The Offensive Line Part 1: Ruskell the Rookie

by John Morgan on Oct 19, 2009 9:41 AM PDT Comment 17 comments

More photos » Elaine Thompson - AP

Seahawks fans are eager for a fall guy after watching their guy fall, but sometimes things go bad without an easy enemy to blame.

Browse more photos »

Normally I take this time to rewatch the game a few times and decide my storylines for the week. I have still yet to see the game. The bye week is on its way and there's plenty to discuss, but actual tape analysis might be a little slow coming.

I didn't need to see it to know that starting Kyle Williams beside Steve Vallos was going to be a problem. It was a not so subtle and not so brief reminder that football coaches can overvalue intelligence and intangibles. Vallos chemistry with Williams didn't make it off the practice field. The more important matter is how did Seattle's line get so bad? Could it be significantly better? And is there still hope for improvement?

From Caviar to Cat Food

Seattle started two future Hall of Fame talents on its Super Bowl bound 2005 team. Walter Jones was the best tackle of a historic class. The best tackle in the history of the NFL, according to some. No one currently associated with the Seahawks deserves credit for Jones success or Jones eventual decline. Three fifths of that historic 2005 line are retired or nearly so. The remaining two are paving the way to Canton for another back and injured, respectively. Knowing that so much of that talented line simply got old is cold comfort, but comfort.

Tim Ruskell bears some responsibility for the Seahawks losing Steve Hutchinson. As we know his style better, his fingerprints appear all over that botched attempt to save fifty bucks. The actual mistake was minor compared to the outcome. Ruskell was blindsided by a poison pill clause that introduced the world to the phrase "poison pill clause". He was backdoored by a wily GM and a guard that wanted out. If we can't ever fully excuse Ruskell from that mistake, I think we should at least maintain perspective.

The Seahawks line was in need of new blood as soon as Ruskell took over. The interior was comprised of two journeymen soon to retire and a free agent. The 2004 team, the team I affectionately call the Trader Bob Superfund, was bereft of promising offensive line talent. It was the principles, Chris Terry, Floyd Womack, Jerry Wunch and Wayne the Pain Hunter.

As has been Ruskell's lot, he was fixing the team at multiple positions during the offseason. He drafted Chris Spencer in the first, Ray Willis in the fourth and Doug Nienhuis in the seventh in a linemen- and linebacker-centric draft. Neinhuis was a pure bust, but Willis has developed into a cheap, talented right tackle. Seattle re-signed Willis this offseason and he's been a rock on an otherwise chalk line.

Spencer is a bit more controversial. He hasn't excelled and he hasn't been awful. He hasn't been healthy and he hasn't been wracked with injury. Spencer is only 27 and his potential is still strong, a potential that could mean eight more years of productive football, but he's a free agent or restricted free agent after this season and might not be worth his open market value.

Ruskell did invest in the offensive line. He did it at the right time and with some success. Willis was the first lineman selected in the fourth round and he has been the second most successful. I will give Jason Brown the benefit of the doubt, though I am not sure Brown is in fact more valuable than Willis. Seattle could have selected Logan Mankins or Michael Roos with its Spencer pick, but it didn't. Roos is a pure tackle and could have perhaps played right tackle for Seattle, allowing Locklear to move inside, but Seattle didn't see offensive tackle as a pressing need, or guard for that matter. Value for value, Willis has been a similar find to Roos. It's also notable that Chris Gray would play three more serviceable seasons at right guard, but Robbie Tobeck was out of the league the very next season. Ruskell added starter caliber talent at the right positions at the right time in his very first draft as a GM.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Let's get superstitious

I missed this game, too. I don’t DVR, I DVD-R. Before TiVo took off. So it has increased its habit of shitting the bed on some recordings. Usually the games that I didn’t even watch a snap of, live. And always games we lose. When I got “disc err,” I just knew I had missed out on a miserable game.

by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 10:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I am firmly in the Ruskell camp

I want him to be retained. I think he’s good.

Criticism is fair currently to the extent that he didn’t mitigate the Walter Jones injury. A sensitive situation because of the player and the regard, I understand that. And I’m thankful that the injury didn’t force his hand at 4th overall. And having picked up Frye, I think he probably did as well in the end as he would have, recognizing he needed at least one more body to count on, there. Since I’m pretty happy with the top of the 2009 draft and how else could he ensure that that last body would also have some upside and also be close to ready, this early. So that criticism is limited while being fair.

I hope Ruskell gets the opportunity to have his legacy defined by the QB that he chooses to rest his legacy on. And I hope we re-sign Spencer for good value.

by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Going into the regular season

We had Lock and Willis at OT with Frye as a backup and Walt a possibility. In the interior, we had Spencer, Sims, Unger, Wrotto and Vallos. It looked to me like a pretty decent starting lineup with good depth.

The problems came as a result of completely unforeseen injuries that devastated our depth. No one can expect to start a couple of 4th-stringers as your LT and LG and expect to compete.

"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie

by ninjasocks on Oct 19, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jones was hurt

Locklear and Willis had injury history. Did we pick up Frye before week 1? Can’t remember, but anyway we had a replacement-level guy in Frye/Williams, and unless we took Monroe or Oher, nobody else would likely have been ready to contribute more than they. I’m not blaming Ruskell, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it was completely unforeseen.

As Sando said, it was predictable. Tackles aren’t all that easy to come by, so there was a slight dearth of options. But then that would further stress the importance of getting one where you can to mitigate the injury risk here, wouldn’t it? I’m not second-guessing. I’m still fine with the moves, more or less. And even if I wasn’t, I have the perspective to still think Ruskell is a fine GM. But if we write everything off as bad injury luck, we’re fooling ourselves.

by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, sort of.

Going into the season, we didn’t have Frye. He was added in desperation once Locklear was injured. Going into the season our OTs included “the prayer of Walt”, Lock and Willis, and hopes that either Williams or Goddard would develop as a backup OT. Neither of them developed. That is really the fault of those two players, but I have to give some blame to the coaches and GM for not finding a better backup OT last summer.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Oct 19, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hurray perspective!

I get as emotional as anyone after a loss, but I’ve never enjoyed the headhunting most fans back into.

I think there’s plenty to criticize in Ruskell’s policies, but it waffles so much from “great young core!” to “OMG our line sucks fire him!” At some point leveller heads have to take over the debate.

by Vasilii on Oct 19, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. Its good to see John write this.

“Ruskell did invest in the offensive line. He did it at the right time and with some success. Ruskell added starter caliber talent at the right positions at the right time in his very first draft as a GM.”

Bravo. Someone has to say this once in a while.

But, John, if you had watched the game, you would have been screaming like the rest of us. Maybe you shouldn’t bother to watch the game. Go back and watch the Rams opening game again to see the team we were supposed to be. The new season begins in two weeks.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Oct 19, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we have a serviceable line when healthy

It’s a young, talented line that has a high ceiling. I think we should let the next few seasons dictate whether we draft new linemen. Instead, we should address areas of the team that are mostly healthy, yet still struggling: secondary (specifically: safety) and running backs (though this could be the fault of aforementioned o-line woes, though I doubt it).

I may be one of the few, but I still have faith in our offensive line. They simply need to get healthy and play together to truly show their potential. Hopefully that happens this season.

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Oct 19, 2009 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like to defer to Madden on the line/back topic

The man, not the game. He said a great back can make a line great, but not the other way around.

Oversimplification, first. A great line can maximize the abilities of a back. A less than great line, can only to the extent of their abilities.

But the point is that a great back transcends his line’s shortcomings. He doesn’t need optimal execution from them to perform. Which is why it always bothered me when the Barry Sanders crowd dismissed Emmitt Smith on account of the differences of their lines, which was also a lie.

Alexander and our line made each other. They definitely allowed Shaun to be his best, and he was. A lesser back would not have come close to that kind of production, though. A lesser back would have rubbed some of the tarnish off those linemen’s reputations.

Finally, so many people were fond of the “I could put my grandma back there and gain a grand on the ground” sentiment when the Broncos brought the term “fungible” into the NFL fan’s lexicon. But when you look back, Only a couple of those backs had real success.

A good back, quicker than what we have now, would dissolve the minor deficiencies of the line. Starters or injury replacements. Wouldn’t quite cover up more glaring issues, but you address those by personnel changes on the line.

So yeah I am in favor of investing in the RB position again next year. Through the draft.

by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

n/s

http://footballoutsiders.com/audibles/2009/audibles-line-week-6

Looks like Doug Farrar feels a little differently than most of us. I imagine his comments on Ruskell in the audibles for the game were a little emotional, but still he let Ruskell have it pretty good. I love Doug and he does awesome work, but I do disagree with his assessment of Ruskell.

by MFAN on Oct 19, 2009 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that's his MO

I was a long time reader on seahawks.net but the overly negative and reactionary nature of everyone on that board drove me away. Doug has been criticizing Deion Branch and the CB’s before they stepped on the field for nothing more then perceived weaknesses.

That being said I still like his work just completely disagree with the opinion he has always carried on Branch, the CBs, and the Hutchinson deal.

by Hancock.Brett on Oct 19, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Farrar's comments are pretty lame

Nothing more than retreads of the typical anti-Ruskell rants.

"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie

by ninjasocks on Oct 19, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do agree

I felt like Doug did, when I felt the WRs were an unaddressed question mark entering last year, while we continued to draft on defense, watching the offense get neglected. After the injuries, of course. I don’t feel that way now, I see a bigger plan in place.

by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balanced Post

There is plenty to criticize Ruskell for but I think many Seahawk fans are underestimating just how much plain old rotten luck he’s had with the o-line.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 19, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great Post!

You hit the nail right on the head with this one John. Well done. He still should’ve franchised Hutch though. Our GM got out "GM’d’ by a wilyer GM on that one. Didn’t we Franchise Josh Brown one year?

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A very quick note about the poison pill

The Vikings particular use of the poison pill was groundbreaking, but the poison bill existed long before that incident. Also, you can ask Doug Farrar to confirm this: the Eagles talked openly a couple months before that offseason about using a more traditional poison pill precisely for Steve Hutchinson.

Though a guard, Hutch was consistently ranked as the top 2006 Free Agent by just about everyone. That kind of special elite talent should NEVER hit Free Agency, unless you are comfortable with losing him. Mike Holmgren, as well as myself and many fans, were stunned by the non-use of the franchise tag. Considering how far apart the two sides were and how little effort Ruskell had made to extend Hutch (which is what rightfully upset him), the Franchise was considered by many to be automatic. Even if the poison pill had been illegal, it was still taking a chance on an irreplaceable player for a relatively tiny amount of money. The whole thing struck me as a dick measuring contest between Ruskell and Hutch, and Ruskell frankly got what he deserved.

by kearly on Oct 19, 2009 7:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Responding to the post (good read)

I agree that Ruskell has had some successes on the O-line. I’m not sure I totally agree about the point that he invested enough resources, but I think even if he hadn’t, that only partially explains how we’ve arrived to this point.

It was less than two years ago that the team started playing games with a Zone Blocking Scheme. Willis, Sims, Spencer, and Wrotto were all drafted during a period when the Seahawks were still running a man system. Part of the struggle on this line has been a combination of talent that is not perfectly suited for the system. Sims is a converted tackle who is probably better suited physically for man, but has adjusted well, and Willis plays tackle where the difference between man and zone is much smaller. Spencer is a good fit for zone, but Wrotto seems to me like he would probably be his best in man.

Unger was the first lineman drafted that was meant for a zone system (meaning he’d probably be significantly more useful in zone than man). Unger has been bad so far, but it usually takes a couple years for lineman to hit their stride. He’s also a bit slight for G in the NFL and may improve further if moved to center.

My take on the line is that it has some solid peices, but it needs star power. The only member of the current line that I think will likely be above average at his current position is Sims. It would be very nice if the team could add two more above average pieces or perhaps 1 elite piece.

Health is a big issue, and the team currently lacks quality depth. Injuries happen, but the Seahawks did not enter this season prepared for them at OL, and that is probably the biggest factor in the catastrofuck that has been the 2009 OL.

More moves are needed, and I think perhaps even before the QB of the future is considered, the team may need to place OL on an even higher priority list. If Ruskell is extended (and he probably will be), I sincerely hope that at least 2 good OL are drafted/signed this offseason.

by kearly on Oct 19, 2009 8:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs