A look back for perspective
by Fear on Nov 23, 2009 4:42 PM PST
17 comments
So last night I was going to respond to someone complaining about how Ruskell hasn't done anything to fix our OL and has let it collapse. I started to write a lengthy reply, then realized there were dozens of comments just like that one and it would be better to just create an in-depth fanpost about it instead. So, I looked back over Ruskell's tenure at all the draft picks made.
I'm excluding some late round picks because Ruskell has a tendency, especially early in his career, to take fliers on players with a lot of upside but little chance of succeeding. These kind of players involve a lot of luck. I simply ignored some of the late picks that didn't matter, and so I'm not taking into account the positions they played. They were more about potential, rather than positions of need that could play. This has led me to exclude players like Plackermeier, Forsett, Jordan Kent, and Doug Nienhuis (who?).
EDIT: It was asked that I put in the relative trade value of these picks, so I did using this chart: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/news/story?id=2410670
2005:
1st round: Chris Spencer: Center 700 points
2nd round: Lofa Tatupu: Linebacker 450 points
3rd round: David Greene: Quarterback 165 points
3rd round: Leroy Hill: Linebacker 108 points
4th round: Ray Willis: Offensive Linemen 105 points
2006:
1st round: Kelly Jennings: Cornerback 600 points
2nd round: Darryl Tapp: Defense End 276 points
4th round: Rob Sims: Offensive Lineman 128 points
2007:
1st round: Deion Branch (trade): Wide Reciever (740 points)
2nd Round: Josh Wilson: Cornerback 350 points
3rd round: Brandon Mebane: Defensive Tackle 165 points
4th round: Baraka Atkins: Defensive Tackle 54 points
4th round: Mansfield Wrotto: Offensive Lineman 48 points
2008:
1st round: Lawrence Jackson: Defensive End 660 points
2nd round: John Carlson: Tight End 520 points
4th round: Red Bryant: Defensive Tackle 121 points
5th round: Owen Schmitt: Fullback 163 points
2009:
1st round: Aaron Curry: Linebacker 1800 points
2nd round: Max Unger: Offensive Lineman 410 points
3rd round: Deon Butler: Wide Reciever 136 points
These picks tended to be late in the rounds, because the Seahawks kept making the playoffs or barely missing them. Only 2009 had early round picks. This leads to 5 Offensive linemen picked in 5 drafts. At least one every year except in 2008. In his first year, Ruskell went almost entirely linebackers and offensive linemen. At the time it was widely believed that our defense needed to catch up to our offense, so we can see why those linebackers were taken.
This list contains: 5 linemen, 3 Linebackers, 2 cornerbacks, 1 defensive end, 2 defensive tackles, 1 fullback, 1 wide receiver, 1 tight end, and 1 quarterback.
Added in: The position break down by points:
- Linebackers: 2358 points
- Offensive Linemen: 1391 points
- Cornerbacks: 950 points
- Defensive Linemen: 835 points
The rest are a single player at a position. I'm not a big fan of using this method, as it severely undervalues 3-4th round picks. And overvalues the top 5 picks. Curry alone is ~60% of that linebacker total. But there it is for you. Also interestingly, if you want to look at it by players that can block for Matt Hasselbeck, we can include the fullback (who's blocking is recognized as his primary strength) and the tight end (who was supposed to be a decent blocker and reciever) and that total comes up to 2074 points. That's a large chunk of change devoted to positions that can protect Hasselbeck.
Out of this, all of them but two are still on the team. You know who they all are, which says a lot. None of these guys have flunked out except Atkins and Greene, and Atkins was a high upside high risk player anyways. Kelly Jennings has turned out to almost certainly not be worth a 1st round pick, so you can call him a bust for his drafted position. Other then that, no busts. Several pro bowlers. But we knew there were pro bowlers in here. Let's see. How about how many offensive picks compared to defense?
9 offensive players picked, compared to 10 defensive players. 10 offensive players if you count Deion Branch. So he's pretty much split down the middle amongst picks in the first four rounds. Most of those offensive picks were offensive linemen who are now either starting for the Seahawks or are primary backups.
So, what have we learned? Ruskell has not neglected the offensive line. He just no longer has 2 hall of famers to count on. One moved on due to a wording loophole that no one noticed before, and the other has a body that's failing him from old age. The players he has drafted to replace them have not shown themselves to be hall of fame worthy. They have showed flashes of promise mixed with periods of horrible failure. For me at least, the jury's still out on them. I want to see how they wrap up the season as they start getting used to playing with each other.
What Ruskell has neglected to do is provide us with a high quality replacement for Matt Hasselbeck and for Shaun Alexander. To get a high quality RB or QB, we probably needed to grab one in the first round. Good QB's are almost always found in the first round, the Bradys and Hasselbecks of the world being the extreme exception. So, who were we in a position to grab? Most of our 1st rounders were near the back end of the draft. We would have had to move up in the draft, forfeiting more players. The 2006 draft is the one where we could most easily say, "I wouldn't mind going without those players for a good QB" but the last good QB in that draft was taken 11th overall. And drafting a RB has until recently been prohibitively expensive because of Shaun Alexander's contract.
So, in your position, what would you have done differently? It's easy to say, "We shoulda had a new QB and RB and new OL by now!!" but where do we grab them? Who do we give up? How do we handle the resulting cap hits? I am in no way trying to say that Ruskell is perfect or great or anything. Hind sight is 20/20, certain choices were clearly mistakes. Jennings, Shaun Alexander's contract, the Keary Colbert trade. But, given the situation, how much would have been done differently?
I think the thing a lot of people really need to remember is that Ruskell is dealing with limited resources just like every other NFL GM. He has a few picks and a set amount of money that he can spend on the team. His job is to maximize return for the Seahawks. The better he does, the harder his job gets (players wanting raises, later draft picks, etc.). And he has to deal with us fans being obsessed with certain players (Hasselbeck and Jones) and us refusing to see their coming demise.
So I return to my previous question. What would you do differently? Choose someone else that was available? Give up multiple players for higher draft picks? Free agent pick ups? Could we have afforded them? Just remember the situation the person is in before you start calling for their head. Or before you start praising them unneccessarily (*cough* *cough* Girardi *cough*).
Ideally, this could be expanded to include an side by side comparison between GMs, looking to include information about who was signed, what each team's salary cap was like, who was available for free agency, trades made between teams, needs on the teams when free agents, trades, and draft picks were made, and a host of other secondary concerns that affect the decisions of the GMs. This would also take a lot more time than I have available. But it would give a cool comparison between GMs across franchises. We could see who has done a good job, and who has simply been propped up by a lucky pick up. Because let's face it, a Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady can easily mask a lot of mistakes made on a team. And a lack of one can hide a lot of good decisions made on a team.
A place to bury strangers.
7 recs |
17 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Well written.
And I agree about players like Manning or Brady making a team look better. Both the Colts and Pats have plenty of holes but their QB’s make up for them. I really do believe we are a couple pieces away. The primary piece however is a QB. I’m still on the give Ruskell two more years side of things.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
"What would you do differently?"
I hesitate to speak for them, since it isn’t something where I passionately agree with them, but I think the point the critics are trying to make is that, although Ruskell did spend draft picks on the offense, they’re not happy with (a) who he picked; or (b) the fact that so many of those picks were in the later rounds.
The critics wanted a offensive lineman or two in the first round, for example, but the only one they got was Spencer. They thought the need for a guard or tackle was greater, and saw some highly-rated players at those positions still on the board. But Ruskell seemed to determined to go with free agent castoffs and late-round picks - one of whom, Wrotto, had no appreciable experience at his position.
Good writeup
But would be better if you had taken the point worth of the draft picks and tabulated that. Not that the draft chart is perfect, but it gives a more useful frame of reference than “number of picks”
We know who they all are
Because we’re Hawks fans, and the people that frequent this site have a knowledge of this roster that borders on scary. That doesn’t mean that they’re well known or well regarded in larger circles. I think Ruskell has become a convenient target for fans that are dealing with a second successive year of frustration and mediocrity. Real fans don’t jump on Mora, because he deserves a period of grace, so the ire diverts upstairs. I’m unsure what to think as regards the idea of getting rid of Ruskell. I agree with the comments in a previous fanpost, in which people say he puts a little too much emphasis on character, while rarely hitting a home-run in the draft. To expand on the notion that a good QB makes everyone look better, that can be said across the field. Having Haynesworth in the trenches, or Randy Moss on the outside automatically makes those around them better because of the attention they draw. The fundemental flaw with Ruskell is he hasn’t found those superstars, the guys that terrify opponents and give peripheral players licence to roam
Good post.
I’m certainly baffled by people saying that we need to draft more lineman. We’ve been drafting lineman.
Here is my problem when people evaluate Ruskell’s drafting. If Jennings, Atkins, and Greene are the only ‘busts’ then I would argue that ‘busts’ is a horrible way to look at drafts because 5 good years of drafting in a row should indicate a better team than 10 wins in 2 season (or at least I’d like to think that 5 years of getting good cheap players would build a solid foundation). I don’t think busts are a good way to measure it. For example, say that you draft Marcus McNeil, a steal for his draft position, and then you draft Anton Palepoi. One is a huge bust, but one is a cheap LT that is possibly worthy of a franchise tag. Now another hypothetical draft with the same picks are Tapp and Red Bryant. Assuming no leap in skills, both are solid players, but if they were FAs, I’m not sure they would combine command a contract in the range that Marcus McNeil might. All hypothetical of course since I like Tapp as a player, I just think the fact that he’s so young kind of diminishes his value at a time when value is supposed to be greater than salary.
Here’s an analogy, there are bottles at a carnival that you have to shoot. Some are big and some are small and the object is to hit them with while shooting a pellet gun. Ruskell is goes for the big bottles and rarely misses, but all he wins are small stuffed animals. Someone else goes for the small bottles and misses at a much higher rate, but he comes home with a giant stuffed animal. The flaw in the analogy of course is that a conservative draft strategy does not necessarily preclude a gm from getting a ‘giant stuff animal’.
Yes yes and more yes.
This is something I’ve been thinking on and trying to incorporate. I’m toying with trying to create a basic framework to evaluate GMs on, including as many aspects of the job as I can. One thing I want to include as part of a subset of their drafting ability is how “savvy” they are. That is, do they maximize their ability to draft good players? When they have a 1st round pick and the value simply isn’t there, do they trade back? Do they pick up good players in later rounds because they got lucky, or because they waited until the consensus round for that player then drafted him, knowing they could get him and get more good talent in earlier rounds? I suck at making analogies so I’m not sure if I’m being clear enough…
Then I’d also have to create a value system for spectacular failures and successes. Drafting a Tom Brady makes up for a lot of mistakes. Drafting Ryan Leaf can destroy a franchise. Russel has shield away from both extremes, though maybe that’s just the nature of the beast when drafting defensive players in the 1st round (and Chris Spencer).
OK, I am convinced.
Mostly. My contention had always been offensive “skill” positions, that were neglected. And yes, as was said, it was the use of the middle rounds for the offense, and still top-heavy defensive drafting, for the top 2 rounds, that I had an issue with. But this does present a more balanced approach than I had recognized.
I still wanted Ruskell to stay, anyway. I thought the criticism was valid, but quite overstated. I now think it’s even more overstated. There’s still some issues, in this area of his macro-level personnel management, but I still hope he stays. I believe Mora and Ruskell will build something very good, if allowed to.
Ok, added in a section about drafting point values
based off the circulated points per pick system. These numbers arn’t perfect because each GM uses their own chart, and it’s really more of a guide anyways. But I don’t have access to those charts or how likely they are to use the numbers, so this will have to suffice.
A couple of things
OL is the biggest part of a football team percentage wise. Every snap, you have 5 OL on the field, compared to say 3 or 4 DL, 3 or 4 LB, and usually 4 CB/S. OL makes up nearly 50% of the offense, so it SHOULD be one of the top areas of expenditure. Factor in the impact on the OL for the rest of the offense, and the value raises even further.
Second, expenditure is more than just the draft. There is also free agency to consider. Ruskell’s track record with OL free agency is what really kills him (losing Hutch, signing Ashworth, Wahle, etc). Other than emergency street free agents (McIntosh, etc), every member of the Seahawks OL was drafted by the Seahawks, and all but two of them were drafted in the 3rd round or later (I excluded Walter Jones).
Regarding Ruskell’s expenditure towards OL, I do think he’s under-invested, but Unger was a step in the right direction and that hopefully continues. Ruskell’s mid to late round OL picks have panned out exactly like mid to late OL picks typically do, and since he’s relied on those kinds of picks so much instead of high picks or free agency, the line has a dearth of talent and isn’t even very scheme correct. More investments like Unger need to be made. If Ruskell is extended, I’m very curious to see how he handles this offseason in regards to the OL, especially with Sims or Spencer possibly leaving.
Interesting point about the disparity between positions drafted.
Particularly, what you said about how the OL has an impact on QB, RB, TEs, etc. Carlson has had to block this year more than last (I believe). The running-game can’t be relied upon. The QB isn’t given time to throw. The QB gets hit and injured (even without insane running by the bald one). Yes, OL appears proportionally more important, but it’s tough to look at it that way. Neglect any one unit in the NFL and other teams will exploit it. That’s how it works. You might get away w/ a poor pass-catcher at TE or a FB that can only block, etc., but a poor unit (DL, OL, Secondary, LB, etc) will be taken advantage of and then we’d be having the same conversation about that unit being ‘neglected’. The bottom line is that the lines on both sides of the ball are critically important to team success. Right now the OL is not great, not even good. That has to change if we want to protect our QBs now or in the future. That has to change to build an effective running game that can control games. We don’t have that now. Regardless of ‘neglect’, poor free agent moves, or injury/retirement: it needs attention.
Re-signing Locklear and Willis were also ‘moves’ made and ignored in most of this discussion. Lock will be fine at one of the tackle spots. I’m not sure about Willis. Sims has shown ability – how much I don’t know. In fact, all I really know is that I believe we need to build a dominant line. I couldn’t say who gets replaced and where to start. I just know I want it to happen. It’s been too long since we’ve had a line we could hang our hat on as a team.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
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.
