re going to do a really good job of is based on the personnel. What can we do based on our personnel? [It’s] not so much, ‘Okay, just get the guys that fit our scheme.’ [It’s more about,] ‘Who do we have here, and what are we going to best be able to do?’
On making moves this past season to try to salvage it: "Sure, many talks that way. I think we ended up making the move for Keary Colbert and that was a move out of desperation. If we would have sat and thought and said, ‘Let’s just give these young players some more time…’ We thought we needed another veteran and we did that move and it didn’t pan out. I regret that move, and that was born out of desperation. With the guys we had here who were with us all through camp and knew the offense…It was hard to incorporate someone new into the offense and it really wasn’t fair for Keary."
It doesn't seem we'll be drafting Oher or Smith if they fall to 4..
Why’d he ask the LeRoy question 3 times, he should’ve asked about the possibility of trading down or something.
I think we will
On not selecting an offensive lineman with their first-round pick: "I have never been fond of the high offensive lineman, but I don’t know if that is a correct way to look at it, with the increased importance placed on the left tackle. It’s not a sexy pick and you can’t really show the highlights. It is important, and it’s the nuts and bolts to the football team. The reality is, there are guys who warrant that pick and there have been guys who have been successful in our league. Just looking at it, the offensive linemen in this draft are pretty strong."
Yeah but then he makes comments like this...
The good news is, we do like those guys and they did get a chance to play. Our guys have done a great job at drafting offensive lineman in the fourth round. We started with Ray Willis, then Rob Sims and finally Wrotto. That lends into my philosophy of not drafting a lineman so high in the draft. If they are well-coached and they work together and you have tough guys then they can work together. Everybody knows the offensive line is about continuity. Once you’re above the bar talent-wise, then it’s about continuity and working together."
On whether he believes the offensive line is above the bar talent-wise: "I do, yes."
This was the one that I liked
On how much he thinks the defense needs to increase in size this offseason: "No, I’m not a believer in the size. We have some small players, but do we get rid of Lofa Tatupu and Leroy Hill? That’s not it. It’s the coordination, the synchronization of the defense, everybody doing their job and putting guys in the positions—based on their skills—to be productive. We’ve got to do a better job of that, and we will do a better job. And then there’s attitude. When there’s one or two guys making the tackle on an outside screen play as opposed to four or five, then you’re not going to get the job done, so there’s that as well. It’s an attitude thing."
Underwhelming interview
IF you can believe anything he said, I like the idea of keeping Leroy Hill even if you have to franchise him. He didn’t give me a warm feeling about Jones or Hasselback returning to the starting lineup. Clearly he doesn’t believe in drafting lineman early on day 1, and feels they can get good quality in 3rd and 4th round. I’ve heard the same said about receivers. So, what will they do at #4? He recognized the need to get pressure opposite Kearney and said Jackson started hot and fizzled. He also talked about the poor economy and strain on revenue. I still believe that if they can trade down for additional picks, they will. If they can’t, the only positions worthy of a #4 pick and the salary it will command AND are positions of greatest need are QB and Safety or Corner. I’m betting that if the Lions take a QB, and St. Louis takes OT and Kansas City takes DE, the Seahawks take CB (Malcolm Jenkins) or if Kansas City takes Jenkins then they take DE (Orakpo). Pass defense ranked 28th, and the hawks must address that need. IF they lose Hill to free agency, then maybe an OLB (Aaron Curry) fits at #4. Round 2 will be the best wide receiver available and round 3 and 4 will be OT and DT.
Posted again, emphasis mine re: O-linemen
“I have never been fond of the high offensive lineman, but I don’t know if that is a correct way to look at it, with the increased importance placed on the left tackle. It’s not a sexy pick and you can’t really show the highlights. It is important, and it’s the nuts and bolts to the football team. The reality is, there are guys who warrant that pick and there have been guys who have been successful in our league. Just looking at it, the offensive linemen in this draft are pretty strong.”
On the Seahawks.com main page they have the audio for the interview...
This makes it slightly easier to infer what his answers are signifying. Regarding the OL situation, it is my contention that he believes Locklear is our next LT. I’d expect him to draft someone versatile like Unger in the second round, as a precaution.
And that piggie comment is just as weird to hear as it was to read.
by tohereknowswhen on Jan 9, 2009 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
Well that would make sense
isn’t it writen into Locklears contract that he gets incentives for playing LT?
I dont' know anything about this Curry guy
and I’m sure he’s great and all. But if we could trade down to the 10 spot and get Maluega, I’d be psyched.
Do we need another ILB?
Lofa is our ILB, unless we’re changing from 4-3 to 3-4. And just re-signed. Peterson and Hill are OLB. Unless Lofa moves out to OLB, where does Maluega play? I’m no expert but I don’t think they are interchangeable. For top ten money we’d better get a starter somewhere. If we franchise Hill, we need much more help in the secondary, or even on the D-line.
Yeah, I'm also unsure of how interchangeable they are...
But it seems like Peterson is the type of guy who would be good anywhere and same for Ray Lewis, mainly because their both so damn good.
Not sure if he’d be ‘worse off’ at an OLB position, but having linebackers who can sack, make ints, tackle well, and just in general seem to know where a play is going seems like a thing a team can never get enough of (with a limit of 3 or 4…)
I think most of us would be just a little disappointed
to get this Curry guy with the #4 pick.
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Jan 9, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions
I'd be disappointed to get Curry, period.
LB is the only group we can definitively say is a strength.
Unless
Hill is asking for the moon and is too expensive to resign. If so, having Curry would be beyond awesome.
Hill doesn't seem like a bad guy
but its hard to imagine anyone in his situation not asking for the moon.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 10, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
No, it wouldn't.
Even if Hill leaves, we still have a top flight LB unit. There is absolutely no reason to draft Curry over our numerous positions of need.
by Fearless Frog on Jan 10, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
Huh?
If Hill leaves where is the topflight unit? Who is the Pro bowl level top flight LB to take his place? There isn’t one. If Curry is as advertised then the Seahawks would still have the best LB unit in the NFL. If there is no replacement for Hill then the LB corps takes a big hit, and they weren’t all that great this year anyway.
LOL
“the Seahawks would still have the best LB unit in the NFL.”
“and they weren’t all that great this year anyway.”
You’re such a joker.
I'm assuming
they were playing way below their true ability this season.
Anyway, the last thing they need is a big decline in ability, don’t you think? If Hill is gone and Curry is the best player available, it’s a no brainer, you take him.
I can't believe that you, one of the few people here who
agree with me that we shouldn’t take a QB with our first pick, are seriously suggesting drafting a linebacker that early, of all positions. Unless of course, you are secretly Dukeshire in disguise and want us to cut Peterson. >_>; Hehe
by Fearless Frog on Jan 11, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
I explained why it would make sense
I don’t think you realize what a big drop off the defense would have if Hill was lost.
There're enough in-house options to replace Hill, if need be
He’s not a Pro-Bowler. Potentially, yeah, but so was Anthony Simmons. He hasn’t put it all together yet. And he’s not well-rounded enough to justify top money. Peterson & Tatupu are quick to point out his strengths, but player compliments in the media are hardly the most objective talent evaluation. Hill benefits as much, if not more playing next to them as they do with him.
If Hill gets too expensive, you’ve got Lewis who could be re-signed cheap (and the LB’s hardly skip a beat when he’s in there). You’ve got Herring, who’s lightning quick, probably better in coverage and fits a tampa-2 scheme, and you have some intriguing potential in Laury & Hawthorne. And then there will always be mid-tier FA options available like Boley, or even the mid rounds of the draft, where we got Hill to begin with.
Swapping Hill for Curry would be a mistake, IMO and not an efficient use of resources. 2 elite LB’s with a solid 3rd, and he #4 pick going to a bigger position of need make a better team as a whole, rather than 3 elite LB’s and a glaring gap somewhere else.
Yeah, well
hopefully Ruskell will do what he always does, which is fill al the glaring gaps before the draft so he is free to take a potential perennial All Pro like Curry. There is nothing like utter domination by a linebacking corps to make a defense.
Look I"m rooting for Crabtree, myself. I love a dominant passing game even more than a dominant defense, but I want the Seahawks to take whatever perennial All Pro they can at #4, regardless of position.
I've warmed up to taking Crabtree as well.
We need an infusion of young talent at the WR position that CAN produce at a high level.
@jteckman very good points on Hill.
Has Laury gotten any looks at LB the last few years, as Herring has? I’ve just seen him play on ST.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
