Pro Football Weekly: Ruskell Will Not Return Next Season
If this is true I disagree with this move. However I will take this news with a grain of salt and hope the Seahawks have a press release addressing this issue in the near future.
9 months ago
SSreporters
148 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Probably for the best.
Didn’t really think towards the future and a lot of his philosophies (late round WRs) never really materialized into anything valuable. He wasn’t a bad GM, but we could probably do better.
Seems weird that they would inform in the middle (or close to it) of the season.
I know there aren’t a lot of transactions and what not that go on right now, but what motivation would Ruskell have to finish out the season? Either fire him or wait till after the season is over to make a decision.
If this is true, I hope Seattle brings in an offensive minded GM with philosophies geared towards a modern NFL offense.
SEA!
What do you mean by "finish out the season"?
As far as I know, Ruskell doesn’t take the field on Sundays, he’s not calling the plays and he doesn’t help study film or formulate the gameplans.
I mean, finish out the season, as in being the GM for the remander of the season.
There are still transactions/scouting and what not that is going on right now. If he’s told he’s not coming back why would he want to stay on until the season is finished?
SEA!
The scouts will still be scouting
I don’t think having a lame duck GM changes any of that.
As for player personnel decisions, if we’re changing GM’s we probably want to put those on hold anyway until we sort out our new direction. Pressing forward with them implies no change from Ruskell’s strategies — but the failure of those strategies is presumably why the Seahawks would be deciding not to renew his contract.
not much he can do at this point
I would imagine the coaches are the ones deciding who gets the playing time, the roster is almost set in stone form here on out.. If they know they don’t want to continue with him best to start looking now.
Not really
I made a poll on Tim Ruskell last week at Seahawks.net that asked if he should be extended or not. 94% said no.
Doug Farrar and Brian McEntyre from the scout site have been on the fire Ruskell bandwagon for a couple months now, as is Rob Stanton from Seahawksdraftblog and Chris Sullivan from Seahawks Addicts. Fieldgulls, which has always been a bit of an “outsider” site (which is why its awesome) was pretty much the last bastion of Ruskell support left. So this doesn’t surprise me at all.
"This seems odd" read "this doesn't make sense" to me
Given BrianL stated recently he would be “shocked” if Ruskell wasn’t extended.
For what its worth, I don’t think the timing is odd either. Cleveland fired their GM a few weeks ago so Seattle isn’t even the first team to announce a future change, and the Seahawks have looked pretty flawed the last feel weeks while playing mostly healthy. They may have won today, but beating the rams by 10 points wasn’t going to change anything, most likely.
This seems odd for all the reasons O'Neil pointed out.
There is no indication from the team that there is any validity to this report. There is no byline on the story, no source specified and it was posted at 3:29 p.m. Sunday according to the Web site, which did not designate whether it was Eastern or Pacific. If it was Eastern, it was posted right about the time Seattle was wrapping up its first road win of the season. If it was Pacific, the Seahawks would have been in the air flying home.
It would mean that Ruskell was told of this before at some point in the days or hours before today’s game and there is no indication that has happened.
I'm not saying that Ruskell's contract not being renewed is odd
I’m saying that the timing of this report is bizarre.
Also odd that PFW said he needed a strong performance to close out the year on Friday
and now they’re reporting he’s been fired right after a win.
This feels a bit like an echo chamber. PFW reports Ruskell is on the hot seat, PFT links to it and says Ruskell may already be done and then PFW says he’s been informed he won’t be back which PFT immediately picks up.
I'm guessing the decision was made before the Rams game
And its not uncommon at all for GMs to get the news during an uptick. Bill Bavasi was fired on June 16th and the team had a winning record in June at that point.
If a team makes the decision to move on before the season is over, it makes sense to announce that decision and begin the post-gm process. It gives them a jump on the GM candidates. As has been suggested elsewhere, Allen and Holmgren have a very good relationship and its possible Allen felt pressure when Cleveland started wooing Holmgren.
Even if Allen is not interested in Holmgren, it makes sense to start the process as early as you can. The last thing you want is a GM walking on his new job after the start of free agency and well into the draft preparation process, so teams have incentive to start looking early.
It had to have been made after the Rams game.
Ruskell and Mora were shown shaking hands and what not on the sidelines. Doubt Ruskell would be doing that if he had been told of this before the game.
SEA!
Possibly. He could have been thanking him for trying his best
and winning his last game as a Seahawks’ GM.
This would be a strange move at this point in the season
It’ll be interesting to see what the truth is behind the story.
"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 Nov 29, 2009 10:23 PM PST reply actions
considering the time of night, probably
Hopefully we’ll hopefully get an official statement tomorrow.
My point is that until we hear something
that contains a byline and contains more than “an inside source tells us…” this is nothing more than a rumor.
Yeah the evening news never makes mistakes
by Aaron Campeau on Nov 30, 2009 12:04 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying its official enough to declare fact, just saying its probably got legs if it makes the news
Usually news organizations will make a call to confirm before they report something of this magnitude, and supposedly Gangel did.
At the very least, saying it on the local news forces the Seahawks to respond quickly to confirm or deny. Of course, sometimes in cases like this where stuff is leaked, organizations will deny it for a few days before eventually coming clean later. Either way, my interest is peaked.
Well, if nothing else
it will provide some solid evidence of just how much influence that 95% of the Fieldgulls community has on the Seahawks organization (or with the other Big Show up in Heaven).
The rest of the Seahawks fanbase seems to be in favor of bringing Holmgren back.
Who cares?
"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 Nov 30, 2009 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
Most of the Seahawks fanbase isn't all that smart.
Most of the Mariners fanbase isn’t all that smart.
Most of the sporting world’s fanbase isn’t all that smart.
I think George Carlin said it best
“Think about how stupid the average American is. Then realize half of them are stupider than that!”
Was. :( RIP, you athiest, you.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
I got tickets to see him this summer and then said to my friend "well, I hope he doesn't croak before we get to see him."
And then a few weeks later, he croaked. I’m still bummed.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 30, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
I saw him in Vegas in around '04.
He was great, then he came out after for a curtain call to “work on some new stuff with a live audience.” The new stuff was some of the most out there explicit raunchy and generally wrong comedy I’ve ever heard, and I’ve heard a lot. Most the audience groaned, some left, but for a few of us it was simply epic.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
Also, this is an appeal to popular opinion fallacy.
Just you perceive the majority of the Seahawks fanbase as being in favor of bringing Holmgren back (which may not be true) doesn’t mean that it is the correct thing to do.
It would only be a fallacy if I were drawing the conclusion that the majority was right
But I’m not doing that. I’m just saying it will show how little or how much influence the opinion of the Fieldgulls community has on the Seahawks organization.
Do try to read more carefully and to think more clearly.
I do not think it will show that
and I doubt Field Gulls has any influence over the Seahawks Organization.
Your honor, I give you Lamar King and Jerremy Stevens.
There are no sure things. Assuming Holmgren would if here hit a homerun with a reach pick is a desperately optimistic perception.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I don't see the part where he mentioned Holmgren
and I agree with DetectiveM’s sentiment, if we include Branch as a 1st round pick, Ruskell had 5 first round choices and every one of them either angered me or baffled me. Having someone else manage 1st round choices is one of the bigger silver linings for me if a new GM is brought in.
Its a shame though we can’t keep Ruskell around to manage rounds 2-7. He has been outstanding there.
That Seattle's picks angered or baffled you is not a reliable standard for success
Ruskell has rarely picked the players I wanted, but the players he has picked have performed at an expected level for their draft position.
Interesting.
“the Players he has picked have performed at an expected level for their draft position.”
Spencer and Jennings, decent/bad/awful seasons taken together, played at an expected level? Spencer was a liability who took 3 years to grow into passable. Jennings played about as badly as Brian Russell in 2008 and is currently a 1st round pick dime CB.
Branch, sure. 2006-2009 Branch’s stats would compare well to rookie WR career stats since 2006-2009 Branch’s stats wouldn’t have included his growing pains years. That doesn’t mean it was a good trade. Even if Branch had cost a 7th round pick, it was still a bad contract, and it certainly didn’t help the Djack situation either. Today most fans slam this trade in hindsight, but I was one of the very few that didn’t like it at the time.
I worry about Lawrence Jackson. I don’t think he has the pass rushing ability needed for a 4-3 DE. However, its still early and future development is possible. While I didn’t expect the team to draft Jackson, I did like that Ruskell was pro-active with DE, one of the most important positions for Seattle’s style of defense. I hope Jackson develops and makes me look like a fool for doubting him.
Curry is no doubt a good player. Whether he ends up a rich man’s Leroy Hill or the next Derrick Brooks, he won’t bust. My opposition to Curry was not based on his caliber but due to money, positional impact, and opportunity cost.
You would do well to support one point instead of tackling the whole argument
For instance:
Spencer was a liability who took 3 years to grow into passable.
You provide nothing to substantiate this opinion and I disagree with it.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 10:05 PM PST up reply actions
Spencer had some pretty awful games in 2006 and 2007.
“In his first three seasons Spencer endured persistent blown assignments and botched blocks.” Those were your words, actually.
Spencer improved a lot in 2008, his 4th season. He had fewer mistakes which is good because mistakes are usually the only thing an OL can do to get noticed by most people. Spencer started making some very nice blocks too. Spencer’s value was perhaps its most obvious when Vallos replaced him in the Dallas game.
Other than having to snap left handed, he’s been solid in 2009. As long as he’s cheap, I hope the team keeps him. But I think its a bit of revisionist history to say Spencer was passable from 2005-2007. If you really believe that, I’d like to know why you think so.
He was essentially a rookie in 2006
and ended 2007 by doing stuff like this in the playoffs:
1/5/08
On the third play of the Hawks’ final series of the half, Seattle set up a modest screen to Leonard Weaver on 2nd and 15. I say modest because only Spencer was out lead blocking, but, boy, what a determined, dominant block Spencer was dishing out. Spencer, quietly, has really improved. He’s not falling over, he’s diagnosing blitzes and disengaging combo blocks to pick up free blitzers, and he’s beginning to show his huge potential as a pull blocker.
He plays at a position that peaks late and has a very long prime. Chris Spencer was never a liability. Steve Vallos is a liability. A liability is a player that singlehandedly threatens your chances of winning. Spencer was a kid, learning a tough position and showing flashes, and now he’s an above average NFL center.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions
A good play does not undo the multitude of mistakes he made in those early years
Otherwise I agree. Vallos is definitely the true definition of a liability. Spencer at his worst was never as bad as 2008 Vallos.
The "multitude of mistakes"
perhaps you could cite one.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
hey, I'm just quoting you in your 2007 retro
You complimented Spencer on assignment correctness but admitted his mistakes were “persistent.”
Young and Old united in sucking: Jones and Chris Spencer each blew a block in the run game. Jones no longer sustains run blocks like he used to, something made that much more glaring by Alexander’s maddening foxtrot behind the line of scrimmage. Spencer did what Spencer does, trip. On both plays, a better running back could have escaped, specifically, on Spencer’s blown block Alexander needed only to run around the fallen defender (he had, in fact, tripped over the tripped Spencer) to get to the edge and two pulling blockers, but on both plays Alexander froze, allowed Cleveland to swarm around him and then he futilely cutback into the pile. We have to hope Jones has plateaued, that he’s declined, but is not declining further. Not yet at least. Spencer’s footwork is quickly rising to a paramount concern. The Hawks drafted him so he could be an athletic force pulling and picking up blitzes. If he can’t move around without falling over, that potential disappears.
11/04/07
The Seahawks go for it. Half-a-yard and the drive’s sustained, Seattle will have 3+ downs to crawl 10 yards into the outer limits of Brown’s range. The Hawks break huddle with three wide receivers, Will Heller on the left end and Morris the lone back. At the snap, Rob Sims pulls, Chris Spencer springs upright against two Browns defenders and is exploded back, Sims glances off his blocker, and Morris does little more than plunge ahead into the barely visible crease between Sims and the collapsed Walter Jones. He’s well short of the first. Browns’ ball. Game over.
Chris Spencer was intensely maligned by the fanbase and coach, as you well know. Had Chris Spencer not been at least somewhat of a liability, the average fan would not have noticed him. Max Unger is not off to an especially strong start this year but the typical fan thinks he’s doing just fine. When Spencer screwed up, he screwed up big and ugly. Big enough to get noticed by the laymen and ugly enough to be unforgivable in their small minds.
Wasn’t there a game where he forgot the snap count 2 or 3 times? He had a couple of ugly instances in the short run game in 2006 where he was blown over. I don’t have it written down and long term memory is treacherous. But suffice to say, Chris Spencer has come a long way since then. Its a shame most fans don’t realize it and still think he’s the same “can’t make line reads” player he was in those first 3 years.
When you read me say “Spencer was a liability” I hope you are not confusing this with my saying “he sucks!” like so many fans have. I’m just saying that he was pretty bad at one time and has come a long way.
Interested to see John reply to his own statements
But apropos and slightly on the periphery, I do not agree with “had Chris Spencer not been at least somewhat of a liability, the average fan would not have noticed him”. Fans noticing someone’s tepid play is not necessarily proof of him being a liability, which I agree with John is a strong sentiment that should be left to players who single-handedly ruin games.
Average fans can notice players for a lot of reasons. The media harping on them, high picks getting extra scrutiny, too much hype from the pre-season, or – probably most commonly – the bandwagon effect. It’s not proof by itself of a problem.
It's interesting you would counter my argument with my own words
I wrote that retrospective you know? It ends:
Quietly, like an approaching flash flood, Spencer turned the bend. In 2008, the churning, onrushing wall of blue and white arrives—maybe. Spencer was the first player ever drafted by Tim Ruskell. His profile: Ultra-toolsy but raw. It’s not surprising, then, that in his first three seasons Spencer endured persistent blown assignments and botched blocks. What startled, even scared was Spencer’s slippery feet and complete lack of power. But potential buys patience. Late in the season, as Chris Gray collapsed, Spencer began to get it. He wasn’t blowing through defenders or making highlight reel blocks, but he was assignment correct, moving efficiently through space, winning blocks off the snap and if never looking dominant, looking competent. The athletic force the Seahawks drafted needed only competent skills to be a top-tier center. Alas, that Spencer might be lost. For the second straight offseason, Spencer underwent shoulder surgery. How much that has contributed to Spencer’s apparent lack of explosiveness is beyond my ken, but for an offensive lineman, shoulder injuries can ruin careers. Depending on the power and resilience Spencer has left on the operating table, he could be a great center just entering his prime or a competent center hardly worth his draft slot. Stay tuned for Training Camp.
2007 was Spencer’s second year starting. He started poorly but finished the season strong. At no point was he anything close to a liability.
semi-off topic
A frequent complaint I’ve heard about Spencer in 2009 is that he can’t pick up the inside blitz and this has caused some problems a few times a game. What is your take on that? Is it Spencer or perhaps its a combination of Spencer/Unger?
This isn’t a leading question. I want to disagree with them, but I’m not really an expert enough to know who is most at fault for the blitz issues up the middle.
Didn't Ruskell make the move to acquire Branch
because he knew he wouldn’t keep the promises made by the previous FO and would need to replace DJack? Also, even with all the time Branch has missed he’s outperformed the average receiver taken at the pick that Seattle traded for him. The contract was a failure but not the trade.
Yeah, but Kearly is angered and baffled by Ruskell's picks.
That’s the important thing from his perception, and he is determined not to like them, nor to look at the bigger picture of where failure could have been greater with each of them.
I wasn’t enamored of the Kelly Jennings pick, for example. I knew we needed another DB, but I really wanted a tremendously skilled athlete out of Virginia Tech named Jimmy Williams. Remember him? He went a dozen picks later (next CB taken) and is now out of football and trying to get back in with the Niners after a drug suspension.
Say what you will about being baffled by Ruskell’s picks, not one of his Hawk first rounders is out of football, and they’re all still Seahawks. Those two things alone count for something pretty significant in my book. Also, that’s the year we would have HAD to have drafted a WR to replace the gap by NOT trading for Branch. That would mean doing something either through trade or FA signing, or instead of getting the DB, drafting a WR like Chad Jackson or Sinorice Moss, the next two WR’s taken at our draft slot that Jennings went at.
The draft is a difficult crap shoot. Ruskell picks have had modest success, but they have not dreadfully failed… I’ll take that, and the fact that they seem to still be developing and getting better, each and every one of them.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions
I don't like anyone named Jimmy Williams
After our other DB Jimmy Williams that would muff punts time and time again.
ME! BANE!
I'm hardly a person that makes up his mind and stubbornly sticks to it
If you knew me that well, you’d see I flip flop more than John Kerry.
I hope you didn't think I was too harsh.
I mainly wanted to show how one of the chief things being held against Ruskell, the Jennings/Branch combo worked out modestly well, but was not the massive failure people want to paint it to be.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
Don't worry
You should see how badly I get ripped at other sites. For example, this week I had my balls busted for defending Spencer. I had the nerve to suggest the team should use the minimum RFA tender to retain him (1 year, $835k), and even then it was mostly to protect Unger from being advanced too aggressively. Everyone thought I was nuts for wanting Spencer back, at all, in 2010.
I think Jennings/Branch was a modest failure, but not a disaster. I’m not usually prone to hyperbole.
Unequivocally
Spending almost nothing to retain a young player is one of the easiest decisions in football.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions
Unfortuantely a lot of people don't pay attention
to the salary cap side of football. They just want the best players at each position, and ignore the massive upside to having good players that are cheap.
Not to mention the fact that players learn systems at different schedules.
Some simply take longer to blossom. Keeping a guy cheap in your system instead of drafting a replacement that could take just as long to “get it” is short term thinking at best.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:12 PM PST up reply actions
regarding your post, I respectfully disagree
Even Lamar King and Jerramy Stevens finished out their rookie contracts.
I think when it comes to 1st round picks, the standard must be higher than taking up a roster spot and avoiding dreadful failure. The team has taken a relatively low risk/low reward philosophy in the 1st round. Its no surprise then that the 2009 Seahawks are plagued by a lack of pro-bowl talent and explosive play makers.
What you say about Chad Jackson or Sinorice Moss is true, but in fairness shouldn’t you also mention Eddie Royal or Desean Jackson? Not every 1st round pick needs to be an Ed Reed, but I think a team should shoot for about 50% of their 1st rounders being building block pieces and maybe 1 in 3 being a pro-bowl caliber player.
Good football teams are rarely built without at least occasionally hitting in the 1st round. Holmgren rarely hit with his 1st round picks but built a team around the hits he did make. I think the current Seahawks team is a good example of the consequences of not hitting with the first wave of talent.
I here what you are saying, but I was simply pointing out guys
who were drafted in slotting around where we took our “alternative” options and who were in the same need category. You can always dig around every draft and find a gem here and there later (or of course, earlier.)
I like the risk/reward factor, because I think the reward tends to be luckier than we give credit to— otherwise more elite guys would be picked at the top of the draft. I just think we’ve gotten unlucky due to the rewards not paying off big during the years Ruskell has been here.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
My personal philosophy
is go high risk / high reward in the 1st round since the high reward in the 1st round is so high it more than makes up for the risk, and because successful NFL franchises are almost always built around franchise cornerstones obtained in the 1st round, most notably at QB. You don’t have to hit on every 1st round pick, but its important that you at least occasionally hit big.
However, in rounds 2-3, the difference in reward between high risk and low/moderate risk is very small and for that reason its smarter to take safer picks.
And yet, there are an awful lot of teams that have drafted high
time and time again, and swung for the fences and failed miserably.
I think franchises are built around cornerstones that come from whenever and wherever, and the more solid guys you get, the more probability one (or more) work out better than expected. NE got Brady in the 6th, Maroney in the 1st. I know, an easy “throw it out there” example but it is one none the less.
You can make an argument that dominant franchises get their cornerstones just as often from unexpected luck (Brady, Hasselbeck in our height, Brees in NO through random FA luck, Ray Lewis near the end of the first (4th LB taken), as opposed to earlier or in more “big payoff” positions.
I just want some of our guys to turn out to be upside picks at some point. Maybe, if he stays, this is Ruskell’s year to get some luck with picks booming instead of fizzling.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:21 PM PST up reply actions
Well, elite players are decidely more likely to be 1st rounders
To illustrate my point,
Here’s a list of the 25 most valuable players in the NFL as rated by the sporting news. This wouldn’t be my personal top 25, but regardless, its a good sampling of elite talent.
Of those 25 players:
20 were 1st round picks
1 was a 2nd round pick
1 was a 3rd round pick
1 was a 4th round pick
1 was a 6th round pick
1 was a UDFA
As far as bad teams that swing and miss, if Ruskell is a good GM, he should have more confidence in his swing. I wish he had, and if he’s lucky enough to survive this season somehow, I hope he does in upcoming drafts.
Good point...
I’d be interested in seeing where they stack up by draft slot IN the rounds, particularly the 20 1st round picks— how many in the top 5, top 10, teens and 20’s.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 1:17 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
I know there is a huge drop off in talent from the top 5 to the top 10, and another drop off from the top 10 to the rest of the first round. Many of Ruskell’s 1st round picks were only a few teams away from being 2nd rounders (Jennings was only 1 team away). His first really high pick, Curry, has shown clear potential to be an elite LB (whether he was worth it is another discussion, or whether he will achieve that ability. I’m just saying he clearly has the potential to do it).
Who knows with Djack.
A different GM might have found a compromise, but I don’t think TR was a fan of Djack to begin with (injured too often, too many drops). Jackson was a product of the system but he did produce and has proven difficult to replace.
I was aware of JM’s post on the Branch trade, that’s why I talked about “veteran vs. growing pains” in the previous post. The “average WR taken” argument JM put forward is fairly solid; though it doesn’t account for age and cost. Currently at 571 yards per season in Seattle including 2009, Branch has narrowly outpaced an average WR taken (~530). That’s a pretty close difference, and it should be considered that a 2007 drafted WR would cost about 20% as much money and would be 5 years younger.
I don't think missing time has been what's hurt Branch
And for what its worth, Branch had some injury issues even before he was acquired.
Remember too, though, that DJack was out of the league
within 2 seasons of the trade out of Seattle.
You could even argue getting a 4th rounder for a washed up WR was a victory for Ruskell.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
He was a product of the system
Its like saying it was a good idea for the 49ers to dump Jeff Garcia because he struggled with Cleveland and Detroit.
Who can say for sure, but I don’t see why Djack wouldn’t have continued to produce with Hasselbeck and Holmgren. Hell, he probably would have had a monster year in 2007 when the offense completely committed to the pass.
Product of system only goes so far
Denver runs a West Coast derivation, he wasn’t schooled in Russian but learning Greek. If he was still a capable player, he should have been able to run the same routes at Mile High that he ran at Qwest. The guy had a ton of injuries and was cooked at a young age. It happens all the time. That Ruskell got anything for Jackson says a lot about the 49ers.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
2006 was not even close to his best season.
This is a great example of the kinds of generalizations that get you in trouble. Jackson missed three games and finished under a 1,000 yards.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
I stand by what I said
The 2003 team had a much better offense. Jackson also had 16 games paired with in his prime Hasselbeck, vs 9 games with a mostly beat up and oft ineffective Hasselbeck. Despite those handicaps he posted a similar DYAR and actually had 1 TD more.
I didn’t say it was his best, just said it was “maybe his best.” I stand by that.
He was eighth in total DYAR in 2003.
He was 19th in 2006.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
Hines Ward has the 9th most DYAR in 2009.
Kevin Walter has the 19th most.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
That's a significant difference
and 2006 was a friendlier passing environment.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
Yep
49 touchdowns by Manning after contact rules were emphasized.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
Net yards per attempt jumped .3 yards in one season.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions
Though I suppose DYAR should adjust for that.
Nevertheless, 63 DYAR is very significant.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
its important to consider:
2003 Seahawks YPA: 7.49
2006 Seahawks YPA: 5.16
Even if the 2006 stat was buoyed by a better passing environment, it just goes to show even more how inferior that offense was to 2003.
A few more things
He was in a reduced role in Denver. He wasn’t going to leapfrog Eddie Royal or Brandon Marshall.
Denver didn’t have Matt Hasselbeck throwing passes, and I think a big reason for Jackson’s success in Seattle was his chemistry with Hasselbeck.
Denver had a similar, but different system.
If Djack was cooked it didn’t show in 2006. If he was cooked in 2007 thats hard to tell too: SF’s 2007 offense was epicly bad, -40% DVOA passing offense. The 2nd worst was only -15%. In Denver he was basically a backup WR.
I think normally, trading a 4th round pick for a WR in his 20’s coming off a top 20 DYAR season is a bargain. It didn’t work out for SF though, and I think its because too much of Djack’s value is tied to Matt Hasselbeck.
Or because he was physically near done.
There are other teams out there who have needed WR’s and could have given him a chance.
Prior to this year, Philly and their West Coast Offense have ALWAYS been on the lookout for anyone with an 8 on their jersey. Why didn’t DJack land in Philly if he still had so much left in the tank?!?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
If there is evidence that he was physically done I'd like to see it
He was very good in 2006 and stayed healthy in 2007 and 2008.
Fine.
Then he was healthy, and yet couldn’t find a place ANYWHERE in the league, despite there being a ton of teams without WR production and him being an experience veteran who had produced in the past.
If he was healthy, you’d think Baltimore would call him up TODAY. Their WR’s are terrible. The Jets come to mind as someone needing NFL caliber WR talent. Jay Cutler could use someone to throw to, couldn’t he? What about the Redskins, they could use a talent upgrade. Who is Carolina lining up opposite Smith? And did ANYONE know who Mike Sims-Walker was before this year started? Don’t you think Jacksonville (who had Troy “fast but can’t catch” Williamson) make their opening day roster could have at least given him a try in training camp?
The guy was done/is done, or has some grievous ills off the field holding him back that we don’t know about (which would obviously cool Ruskell’s DJax jets.)
But regardless, he isn’t playing anywhere, so people saying we should have kept him, and yet blaming Branch for not staying healthy is completely unfair. And yet today, if we let go of Branch, I’m fairly certain any one or several of those teams I just named come calling IMMEDIATELY.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
You don't think missing time has hurt Branch?
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
Sure it has, but its not the main culprit
He’s been almost completely healthy this year, but has been almost invisible.
Completely healthy?
He destroyed his knee. Not every players recovers the same way from that.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:05 PM PST up reply actions
Why would you equate that to him being healthy?
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:25 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe his knee felt like it was going to fall off afterward.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
Ability is phenomenal
the ability to do something once is not proof of health or the ability to do something repeatably.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 11:40 PM PST up reply actions
He looked good on more plays than that
I thought the final few weeks of 2008 were some of his best games in Seattle, especially considering the offense and QB situation.
Sorry, you're right there, he didn't.
I’m just used to that being the case, and the Peter King thing I read did mention Holmgren and Seattle, so I was even more defensive about it than usual.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 7:30 PM PST up reply actions
So, the dude is finally free of Holmgren
has his head coach, offensive and defensive coordinators, and most of his team in place, and now he’s not being extended? Nice.
I’m not a fan of Holmy coming back, but why do all of these stories mention Gruden along with Cowher and the rest? Gruden fucking sucks. He’s never done anything except win a Super Bowl with Tony Dungy’s team.
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.
Gruden built Oakland into a superbowl level team before Tampa
And managed to remain fairly successful in Tampa long after Dungy left.
Danny O'Neil's updated his post
I’ve had a chance to talk to a few more people, and I haven’t talked to a single person who has heard Ruskell was told of his fate after this season. Not only that, but CEO Tod Leiweke — who was in St. Louis with the team — didn’t fly back with the Seahawks so it’s not like there was some post-game summit or discussion on the return flight.
So not to say that Ruskell’s definitely coming back, but it doesn’t seem like this particular rumor was true.
"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 Nov 30, 2009 7:22 AM PST reply actions
Good to see our local sportswriters doing some actual reporting
Imagine, tracking down leads and other Journalism 101 stuff. Wow.
But I think it’s overreaching to say the PFW article wasn’t true. The most we can say is that no one from the Seahawks is confirming — or denying — it. (It’s logic-chopping, I know, but refusing to confirm or saying we’re unable to confirm is not exactly the same as denying.)
I want to repeat: I have no dog in this hunt. I’m just interested in the way the story is playing out. I think this rumor does, however, increase the pressure on the Seahawks to make some kind of announcement re Ruskell’s future. I remain convinced that we’re going to get that announcement well before the season ends. Right now it seems likely that it could come as early as this week.
Vindicated!
I only wish my precog skills worked as well with the stock market as they did in this matter.
This smells like crap to me.
If Ruskell isn’t brought back Pro Football Weekly can come out and say “see we told you!” and if he is brought back they can just make some excuse that their “source” was misinformed.
SEA!
Hmm...
This doesn’t encourage me— from SI, Peter King Today:
I’m told Tim Ruskell has a shot to save his job as Seattle’s architect and GM … if the Seahawks go something like 4-2 down the stretch. Sunday was a good start in St. Louis.
Mike Holmgren? Seattle or San Francisco — as a GM/president, not as a coach or coach/GM — are the most logical places for him. The longer he takes to consider Cleveland, the less chance the Browns have to get him.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/11/30/week12/4.html#ixzz0YN9DzJH0
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 11:26 AM PST reply actions
I'm just saying this is a different locale.
In the case, we have a journalist who does have access, and isn’t just referencing himself sourcing himself. Plus (not that this makes a world of difference) doesn’t his daughter work for the Hawks in some capacity? He mentioned being in Seattle for Thanksgiving, I assume he was visiting her. Maybe something came up during the visit, either with her or maybe while having coffee with some Seattle source.
I’m not saying it is true, and I’m not saying I want Ruskell gone, I’m simply saying this gives a tad more credence to it. That’s all.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
If what Peter King says is true
it’s a lot different than what PFW was saying with that rumor post. King suggests that ownership will evaluate at the end of the season and that no decision has been made or is eminent.
Agreed.
However, it also says the job is not so certainly his going into next year like I for one thought.
I’m definitely among those that want him to return unless there is a substantially legitimate candidate that absolutely blows me away, and I don’t see anyone filling that role in my eyes.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 30, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
Anybody catch the latest speculation on Ruskell leaving?
PFW’s guessing Holmgren comes back and Mora stays on. However, they believe there’s a chance Homlgren brings Gruden with him. There’s actually a large chunk of the story devoted to the Seahawks. Of course, it’s all rumor but fun to think about anyway.
http://profootballweekly.com/2009/11/30/speculation-increases-about-rock-star-coaches
Seriously.
They’re just throwing a whole hell of a lot out there, and almost contradicting themselves throughout the piece.
I amazed at how many "insiders" are willing to talk to PFW.
Yet won’t talk to credible people like Sando and Danny O’neil.
SEA!
I wonder if there's any overlap between PFW's "insiders" and Sando's or O'Neil's contacts in the org
O’Neil says he talked to “a few more people” but doesn’t identify them. Perhaps he just doesn’t have an in with the right people?
I think I’ll wait for something official before I’ll pronounce judgment one way or the other on the PFW story.
The janitor said Ruskell likes to slow dance to Celine Dion when it's late at night and he's the only one there.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 30, 2009 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
Ruskell is looking on the bright side
At least now he won’t have to eat any more of the cafeteria lady’s overcooked macaroni and cheese.
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.
