Thinking About Rebuilding: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
by dcrockett17 on Nov 22, 2009 3:29 PM PST
22 comments
This seemed a bit long to add as a comment on the post-game thread following the Minneapolis beat down. Not that most of us didn't know we are in full rebuild mode, but it is officially time to remove the blue-tinted shades for this season and put them in store for the off-season.
IMHO, here are the major questions facing Seattle this off-season concerning rebuilding, after the jump.
1. Do we even have the right guy to do the kind of rebuild we need?
Up to this point, I see Ruskell's off-seasons as caught betwixt and between rebuilding and trying to win now. Even though the biggest accidents happen in the middle of the road, I have some sympathy for his approach. He could not flat-out rebuild with Holmgren still on the team. And more importantly, in the NFL (unlike the NBA) if you are even close to playoff caliber you scratch and claw to get to the tournament, because anything can happen in a series of one game series.
Seattle squeezed a few playoff runs out of an aging core (and coach) in a weak division. We put off rebuilding and now the piper must be paid. If we are looking at two more seasons of paying the piper, minimum--and let's be honest that's what we're looking at--two years from now I want to see a serious Super Bowl contender. A core is in place on defense that could potentially anchor a SB contender. It needs cultivation but the unit has talent. The offense on the other hand...
Ruskell is a tough call. This isn't Cleveland, where you look at the talent on that roster and wonder how they squandered all those high draft picks. But, has Ruskell done enough to conclude that Seattle is heading in the right direction. If not, what are the realistic options?
2. Assuming Ruskell is the guy to get it done, how will he do it?
As John alludes to in the post-game post, Seattle needs a QB in the worst way--and a serious upgrade at multiple positions on the offensive line. These are the most difficult positions to evaluate and upgrade. Assuming that Ruskell is the GM heading into the off-season, the market for QBs include basically no sure things either in the draft or the free agent market. It's going to take some creativity, some foresight, and some luck to remake Seattle's QB position and upgrade the offensive line. Are creativity and foresight the attributes that come to mind when you think of Tim Ruskell?
3. What to do with Matt Hasselbeck?
I think it would be foolish for Seattle to begin the 2010 season counting on Matt Hasselbeck to get through 16 games. However, what that implies for the roster is still somewhat unclear. Should Seattle draft a close-to-ready youngster, start Hasselbeck and wait for the inevitable injury, much in the way Detroit has done with Matthew Stafford? If so, whom? Is Ruskell willing to ask Matt to play that role? Or, should Seattle look to sign an established and perhaps undervalued starter, like Jason Campbell? If Ruskell would consider Campbell he almost certainly would consider Jeff Garcia.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
22 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Betwixt?
Seattle Seahawks: The only team in the NFL to trail 17-17 according to Dick Stockton.
by SSreporters on Nov 22, 2009 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's the most delicious sounding word ever.
by DetectiveM on Nov 22, 2009 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
*snickers
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 22, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A "Jack Sprat" tribute... I love it.
As for a re-build… words like “Armageddon” come to mind.
It must start with the QB position. If were talking about a newly drafted QB, you have to bring him along at a reasonable pace. That doesn’t mean he necessarily sits for awhile, but you can’t ask him to come in and carry a team out of the gate. Given the epic failures of our running game at this point, it is difficult to see a light at the end of this tunnel foreseeably in the near future.
I believe any short term success has to begin with the big-fat-bodies on both sides of the ball. A stud 3-Tech, a bookend opposite a Jackson/Tapp rotation, and the “next” Max Unger, would go along ways in helping the transition into the post-Hasselbeck era of Seahawks football.
I have always believed that the OL and DL can mask many of the deficiencies elsewhere, and that is where we should start this offseason. I would love to see DL, DE, OL as our first 3 picks (should we keep Denver’s and assuming the value grades out at those spots). Something like this:
7. Gerald McCoy DT
20. Trent Williams OT
39. Carlos Dunlap DE
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 22, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thought of Mebane with a first round stud next to him makes me tingle in funny places
75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.
by Pessimistic Optimist on Nov 22, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And then what do we do about our QB and RB situations?
Matt isn’t getting younger, and has no deep game left. We don’t have a marquee running game to mask these deficiencies. And we need to give a QB 1-2 years to develop so he doesn’t play terrible when he finally does start. He’ll still probably play poorly, but not as bad as a rookie coming out of college will.
I’m a big fan of the line as well, but I just think the value gained from grabbing an OT and DE doesn’t make up for us not getting a QB or RB.
by Fear on Nov 23, 2009 12:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's a point that I certainly can't argue with...
…and I obviously don’t have enough information about what Mora/Ruskell’s offensive vision is; however, if “we” believe that the Hawks would have to package one of our first round picks to trade up and get our QB…. I would rather just stand pat and load up on the positions that can make even mediocre QB’s succeed in this league. Great OL’s and DL’s have made guys like Dilfer, Hostetler, and Doug Williams, serviceable enough to win an NFL championship.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Nov 23, 2009 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm of a pretty similiar disposition.
Personally, I’d like to see QB with our 1st pick, RB with our second, and maybe an OL or DT with our 3rd overall pick. I’d really like to see someone help Mebane out, but I also believe that we need a top QB to starting developing right now, and a RB to hold us over until he gets up. I have some faith in our OL, because I get the feeling that our OL is getting better and better and if it remains intact next year, it could be league average or maybe a little better. There just seem to be less missed assignments, more time for Hasslebeck in the pocket, and more running lanes (not counting Sunday’s game because, let’s face it, the Vikings are a lot better than us and destroy run games). I could easily be wrong though.
But the quickest way to revamp an offense is to get a marquee RB or QB. AP or Peyton Manning make all offenses look good. And they keep them relevant even without great players around them.
by Fear on Nov 23, 2009 1:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Finding a new QB is a bit like finding a new car...
in the sense that you don’t want to wait until your old one is inoperable before you start looking for the next one.
Looking across the college landscape nobody, looks ready to step in on day one the way Matt Ryan was after running a pro offense at BC. But it always looks that way before the college bowl season, post-season, and draft season commence. Let’s hope the draft remains an option—if for no other reason than it gives Ruskell (or whomever) more flexibility to solve the problem.
The thing that worries me most about Ruskell acquiring the next QB is David Greene and Charlie Frye. Remember those guys? Both drafted in the 3rd round, 2005. Ruskell acquired both at different times as relatively low cost attempts at an heir apparent for Matt. So, he did not exactly ignore Matt’s oncoming decline. He made some low cost—and to his credit, relatively low risk—attempts to deal with the situation before it became chronic. That part is good. Those are exactly the kinds of moves good GMs make when he made them.
The part that makes my palms sweaty is that both these guys were almost unbelievably awful; I mean frighteningly bad. Anyone can pick a couple guys that don’t work out. (Digression: To this day, I still don’t get why Andrew Walter, who also went in that 2005 3rd round, became a complete dud. I thought that guy was going to be Matt Schaub good. Look at the 2005 3rd round—5 decent players, maybe, and we got one of them.) Those two moves raise serious questions about Ruskell’s scouting team and what his people are looking for when scouting a QB.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Nov 23, 2009 4:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What's your definition of decent?
Frank Gore – pro bowl.
Atogwe – great safety.
Channing Crowder – good starter.
Just Tuck – pro bowl-caliber
Chris Henry – good starter when not doing something stupid.
Kirk Morrison – starter?
Incognito – starter with temper problem.
by LantermanC on Nov 23, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's really hard to fault the Greene pick.
Greene was excellent at Georgia, his senior season he was 175 of 299 for 2508 yards, 20 td’s and 4 picks. He excelled in a tough division, and I really wonder how we would have turned out if he was not thrust into Holmgren’s demanding Zombiewalsh offense.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 23, 2009 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also have a sneaking suspicion that...
at least some of the college QBs who might come out won’t (I’m looking at you Jake Locker), making next year’s class a bit deeper.
I would put the early odds on Ruskell going into the offseason looking for a short-term solution on the FA market. It could be Campbell, but it might also be a longer-term veteran (e.g., Jeff Garcia). He may even forgo drafting a QB altogether unless something falls into his lap.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Nov 23, 2009 4:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure Garcia's arm is any better than Hasselbeck's at this point in time.
Not that your theory isn’t sound, but I don’t think Garcia is the guy that fits that definition. Personally, I’d like to see Culpepper if we go with the short term vet fill in type, and it isn’t Hasselbeck.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 23, 2009 7:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely not advocating for Garcia
Just putting 2 & 2 together for this bunch.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Garcia invited to camp if Hass is sent packing. He knows Knapp’s system backwards and forwards.
I’m fairly close to advocating for Jason Campbell though. I suspect the Skins will clean house and sell low.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Nov 23, 2009 9:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't mind Campbell at all.
I think he is unfairly maligned, as do most Redskins fans.
On the Qb subject, watching other games, other quarterbacks, they sure do seem to have cannons after watching Hasselbeck so closely.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Nov 23, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hass has one more year on his contract
It’s no secret he isn’t performing well, but I wouldn’t sign a stopgap QB when we’ve already got the equivalent in Hasselbeck. If I had any say in how we address QB:
1. draft a stud (hopefully he turns out to be a stud) QB this coming draft
2. re-structure the last year of Matt’s contract to save us some coin
3. start Hasselbeck in 2010
4. start new stud QB in 2011
As for the rest … I’d rather draft a stud DT in the first round to pair with Mebane. Our entire defense will get markedly better at stopping the run (which it’s already pretty good at), pressuring the QB and thus defending the pass.
I don’t think our O-line is as bad as many fans make it out to be. It did quite well, once healthy, against the cardinals and held up pretty well (all things considered) against the vikings. They’re young guys and they’ll continue to develop and get better.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 23, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a nice approach
I like it. It must be a tricky thing, to deal with Hasselbeck’s contract. Just not extend him? Sign him to a one or two year deal? The waythe team is going, that will make it easier, but it’s just a sensitive situation, can’t be easy.
by jacobstevens on Nov 24, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A crazy idea, since we'll need a new QB....
Draft QBs with BOTH first-rounders? Let ‘em duke it out to take over for Matt and trade off the loser for an impact player at a position of need a year later….admittedly it’d be a lot to invest, but it reduces the risk of getting Ryan Leaf-ed, and if we’re really rebuilding then let’s go whole-hog.
by thebyron on Nov 24, 2009 2:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think the problems with Leaf were there to be seen before the draft, by anyone willing to look
But people got excited by his big arm and postseason success. So they downplayed the reports that should have revealed his character issues.
If we don’t let ourselves ignore any such red flags, I wouldn’t worry about getting “Leafed”.
by Mr Fish on Nov 24, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But we could get Carred or Smithed or Russelled or Losmaned or Vicked or Couched
but yeah I’m not a fan of the idea. It’s novel, and crazy enough that it just…might…WORK! but no.
by jacobstevens on Nov 24, 2009 4:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Smith, Russell and Vick would be ruled out by the filters I've suggested
No running QB’s and no QB’s from wacky spread offenses. I don’t care what kind of numbers they piled up.
I forget what kind of offenses Carr, Losman and Couch ran in college.
by Mr Fish on Nov 24, 2009 6:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was pretty much my thinking (as far as actual thinking went).
Crazy enough that it might work out, but definitely not something I’d seriously advocate, especially when we’ve got so many other needs. Wonder if any team’s ever done anything similar….
by thebyron on Nov 25, 2009 7:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
