He’s had a good season given the fact Hasselbeck and Seneca have been piss-poor. I’m not looking for difficult catches regardless. For the most part he’s avoided the dropsies that we suffered in 2004 to the tune of 2 drops in the entire season. Unless it’s glaringly obvious (Koren) that you are incapable of performing then the receivers are as good as the QBs that throw it to them.

 I dont know if I can expect Sims to leave a block for Lock, and abandon his assignment mid play.
 In theory, Sims should have known pre-snap that Lock was going to take his man, allowing him to cover that A gap LB. My guess is either the play held the LT and LG in rigid assignments or the adjustment was not made on the line.
If I can get 9-10 year olds making line calls between them correctly, I do not see why the Seahawks cant. Blown assignments are mental errors, missed calls or a clever defender fooling you. Laurinaitis is a rookie.
 What I’M seeing game after game is multiple errors in plays, and that makes you ineffective. The RB commits early, the line call is missed or botched, the receivers cant separate, the QB cant gun the ball in and the TE cant be out for an easy 5-6 because he’s held back to block.
 My non-NFL quality eye says Forsett is for real, Hass is either still injured and if he’s not, he’s done, and our WR’s are not helping us.

But bottom line, he can’t hit throws with any accuracy anymore, and is a shell of the guy he used to be. If you can’t see this, you and Justin are watching a different game than the rest of us.

we have pretty limited resources to judge, for offense. That alone constitutes an indictment to many, but there were reasons for it. Maybe it was the wrong approach, but the approach was more of a macro-level decision, combined with some demonstrated restraint in terms of BPA vs. reaching, that led to defensive stockpiling.

I believe he’s earned the right because I believe he made the right macro decisions on what to do with this team. Build a defense for an offense in its prime. Sustain the window by supplementing the core. Now the window can’t be kept open by a couple of right picks that contribute right away. The transition to the new model has already begun. Each year up to and including 2008, personnel acquisition was allocated in substantial portion to the Holmgren model.

Hard to transition to a new model when a draft has 7 rounds but a roster has 53 men. Ruskell said it’s a 2-year plan. Spinning a case for his job, of course, but how can we expect anything more? Coaches, scheme, players, have been paid for for this model. The risk-reward proposition to me makes a lot more sense in giving just a little more time, 2 years, to see what develops here than to blow up and start again, we’d really be selling low with what we have that’s liquifiable at all.

That one I will agree 100% on. It was only a 5th rounder, though. However, that pick actually turned into Johnny Knox (pick traded to CHI), who I wouldn’t mind having.

However, at the time we were in a world of shit in regard to WR, and they thought he could be a legit answer, for a 5th rounder. Not the end of the world.

Now if they would have traded a 1st or 2nd for Kolbert, THAT would have been bad process and bad result…

than a 5th rounder and a starting DE/DT type for an aging high priced rush linebacker you’re dreaming.

Only NE could have done better, and only if they were trading with Oakland.

I’m sure they tried to get more for him, and found they were unable. I’m mostly happy with the Curry trade, but I go back and forth when you take the whole scenario into account. However, I do think it was a solid justifiable move. I just think that like most of Ruskell’s moves, they process has been better than the result.

Guys, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’ve been pretty snakebit lately. Don’t blame the GM and think a new GM will have magic juju that makes things go brilliantly right just because we’re somehow due.

Also a couple other small spelling/grammar errors… my bad.

The Branch deal was horrible. Just like the Peterson and Kolbert deals were too. Branch hadn’t had a 1000 yard receiving year leading up to that trade. He was not worth a #1 pick. He has never had a 1000 yd receiving season in his career. He was close once with 998 but not over the hump. Our own Darrell Jackson had 3 plus 1000 yd receiving seasons (Drafted in the 3rd Rd by Holmgren) and had only missed 3 games leading up that year. As I recall the trade was made when Jackson was hurt. New England took advantage of our #1 WR being out but so did Ruskell. It was well documented that Ruskell really didn’t want to be tied down to D-Jack and this was his way of preparing for his departure the following season. It makes some sense but it illustrates where Ruskell has gone wrong with trades for replacements. He let D-Jack go for a 5th round pick, a guy who had 3 1000yd seasons and should’ve gotten more for him then a 5th round pick. We didn’t need to get rid of D-Jack in my opinion. I look at that deal as a swap of D-Jack for Branch with us giving up a 1st Rd pk and receiving a 5th Rd pick. There’s no way in hell I would make that deal. I wouldn’t have even made the deal of D-Jack for Branch straight up without throwing in the swap of 1st Rd Pk and a 5th Rd pick. Plus we traded D-Jack to a division rival which is another criticism in itself. But back to my point. Why would you assume that we would’ve have to take a WR with the 1st Rd pick we traded away to the Pats. That pick could’ve been used in other areas of need rather then WR, since it was an overall weak draft at that position. Ruskell repeated that mistake with the Peterson deal for Redding, by getting lesser talent while creating a void at LB that he now had to fill unnecessarily with our #4 pick when we had more pressing needs on offense. Just like our 1st Rd pick in the Branch deal could’ve been used on something else, our #4 pick from last year could’ve been used on another position other then LB. Contract issues with Peterson I don’t want to hear about either in this argument. Once Peterson got to expensive for his play we could always release him just like we will this year with Kerney. I have no problems with releasing players. The Pats do it all the time. Ruskell has done some good but in trades and 1st Rd picks he has flat out whiffed. And whiffed more then Holmgren. There’s no way you can defend the Branch deal as far as I’m concerned.

adding a stopgap player? We’re 4-7 and if we arent 6-7 in two weeks while Arizona suddenly starts to suck, we need to be a four-games-back team thats seeing if Teel was worth the pick.

Dude is there to block, otherwise he’d be a halfback.