The Offensive Line Part 3: The Healthy Year
Steve Hutchinson is an amazing talent. Seattle wasn't building a line of amazing talents. Chris Gray was sagging, Walter Jones in decline, Sean Locklear as serviceable as ever and Chris Spencer and Rob Sims still getting their feet wet. But it had a healthy line. Jones missed one game, the only game missed by Seattle's starting five, and he missed that game as a precaution. It's not well remembered today, but Seattle's 2007 offense was good, even with Shaun Alexander. It was a twelth ranked offense and a 9th ranked passing offense. The run game was solid outside of Alexander. Maurice Morris had his best season as a pro.
Seattle was healthy in 2007 and other than right guard, it did not seem to have pressing needs at offensive line. Jones was writing the book on modern dominance at left tackle and his historic peers at the position commonly played into their mid- to late-thirties. Sims and Spencer were the subject of Mike Holmgen's scorn, but neither player played that bad, and both were still very young at a position that historically peaks late.
The big flub happened in 2006 and hurt Seattle in the 2007 draft. Tim Ruskell traded the Seahawks first round pick for Deion Branch and then signed him to a six-year, $39 million. He desperately wanted out from Darrell Jacksons's contract, could not retain Joe Jurevicius after Vicious signed for less to play for his hometown Browns, had no interest in keeping Jeremy Stevens, was about to lose Bobby Engram to Graves Disease, and had signed Nate Burleson as a inexpensive project wide receiver and return man. Burleson has fulfilled both roles well. He has cost Seattle $2, $3.5 and $4 million against the cap his first three seasons.
Ruskell saw the Seahawks a contender and didn't see a better opportunity to add a wide receiver. He may have reached a bit, but the enormity of his decision is overblown. Late first round picks are seldom superstars and often outright busts. Had Seattle switched Branch for a generic, late-first round receiver, that receiver would have underperformed the disappointing Branch. It could have used that pick elsewhere however. It could have drafted Ben Grubbs, Arron Sears or Justin Blalock. All three have been solid, though Sears career may be over after a frightening concussion.
This marks the point where we can first say Ruskell was deemphasizing the offensive line. He didn't add significant talent in a significantly talented class, opting instead to draft project player, Mansfield Wrotto, in the fourth. The team made a run at Kris Dielman, but when Dielman frowned at Seattle's weather and went home to San Diego to sign for less, the Seahawks didn't have a plan ‘B'. Its good health at offensive line may have hidden a rotting foundation. Chris Gray started 16 but arguably shouldn't have started one. Excepting Jones, it wasn't very talented, and the youth movement Ruskell started with Spencer, Willis and Sims, was not added to or challenged. Tom Ashworth and Floyd Womack were still primary depth and the most promising successor to Jones was Locklear.
The year that Ruskell's plan was its most effective was also the year Ruskell's plan looked most ominous. Seattle didn't land one of that free agent class's big name guards and didn't acquire talent that could start in a pinch. Had the same injuries occurred that year as have this, Seattle was thinner and weaker and more likely to collapse with Tom Ashworth, Mansfield Wrotto and Steve Vallos thrust into action than even Kyle Williams, modern Wrotto and modern Vallos.
But it didn't and line depth didn't seem like such an awful big deal in 2007. What line could look good blocking Shaun Alexander? It had young parts, an ageless veteran and a defense that was starting to look like the future of the team.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good article
I don’t think the first sentence of the caption makes sense though. What does Hasselbeck make?
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 19, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions
easy decisions?
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Oct 19, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn't we add Mike Wahle that year from Carolina that year we didn't get Diehlman?
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 12:50 PM PDT reply actions
Also on Branch..
I actually think we would’ve done better with our Late 1st round pick then getting Branch. Greg Olsen went late in the 1st Rd to the Bears after our pick we traded to New England (the Pats took Brandon Merriweather). Tight End was big hole for us and I would take Olsens production over Branches any day. We have now just addressed TE but probably a yeaer to late. (Thank you Marcus Pollard)
We more than likely would have done better
because we’d have a younger guy. Coulda busted, I know. But I think we woulda done better.
No biggie. It wasn’t because Branch was better than what would have been available in the draft. It was for Holmgren. It was to win now. It was because Joe left and Darrell and Bobby were always playing hurt. Branch hadn’t been injured much, or at all, with New England. It seemed a little high, but we bought at the wrong time. In the coming offseasons good trades were made for mid-rounders.
I have a hard time faulting Ruskell for trying to win now, trying to give the coach he didn’t pick the pieces he wanted even if it didn’t completely jib with Ruskell’s personnel approach or strategy or long-term viability. He recognized this team as one in the midst of contention, but with an aging core. He recognized it takes longer to develop an offense, and gave a youthful defense to compliment the established core. He didn’t seek to put his stamp on the team by making key moves that would define his legacy, but respected what was already in place and worked to prolong the contention window with this established core. Won some playoff games, didn’t make it all the way. Essentially put his money on Walt & Hasselbeck for one more year rather than give up on them before their verdict was out, rather than play it safe and hide behind the idea that he’s rebuilding after Holmgren’s team was finished.
For a lot of moves, I’ve been perplexed and frustrated along with everyone else, but now I recognize the fine job he’s done, the neglect of the offense was by design for the greater purpose described above and he’s shown he can scout linemen and not just defensive players. Skill position players have been the least replenished, but a team with a defense and a line can become lethal when a couple standout guys who touch the rock come around. Still need a tackle, but we’ll get one. And this contradicts the idea that offense takes longer to develop, but that’s mostly the line and QB. We’re part-way there and the defense won’t be old by the time it comes around.
by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
The pick wouldn’t have cost nearly as much against the cap as Branch did.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 19, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for this series of articles, John
I was awfully pissed off by the poor line play yesterday and the thinking behind some of my comments was probably imbalanced as a result.
Thanks for providing some valuable historical perspective.
My worry for this game
was that they’d tee off on Hasselbeck. I knew it was a centerpiece of their gameplan. I expected it could be the deciding factor in the game. I was surprised that it made this much of a difference.
by jacobstevens on Oct 19, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice article
but it doesn’t make me want Holmgren to take over for Ruskell any less.
Ruskell has made too many questionable moves for me to think he has done a fine job.
This team could be a lot better with a different set of stepping stones than the ones Ruskell has in place.
As a professional GM how do you not look at Hasselbeck and Jones at the beginning of this year and say these guys are going to need to be replaced soon?
I’ll admit, I liked him drafting Curry, but I think we could have gotten Michael Ohr and been just fine on defense with Hill, Herring and Tatupu starting at the LB positions.
Ruskell thought that we needed an elite pass rush Lb when we really needed an elite player on the O-line.
I ROCK out with my HAWK out, therefore I am....
your right.
Curry is turning into a dominating force at LB but LB wasn’t a pressing need either. But he was preparing for Hill possibly leaving in the offseason so I can kind of understand that move to. But I do think O-line needed to be addressed more then LB. I could ssay the same for WR to. Housz is still not a #1 to me. I agree with you though that the great review on Ruskell that John did doens’t make me want Holmgren any less to. That being said I do think Rusk has done some good here to.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not like Ruskell neglected the line during the last draft.
If we had selected Ohr there’s a good chance we don’t draft Unger in the second and spend that pick on a non O-line position.
Instead, Ruskell saw amazing talent in Curry and decided he was too good to let slip, then addressed the line in the second round by selecting Unger.
Do you think Unger is better then Oher so far? Different positions LT vs. C/G
I thought this years draft was much deeper at LB then OL and Oher was regarded as a top flight LT in the draft. I would consider LT a 1st round pick a higher priority then LB. You can usually find good LB’s later in the draft (ex. Tats, Hill) Might have made more sense to draft LT then LB in hindsight. But that’s looking back at it to. Can’t fault him for taking Curry with the pick. He was the best player on the board.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Oher is also making a lot more money then Unger
and would have made oodles more money if we had selected him so early in the 1st round. And there is no evidence that I’ve seen that anyone called Sea to try and let us trade down. Looking at the deal Ruskell pulled later in the draft, I suspect he was trying to move down but no one would give him a decent deal so he shrugged and took Curry instead.
But aren't we paying Curry much more then a 3rd Rd selected LB to?
That would make it a wash right?
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 19, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
We need to stop framing it as if Ruskell is making the draft day decisions all by himself
He’s a team player (albeit the leader) and I’m sure the coaches and scouts had a lot to say in deciding to take Curry rather than a QB or one of the top-rated linemen.
Do you really think no one asked Coach Solari if he thought they could make it through this season with the tackles they already had on the roster? He’s responsible for knowing better than anyone else what kind of talent he has to work with, and if some of his players have a track record that suggests they’re injury-prone, he’s the one who’s supposed to know if there are credible backups in line to take their place.
Coach Knapp shares some of this responsibility too, but since he wasn’t here last year he didn’t have the personal knowledge of the players that Solari had.
Ruskell has the final say!
You can take as much advice as you want but Ruskell has the final say on personnel decisions.
by Mr. Blache III on Oct 20, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Do we get to add in revenue from neon gloves to Deion Branch's worth?
Wasn’t he pretty much the guy who launched that line of merch?

by 































