What's Bugging Me

by diehard82 on Oct 30, 2009 2:11 PM PDT Comment 11 comments

Several things keep bugging me, so this is a bit of a venting exercise, but I'd love to know if I'm alone or if the same things are bugging you.

First, hearing people say that you have to build through the draft and not free-agency. Frequently, those same people point to the Steelers as an example franchise. In my mind it's like a bicycle wheel. Once you have it spinning fast, it doesn't take as much effort to keep it spinning. Once you have a successful NFL team stocked with talent, it's easy to keep re-stocking through the draft, filling free-ageny losses with depth you already had on the roster and backfilling depth through the draft. And when you re-load with extra 2nd and 3rd round picks every year, like the Patriots seem to be able to do, it helps. Very little reliance on rookies in a starting role. For all the other teams who have so many holes that they can't fill them in one or two drafts, playing the free-agent market seems not only logical, but necessary. And you have to pay. Free agents have choices (mostly). It's about the money, but not just the money. Where to raise your family. Which team gets TV time and improves the opportunity for pro-bowl and MVP bonuses, etc... Seattle is at a disadvantage. Therefore, if we want a specific FA, we'll have to pay them and woo them away from what may be more favorable situations. Like we did Burleson, Kearney and Housh. We overpaid, because if we hadn't we wouldn't have been successful. Once we start winning more, we'll get more National coverage and that will make recruiting easier. We have to find a way to get over the hump and then keep the wheel spinning.

Cut blocking. I keep hearing about Greg Knapps zone blocking system and reliance on small quick guys who cut block. As an ex-lineman, I can tell you it's no different than the pass/run ratio. If you don't keep it balanced the defenses stack against your tendencies. If an O-lineman is predictable, cut blocking too often, it makes it easier for the D-lineman to beat you. It's only effective when they don't know it's coming. If you are so small that you can't overpower or hold the point of attack about half the time, and they know you must rely on cut-blocking, they'll beat you more than they should. There are no short-cuts. We need a big, nasty O-line if we want to run the ball with authority. Zone blocking is just a system for determining who will be assigned to who. In theory it makes the O-line job less complicated. Cut blocking is just a technique. If your RB can and will hit the hole quickly, it can be effective in freezing the D-line long enough for the RB to get to the second level. If the RB hesitates or dances too much it's not effective. Relying on it too much makes as much sense as running the option or passing 90% of the time. When I hear that we want small, nimble lineman who will cut-block in our zone blocking system, it makes me think we've already given up on the idea that we will have a dominant running game. Being able to get push on the 1 yard line is not something I'd willingly sacrifice.

So, what do you think? Is it just me? Am I not understanding something? Does it seem that we're trying to use a gimmick to make up for lack of talent?

A place to bury strangers.

2 recs | Comment 11 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bicycle analogy and building through FA or draft thoughts:

I like the bicycle analogy. It’s easier to patch holes in a fence that is only slowly breaking in certain areas. If your fence is halfway built and water keeps running over it, there are too many areas to keep track of.
I don’t think you can build through the draft, and I don’t believe in the just start over and tear the team apart analogy. Look at the Mariners, they didn’t tear the team apart. Make non-crippling wise veteran acquisitions and trade for young undervalued talent. Make sure that the draft picks are good, but even if you have 5 years of draft picks who are presumably underpaid, that still won’t get you a team that is playoff bound. You need to make good veteran acquisitions. However in football, two things that get mentioned a lot are the fact that QB and DT seem to be two positions that do not get moved around a lot. With the exception of Haynesworth and Cutler (and Brees), most QBs and DTs stay on their team and there’s not much you can do about it.

Seattle part: I agree, except look at the NYY. They don’t attract people because of their all star selection or their media hype, they attract FAs because they offer more money. They certainly don’t seem to have a discount, though you think they would due to increased endorsements and higher post season chances.

by LantermanC on Oct 30, 2009 2:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

In fact, I keep hoping we go bigger on the line, especially at the guard position. In my mind, ZBS requires, perhaps, better agility in their lineman. I also don’t see a standard man-on—man line sacrificing agility for size. Thus, as stated, linemen need to have the same traits for success in either scheme.

What I would remind everyone is that bulk does not equate to strength. And strength does not equate to power. While 295 pounds may be 30 pounds less than average, if the core strength of the 295 pound man and is used with great understanding of leverage, the smaller man is the more apt to move than be moved.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Oct 30, 2009 3:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well written

1. The NFL has far too many positions to start over from scratch. By the time you have four high draft picks in a row, one of them is about to hit free agency and so the cycle simply continues while losing talent. You need to get to the point where you are filling holes with the draft instead of just FAs, but also having enough talent on hand to allow your rookies to grow.

2. I wonder if Ruskell will end up having a similar route on thinking process on the offensive line as the defensive line. In other words… quickness and size do not have to be mutually exclusive, like a Lawrence Jackson. We shouldn’t have to only draft small linemen in order to implement a ZBS, while not being able to gain critical yards. Personally, I think linemen like Spencer and Sims (should) be good targets and offer the type of flexibility needed.

"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 30, 2009 3:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Building through draft != adding top tier talent through draft

Burly, Housh and Kerney account for 6% of our roster but <some larger number> of our cap. When people say you need to build your team through the draft, it’s often interpreted to mean you need your star QB, stud RB, standout WR, stalwart LT, stout runstuffer, punishing passrusher and shutdown corner to come from the draft but I think what it actually means is that your role players, who often come at a premium on the open market, should come through the middle-to-late rounds of the draft. Guys like your standout special teamers, starting FB, 2nd-4th string WR, nickel CB guys should be added through the draft. Think about money thrown at guys like Randle El, Brandon Lloyd, Dre Bly, Drew Bennett, Nick Harper… these guys play crucial roles on your team but you’d also rather pay them the prices laid out in their rookie contracts. I don’t know off the top of my head how the top tier of players in the league were acquired but if pressed to answer I’d guess an equally healthy mix of scouting, drafting and luck.

In the NFL in particular, the length of rookie contracts vs the length of careers plays into this “Build through the draft” mindset. Typical rookie contracts run 3-5 years or so. Typical NFL career for a useful contributor would be…we’ll say 8 years. NBA rookie contract is 3-4, MLB rookie contract equivalent can run anywhere from 3 to 6 years while an NBA career can run from age 19 to early-30’s and an MLB career can run 23-24 to 35-36. So while an NFL rookie contract takes up roughly 38-63% of a useful career, an MLB rookie contract equivalent takes up about 23%-54% and the NBA rookie contract takes up about 30%. Point is, when you draft a guy you’re angling for a pretty large portion of his useful career at a steal of a price.

by niko on Oct 30, 2009 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sounds good on both parts

Fine points. For the cut blocking, though, I think it’s not that the traditional man-blocking skills required to excel aren’t needed or valued in the ZBS. It’s that the guys with those skills are so valuable they command a high price, and in ZBS it doesn’t set them apart. ZBS and the more mobile skills set a guy apart.

So the two prototypes aren’t completely mutually exclusive, but to some degree they are because with ZBS you need a guy to get moving, and fast. For some premier line talent, that’s not a problem, but Levi Brown, Flozell Adams, Leonard Davis, some guys are good linemen because of their size, and it doesn’t translate well.

So why draft one of them, when they’d be good but not do the ZBS as well as you want, when you can get a guy like Tom Nalen who’s not such a rare specimen that he’ll break your bank, but he’s quite able to do exactly what you need.

ZBS prototype doesn’t mean they fight like a wet paper bag in power or man blocking.

by jacobstevens on Oct 30, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

OK, thanks for the feedback

Generally, finding a very large guy who is also quick, both laterally and vertically, to handle passing off a defender and changing direction to take on a linebacker is like finding a Taylor Mays or Mario Williams. They don’t come along every year. Walt was one of those special players.

by diehard82 on Oct 30, 2009 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You mean an athlete like Taylor Mays or Mario Williams, correct?

As in, not a “player” but “athlete.” I’m not yet sold Taylor is a great player, but I will grant he’s an absurdly talented athlete.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 30, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are correct

I’m not sold on Mays either, and certainly not with our first pick. Looking forward to the Oregon game tomorrow to see more of him. I’m hoping we can trade down for a 3rd and still land Spiller. He could play a Westbrook type roll for Seattle. I like Forsett, but Spiller has a 3rd gear. Also could upgrade the return game. Then, hoping we go OT with our second pick, and FS or CB with our second round pick. Sorry, got off subject. Just can’t help it. I’m a draftnik.

by diehard82 on Oct 30, 2009 10:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Please use the reply button.

by BrianL on Oct 30, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, saw more of Mays yesterday and...

unless NFL coaching can do something USC coaching could not, he’s not a great FS prospect. Hits hard, made some good tackles, cut once again took some bad angles and I never saw him contest (defend) a pass. Always arrived late, if at all. The freshman caucasian safety playing for Oregon looked more impressive.

by diehard82 on Nov 1, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

Good, thought provoking post.

Bicycle wheel analogy is spot on.

Cut blocking- I don’t think ZBS is about cut blocking all the time, its just that as smaller, more agile lineman, having a “weapon” to offset that size loss is a must. They certainly cut block more than a pure man lineman would, but its not as if they cut block every passing down.

I do agree that you can’t be predictable though. As a former lineman myself, I can attest that a cut block can backfire horribly if the defender anticipates it.

by kearly on Nov 1, 2009 1:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs