Auditing the Seahawks Roster: Left Guard
by John Morgan on Oct 20, 2009 5:05 PM PDT
86 comments
Seattle needs better everything at guard. It is neither top heavy with talent nor deep with potential. It has one player with good potential that does not fit the scheme well and a host of generic offensive linemen and project players.
Rob Sims: Once upon a time, Rob Sims was probably the worst player you heard too much of. Mike Holmgren was never satisfied with Sims. Maybe it was holdover hostility for Ruskell losing Steve Hutchinson. Maybe Sims wasn't matched for Holmgren's demanding system of pull blocks. Maybe Sims was a more convenient target than Shaun Alexander. It seems almost implausible now, but many who followed the Seahawks, perhaps Holmgren believed it too, thought Sims was holding back Alexander in 2007.
I may have gotten too caught up defending Sims. I do not think I ever overstated his abilities, but rather I might have been too conservative for fear I would rile the Alexander partisans. You don't want to fight a battle on multiple fronts if you can avoid it, and to me defending Sims was auxiliary to identifying how awful Alexander had become.
Then Sims lost all of 2008. The debate was shelved. Talk ran to whether Julius Jones was fair, middling, mediocre or average. Mike Wahle showed us what good feet, good experience and a pair of arms hanging from zip ties could do - and could not do.
So it was with a bit of surprise that I saw Sims not just returning, returning to form or developing this season, but actually kicking ass. Sims was beginning to pair the steadiness and forgetability he had displayed as a pass blocker with mobility, lock down ability and dominance as a run blocker.
Then he got hurt again.
Sims is a restricted free agent this offseason. It could or should be a no brainer to retain him, but I am not sure it will be. Though Sims played tackle for part of his college career, and though Sims has good in-line quickness and straight line speed, he is not the prototypical, athletic-but-undersized zone lineman. He isn't tripping over his own feet anymore like he did in 2007, but he's not pulling out and commanding a position the way Wahle did in 2008, either.
This is a position Seattle can get better at. I've often thought of Sims as a right guard, regardless of where he played at Ohio State. But this isn't a position Seattle must upgrade to succeed. Sims is young, developing, a good pass blocker and, for at least one more season, cheap.
Mansfield Wrotto: Steve Vallos started over Wrotto last Sunday. Mr. Wrotto, say hello to Mr. Atkins.
Steve Vallos: Vallos has earned his stripes as the utility offensive lineman fans absolutely cringe at, "real" fans speak of in glowing coach speak, and real fans know is an interchangeable company man that will be cut and promoted to line coach the day he gets hurt, expensive or says "No."
"Vallos! Grab me that ShamWow, Matt needs to put his helmet on and it's sticking."
0 recs |
86 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm not sure you want to split LG and RG on this one
For example, Unger is currently at RG but could either move to C or LG in the future depending on his development. Not that I disagree that we could use some upgrades, but I think the distinction is pretty blurred between the two, at least in terms of our personnel.
I sure would like to see more of Sims to get a better idea of is he’s worth retaining. On the flip side, he probably will be pretty cheap after two years of missing games.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Oct 20, 2009 5:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a loose split
I used it mostly so the post wasn’t so long.
by John Morgan on Oct 20, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds good.
I just hope Unger develops enough that he could slide into LG if Sims departs, or even provides depth to LG if Sims stays, which would make the position look a little better.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Oct 20, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
God Bless You for only mentioning Steve Hutchinson once.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
by Stevo's on Oct 20, 2009 5:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
John... Obviously your advocating an infusion of talent at some point...
Here are my major questions regarding the G spot (cool… I actually worked “G Spot” into a comment):
A. Is guard a position you can wait on in a draft? Your classic guards, that are the more prototypical “road-grater” types, are usually higher round selection; however, I’m not so sure that this spec. becomes important in a ZB scheme.
B. Is the FA market a better place to find your ZB Guards?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Oct 20, 2009 10:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Draft is always better than free agency
but is less certain.
What really matters is how Solari, Knapp and Ruskell can work together to find undervalued talent that can be maximized in the system. It’s interesting that the first offensive lineman selected under the new administration is Max Unger. If that is indicative (and I think it might be) Seattle is targeting classic Alex Gibbs, smart, quick and technically sound blockers. Locklear might stay, but Seattle could see turnover at right tackle, center and maybe both guards.
by John Morgan on Oct 20, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder
It makes you think, why then did Ruskell draft Spencer, Sims, Wrotto, and Willis as they did not fit the Gibbs mold?
Also, after two ugly seasons, assuming Ruskell is extended, does he believe he’ll have the time to survive a total rebuilding of the line with draft picks?
by kearly on Oct 21, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We opted not to turn over last season..
There were obvious OL concerns coming into last season. The problem was there was too much uncertainty. It wasn’t like we had a bunch of guys we knew couldn’t play.. We had a lot of names that we all figured could fight it out and we’d end up with a decent enough OL.
We had Sims coming off a surgery, Walt coming off a surgery, Locklear possibly not injury prone, Spencer ready to turn it on perhaps, him being more healthy than in years past? Willis able to backup everywhere but center, Wrotto possibly able to step up, Vallos as our Pork Chop.. I mean we did not anticipate not having Sims, Jones, Locklear, and Frye at this point with Spencer missing the first two games.
If we drafted at tackle there was a good chance that guy would get no playing time behind Jones, Locklear, and Willis (thats already three guys at two positions). A center drafted would have a hard time starting over Spencer, etc. We ended up drafting Unger (despite all the complaints about not adding OL) and he was able to start right away at RG while providing the flexibility of possibly moving to center in the future, freeing us from paying Spencer to underperform.
I personally was in this camp. I did not think drafting a tackle made sense last year given we had three quality tackles already. Expect to see the OL addressed this offseason in a similar way to how we addressed WR this offseason. The OL will get a lot better fast because we will have the equivalent of the FA acquisition (Housh), the promising draft pick (Butler), and the guy who’s potential we nearly forgot about (Burleson)- that last guy being perhaps Locklear, Frye, etc.
I don’t think getting this OL going will take as long as many fear. Keep in mind we have been trotting out a different OL every game and typically needing to change midgame. Once we get the same unit through the preseason and playing together for a few games they will be able to turn it on.
The key is to see who stands out from here on out and build on that. Maybe Sims can come back and earn a new contract. Maybe Locklear can get his name back in the fold.
by michaelfox99 on Oct 21, 2009 6:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the contrary, I thought OT was a pressing need.
I didn’t expect Walt to come back and Locklear and Willis didn’t prove much, and the depth at tackle behind them was nonexistent. Not necessarily draft one 4th, but something needed to be done.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"something needed to be done"
unfortunately is the heart of too many arguments. What should have been done and how would that move have made Seattle a better team?
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the training staff "did" think Walt would have returned so
at that time OT wasn’t an immediate need. Remember Walt didn’t have his knee scoped until after the initial physicals were done.
Most of the injuries have had to do with timing this year. Last year they just kept piling on after every game.
I ROCK out with my HAWK out, therefore I am....
by durteehawk on Oct 21, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But they knew that was a huge contingency
and didn’t make contingency plans.
But I do think sometimes confidence in agility of reaction can be enough to qualify as proactive. I can see that keeping another body around, at the expense of other bodies, other positions, other draft picks or salary cap, would probably still yield the same result as right now. They picked up Brandon Frye, and that’s probably about what they would have been able to secure had they chosen to. He woulda been with the team longer, so a bit more prepared, but that’s about it.
So, recognizing what they could do, if they have to, may well be as effective an approach as prudence.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was under the impression
that in a ZBS the LT was not as paramount as he generally is. Is that not true?
by DJ C-Raig on Oct 21, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
The skillset for a ZBS tackle is not quite such a rare and thus precious combination as for a power or traditional scheme, so the market value isn’t as high. But for pass blocking and run blocking, the value of the position to the team remains the same.
But I do think that, once all but ignored, in recent vintage the value of a tackle has overinflated slightly so that it’s not as paramount as it’s come to be made out to be.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holmgren's system
Ruskell drafted Spencer, Sims, and Willis with the notion of picking up guys for the WCO that holmy was running. At that time Ruskell didn’t know Mike was going to retire so he wasn’t trying to target “Gibb’s mold” guys.
I ROCK out with my HAWK out, therefore I am....
by durteehawk on Oct 21, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steal Jahri Evans.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 20, 2009 10:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The 2009 draft in retrospect
Who should the ‘Hawks have taken that would improve their situation on the Oline significantly? They already took a lineman in the 2nd round so not much more we can ask there. So we’re talking about that #4 pick, ultimately used on Curry.
Andre Smith would have been a perfect fit in Seattle: injured in training camp and hasn’t played a down for the Bengals yet. Eugene Monroe got abused by our D-Line when he visited Seattle so really doesn’t seem like ‘the guy’. Oher would have been a reach.
The only sensible picks for Seattle were, without any hindsight, just based on the analyis of the time and the players still available at 4 were: Aaron Curry, Andre Smith, Eugene Monroe, Mark Sanchez, Michael Crabtree, and BJ Raji. At this point in time, Curry still looks like the right choice (the only other player that should be in the conversation at this point, imo, is Sanchez…rotten last game notwithstanding (it’s not like Hasselbeck was palpably better than Mark Sanchez in week 6…)
by Keasley on Oct 21, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately for Sanchez, that is not true.
His mix of sacks, fumbles, interceptions and low completion percentage should start looking very troubling to Jets fans. Rookie woes and all, he looks like could be busting already.
Consider these two lines through six games.
Player A: 52.6%, 845 yards, 4 TDs, 7 Int, 13 sacks, 7 fumbles
Player B: 52.1%, 1,035, 5 TDs, 10 Int, 12 sacks, 6 fumbles
Player A is Kyle Boller. I picked Boller on a hunch, but I would guess Sanchez’s line compares to many historic busts. Quarterbacks do not always hit the ground running, but a line Sanchez’s (B, of course) does not speak well of his future. If you look through most successful quarterbacks, they experience growing pains, but they are not cripplingly awful like Sanchez has occasionally been. His mix of sacks, interceptions and low completion percentage is pretty damning. The context is especially troubling for me. He has imploded when his team was playing from behind. That was my greatest concern with Sanchez.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way he's busting already
He’s had 6 pro games, it’s way too early to say that. He has been way worse than you’d expect from the media hype he receives though.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because I was ready to call Curry a bust after he whiffed multiple tackles on Moran effing Norris.
It’s far too premature to even begin wondering because you can make a reasonable case every first round rookie looks like a bust if you try hard enough.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not much of a comparison there
You calling Curry a bust after whiffing on a tackle was foolish when said. Six games that compare to the worst quarterback busts in recent draft history and looks nothing like almost any successful quarterback that played his rookie season is not such a foolish argument.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: "nothing like almost any successful quarterback that played his rookie season is not such a foolish argument."
I know there’s an almost in there, but here’s what John Elway did in his first 6 games:
610 yards, 1 TD, 6 INT, 1 rush td. Don’t know the completion percentage, but it was almost certainly below 50% (it was 47.5% on the year). Sacked 10% of drop-backs on the year. Rate+ very, very close to Sanchez through 6 games.
Personally, I’ve not been impressed with Sanchez at all, but it’s still a bit early.
(Drew Brees started poorly in 2002; through 7 games, he had 7 TDs and 11 picks, a not-good completion percentage, a 1-6 record, etc.)
by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I looked at Brees
because I was thinking of him, but 2002 was his second season so I tossed it.
I think you might be looking at his 2003 numbers though. Brees was very good in 2002 and the Chargers were 6-1 through seven games. He played worse in 2003, but the Chargers collapsed that year. I don’t think he ever approached the Sanchez standard though.
I always thought Elway sucked for his first ten years, but I guess that was a product of time and the Denver system. Pro Football Reference, through their AV tool, has him as one of the most valuable quarterbacks in the league from his second season on, bad looking numbers and all.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another bad first six starts? Hasselbeck.
Remember the Seattle crowds begging Holmgren for more Dilfer?
Brees -it’s possible. Thought I had 2002, but the record does look off. Use Peyton Manning instead – 7 TD to 12 INT, 1-5 record, but obviously much better (even on that awful team) at avoiding fumbles and sacks.
The example I really should’ve used was probably Steve Young, who seemed sort of overmatched at first (again, much of the blame must go to his team, but still).
by marc w on Oct 21, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's surrounded by extraordinary talent
And playing on par with Matt Stafford who quarterbacks for the DETROIT LIONS:
56.8%, 894, 3 TDs, 6 INTs, 10 sacks, 2 fumbles
I tend to agree with your point that it’s still very, very early to tell, but I think it’s safe to say he’s no Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Oct 21, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno who else expected them to have sophomore slumps
but I did. They seem to be better than last year, though. Great pickups.
I still like just about everything I see from Sanchez. He’s learning. I think he has what it takes to be malleable and remain confident, and will adjust and grow into a good franchise QB.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny, I dislike almost everything I see from Sanchez.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Admit it, you want him to fail, Rush.
Aside from what you posted above, what else can you put your finger on that you dislike?
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That we'll be made fools of if Sanchez becomes a franchise QB!
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pocket presence and decision making, mostly
He doesn’t have any idea where the pass rush is coming from and does lots of boneheaded, Seneca Wallace like things. He dives head first at the end zone. He runs back twenty steps and attempts to wing the ball off his back foot sort of near a receiver. He looks like an utter mess to me. An amateur overwhelmed by the speed and complexity of the game that got away with terrible decisions to start his career and who hasn’t shown the ability to shake those decisions now that they are backfiring.
But, yes, I am invested in him failing and I won’t deny my bias.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"He runs back twenty steps and attempts to wing the ball off his back foot sort of near a receiver. '
I’ve noticed that too, it’s really odd to see.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn it, you're right.
Same sort of thing with Seneca but at least his excuse is that he’s short.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The infinite step drop back
Always a joy to watch…
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what do you think of the change to Alex Smith?
Sounds like a bad time to do it. Not a good position to be in, when Hill had appeared to separate himself for what Singletary wants to do, then this happens, now you face Indy on the road. If it turns bad, has the team taken a step back in QB confidence when it seemed the reason Smith came in at the end was Hill’s skills don’t provide a chance for a big late comeback but Smith’s did, but long-term Hill’s better capable of what Singletary wants but Smith is not as capable?
by jacobstevens on Oct 26, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the biggest thing is that he still hasn't played half a season yet
Lots of guys would have played really poorly had they been called on to play so early, but they get to sit and develop. At this point in his career he doesn’t look good but I don’t think he should be expected to.
It’s kind of like in baseball, when a 20 year old rookie comes up to the majors, if he can even hold his own he’s probably going to be a superstar eventually. This plays out to a lesser extent in football but is still the case. If Sanchez had sat a year already and was playing like this, or if he’s still playing like this at this point next year, then I’d start to worry. But not yet, he’s still got the tools to succeed and is not a complete loafer/idiot like a Jamarcus Russell or a Ryan Leaf.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as worrisome as throwing 5 INTs in one game!
:P
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Oct 21, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Extraordinary talent?
I don’t think that I’d call any of Braylon Edwards, Jerricho Cotchery, Dustin Keller, and Thomas Jones extraordinary. The line is good, yeah, but the offensive talent isn’t really that great IMO.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Edwards is an extraordinary talent.
by thebyron on Oct 22, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thomas Jones = Forever Underrated.
And don’t forget Leon Washington, who’s certainly above average and dynamic as well.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 22, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure the skill position players aggregate are extraordinary
but when combined with the line, that is hell of a lot of talent. To put it into perspective, the Jets have more offensive talent than the Colts minus Manning.
by John Morgan on Oct 22, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Several teams have more offensive talent than the Colts minus Manning, though...
But you’re right about Sanchez’s cast, it’s not like he’s in Detroit.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 22, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Detroit's offensive talent isn't that offensive...
I’d take Kevin Smith, Calvin Johnson and Brandon Pettigrew happily. I admit I don’t know their line that well, but they’re a hell of a lot better than, for example, Cleveland.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 22, 2009 6:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His numbers seem particularly troubling in my eyes
when combined with the fact that they have a very good OLine and one of the best 1-2 RB combos in the league…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 22, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Braylon Edwards has been with the team for about 2 weeks
So the player you have there is Braylon Edwards light. He’s obviously working from a limited playbook and hasn’t been around long enough to develop any rapport with Sanchez. Cotchery and Brad Smith, their #2 and #3 receivers, were both injured last week and (iirc) didn’t play at all. Seahawk fans know how difficult it can be for a quarterback to click with a revolving door of receivers.
Sanchez may very well suck. But I think it would be very shortsighted to come to that conclusion from last week’s game. Those were difficult circumstances for any quarterback.
by Keasley on Oct 22, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree...
I was merely saying they are troubling, but I still think the team upside on O is pretty solid…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 22, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's inconsistent, to say the least.
First three weeks and week 5 his completion percentages were 58.1, 63.6, 56.7 and 50. Five TDs, two picks, sacked six times. Weeks 4 and 6: Completion percentages of 51.9 and 34.5(!)….zero TDs, eight picks. Six sacks.
I don’t think he’s a bust yet by any stretch, but he’s gotta figure out how to stop the Jekyll and Hyde routine.
by thebyron on Oct 21, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was really stupid to start him so early, especially if readiness was a concern.
Big Ben and Flacco made the early jump, and played in inferior conferences, but both at least started several years.
by LantermanC on Oct 21, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It might have been
but truth is, on the whole, quarterbacks that start their rookie season have outperformed quarterbacks that did not.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but did the starting help them, or were they better and more ready to start?
A starter on USC as a freshman has more of a chance to be drafted. Is it because he was started and has that experience, or because he was so good to begin with that they started him even though he was only a freshman?
by LantermanC on Oct 21, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed you meant the Jets starting him
and I am sure it is because the player was intrinsically better and not that starting him before he was ready made the player better. I just think it’s worth noting that taking it slow with Sanchez may not have helped him at all.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But logically, by your description above
he’s more likely to benefit from the slow track than others.
I remember Peyton Manning stressing how his preference is for a QB to play immediately. I think more QBs would ultimately benefit from it, and aren’t damned by bad habits developed early as a result of too much pressure and not enough success, etc. But the league doesn’t have the patience for it, so they don’t.
So because there’s limited chances, I think they benefit from the slow track. Can’t say for sure if Aaron Rodgers did, or Leinert will have, but especially when they are known to not have faced and then surmounted adversity like Sanchez and Young, it sure makes sense that it would benefit.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not following
Anecdotal evidence could argue that quarterbacks benefit or are hampered from not starting right away. That is the nature of anecdotal evidence: It’s a story that is analogous, but does not really prove anything.
I think Sanchez needed more experience at a lower level, but he won’t get that. Now that he is in the league, I have no idea if he would have developed better if he didn’t start right away, and I don’t know how anyone else can know either. He is starting, and through six games, he sucks.
by John Morgan on Oct 21, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're on the same page there
with only the addition of my saying there’s a logical connection. It’s not evidence. Just logic. Could be wrong, but logically if the speed of the game, awareness of pass rush, etc. is an issue, it’s logical to think exposure does a lot to alleviate that, and not necessarily coaching. It’s definitely not an issue of ability.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
Different people learn best in different ways. Some people like to try new things and get them wrong and learn from their mistakes. Some people like to explore all possible scenarios and see where the mistakes are and then try it out.
by LantermanC on Oct 21, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did mean the Jest starting him.
I was just using an example of someone starting early probably signifying that he was a better player, not that starting earlier helped.
by LantermanC on Oct 21, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shirley you jets.
And don’t call me Shirley.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 22, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
It’s selective bias, if your better when you come out as a rookie then your more likely to start. Not that I think either strategy is bad necessarily, it just depends on what kind of player the guy is.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lawrence Jackson
If 16 disastrous games of Lawrence Jackson is insufficient sample size, why is 6 ok for Sanchez?
Sanchez should not even be starting. He had less than 20 college starts, and was good in about half of those. He should have gone to a team with a Rivers/Brees, Favre/Rodgers situation, which is exactly the situation Seattle had to offer.
by kearly on Oct 21, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Or 6 bad games of Unger
Not that I am anyone to judge him, but John has said he was the Hawks worst O-line starter so I presume he was bad.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JM clarified that Unger is experiencing typical rookie struggles
by kearly on Oct 22, 2009 2:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well then
I think you might be able to put Sanchez in that same category.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 23, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good point.
Jackson was so bad that most of us forgot he was on the field, and is now looking great.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 22, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's legitimate to compare DEs and QBs.
Totally different situation.
by redwolf75 on Oct 22, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If anything
QB is probably even harder to succeed as a rookie.
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 23, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if there is a position in the game that is safe to call a bust after 1 season
Maybe Kickers?
by kearly on Oct 23, 2009 2:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might be able to call a kicker a bust after a couple of weeks
"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 24, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jackson's rookie stats were typical of most rookie DEs.
Except Jackson started most of the games while the others we compared him to just had playing time in them.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 23, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am inclined to agree here...
I always thought John Elway had a disastrous 1st year (54.9 rating with 7 TD’s and 14 INT’s). The team did go 9-7 that year so it wasn’t all for not.
but
Sanchez is 4-3 so far with very comparable ratios to Elway’s rookie year. Sanchez hasn’t looked great, but I think that saying the “book is still out” wouldn’t be a horrible leap of faith. I think his college inexperience validates cutting him a slightly longer piece of slack more so than a game-tested QB prospect who was underperforming.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Oct 30, 2009 5:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oher would have been a reach?
maybe at that time but look at how well he is adjusting in Baltimore’s scheme.
he very well may have done just as good for us if not better, he is starting.
I ROCK out with my HAWK out, therefore I am....
by durteehawk on Oct 21, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only allowed 1 sack from Jared Allen
That’s pretty damned good all things considered.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Oct 21, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't even attempt to block on that one though.
by LantermanC on Oct 21, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, for the most part, Oher did absolutely fantastic for a rookie LT against Jared Allen.
"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."
by Fearless Frog on Oct 21, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know, weird how that works
Went from top tackle to being a reach, even if two were already taken. Back to looking like the best of the bunch. Heh.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oher was once a consensus top-5 pick
He just fell off the map for no apparent reason.
"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 21, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure this guy
is a “perfect fit” anywhere. Guy’s gotta use a shoehorn to get out of the house in the morning.
"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 21, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why don't we just poison pill a LT away from a team?
by DetectiveM on Oct 21, 2009 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They have to be transition tagged
nobody uses it since Hutch. Franchise isn’t worth it, you have to give up two 1st rounders. An RFA would work but I think it’s got different parameters I don’t know it it would be as effective there. Or, if they’re just an FA, you just go sign them. Offer more money. Show them VMAC.
by jacobstevens on Oct 21, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could probably poison pill LT
Not sure he’s got much left anymore though. :-P
by Brendan Scolari on Oct 21, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Between the age and the drugs
I don’t see Lawrence Taylor contributing much to the Seahawks this year. They’ve already got a ton of money tied up in the linebacker position already too.
by Keasley on Oct 22, 2009 5:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
