Winning with Seneca Wallace Part 2: Idiot Proofing

by John Morgan on Nov 3, 2009 3:04 PM PST

Why Seneca? Does Seattle have a choice?

Matt Hasselbeck has entered that agonizing phase of his career where injuries are around every hit. Seattle could sign Jason Campbell, but maybe they can't. Campbell is a restricted free agent in an uncapped season. If the NFL hashes out that problem and Campbell becomes an unrestricted free agent, there's still no certainty he signs with Seattle or Seattle signs him. Seattle could draft a quarterback, but developing a quarterback is a lengthy process. One reason Detroit selected Matthew Stafford is that should Stafford develop, he will be entering his prime just as the Lions are finishing their rebuild.

Wallace, for all his flaws, is learning the Greg Knapp system, has game experience in the Knapp system, is developed or as developed as he'll be (and a good bit better than Stafford or Mark Sanchez) and has a certain floor. Wallace has a certain expected minimum performance.

Why Seneca? Because like it or lump it, Seneca Wallace might be the best quarterback available in 2010.

A player like C.J. Spiller adds new dimensions to the offense and reduces Wallace's burden. It won't work if Spiller is regularly fighting his way out of the backfield. That means Seattle needs to add primetime talent to their line. It doesn't need a full rebuild of its line, but it does need better, healthier depth and another premium talent to play alongside Chris Spencer. Adding a left tackle improves depth, improves the right tackle position, where Sean Locklear can play, and actually saves the team some scratch.

It's a lucky coincidence that what Seattle needs to run the ball is exactly what Wallace needs to protect himself from himself. The infinity drops won't stop, but a long limbed, natural left tackle that can mirror his man and continue to control the edge all the way through the back end can help shield Wallace's abysmal pocket presence. We're not talking a road grader. Seattle will be in the market for a Charles Brown, Selvish Capers type. Someone that can kick out, cut and has the foot speed to keep up with our loony tunes signal caller.

Adding a tackle is a start, but Seattle needs to improve its depth and specifically, depth that can excel in Knapp's system. The Seahawks should pursue Daryn Colledge, Marshal Yanda, Chris Kuper or even someone like Khalif Barnes and Alex Barron, two players that have flunked out at tackle but could improve as guards.

The idea is to turn Seneca Wallace into a David Garrard by improving the talent around him and creating a system that is run first, strict, and powered by play action. You do not create the Wallace system because it's ideal, but because it satisfies basic needs and deemphasizes the quarterback. Ideally, the system that can work with Wallace can work with Mike Teel, Zac Robinson, Case Keenum or Tim Tebow, allowing Wallace to be the crash test dummy, and the kid Seattle drafts, the driver. Wallace keeps the team competitive enough to add free agent talent and avoid the high stakes pit of perennial top ten picks. Teams do not win Super Bowls with Seneca Wallace, but Wallace could be Seattle's Jim Harbaugh or Drew Bledsoe.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The way you describe it.

Almost makes me excited for the notion. You’re very good at presenting optimistic sides to any argument.

I actually bought a Betancourt t-shirt.

by Hopefulmsfan on Nov 3, 2009 4:02 PM PST reply actions

Thanks

I have plenty of time for bitterness when I’m old.

by John Morgan on Nov 3, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

So that's it!

I’m already old. ;-)

by Mr Fish on Nov 3, 2009 5:29 PM PST up reply actions

I Concur

Though I’m now torn between Wallace and Campbell…..

by Kumar on Nov 3, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions

I don't want to be disrespectful in any way....

Mr. Kumar, but Wallace is a lifetime Seahawk who has filled in admirably (most of the time) on many occasions.
I am completely neutral on the prospect of Jason Campbell, but if our chances are even remotely similar between the two, I’ll choose the Seahawk everytime. _

by skwid206 on Nov 3, 2009 4:46 PM PST up reply actions

Humor Lost

Sorry but I was writing a little tongue-in-cheek.

My point was really that John did (and does) such a great job of writing about the potential of either Campbell or Wallace that I get seriously jazzed after reading his posts. I was really laughing at myself for feeling like “Campbell’s the answer! No wait, that Wallace guy! HE’S the answer!”

I was shooting for a Homer Simpson-esque: “I love Bart! No wait, I love Lisa! Beer? Oh Marge I love you!”

Clearly I missed. My apologies.

by Kumar on Nov 4, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

The idea is entertaining

But I would be loathe to the experience of it. It has “white flag” mentality written all over it.

But I am an admitted pessimist, so it might work. My gut says “yuck”. If the fans don’t buy it, everyone loses.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Nov 3, 2009 6:49 PM PST reply actions

I get it, but...

all the teams that don’t have to idiot proof their QB, i.e. Colts, Pats, Giants, Eagles, and more recently Saints & Chargers, have consistent winning seasons, which is what we want, right? Look at us from ‘04-’07, we had that consistent feel. It seems to me that teams that have the “idiot proof, run first” offense have up and down multiple seasons, look at Titans, Vikings, Jags, and to some extent, the Ravens, a few years back. All had either great records year prior and following sub-par year. (Insert a QB with some field vision and intellect in Vikings system, they’re 7-1.) Everyone talks about stop-gap players, I think this is a stop-gap system.

by PoolNinja on Nov 3, 2009 7:38 PM PST reply actions

No Seneca.

by Ocho on Nov 3, 2009 8:03 PM PST reply actions

Ewww....

Just the thought of drafting Tebow at all makes me throw up in my mouth.

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

by Tyler Jorgensen on Nov 3, 2009 9:28 PM PST reply actions

Part of your sentence contains vile words.

Bile words? Words 5 and 6 shall not be uttered again with regards to our team.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Nov 4, 2009 12:07 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, it would be incredibly, incredibly disappointing.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

They forgot El-ahrairah, for what use had they for tricks and cunning, living in the enemy's warren and paying his price?

by Wayward Llama on Nov 4, 2009 4:26 AM PST up reply actions

Again, I think it's tough to assume we'd get BOTH an impact runner and 'primetime talent' at LT.

Would this team look different if it got the best RB and a ‘primetime’ starting LT? Yes! But what are the odds of that? And, at that point, how much of this depends upon Mr. Wallace?
Also not sure you should ‘create the Wallace system’ – if Wallace is running the show, he’s a stopgap. That’s due to age as much as projected DYAR. If you punt on the QB position in the offseason, and you’re right that this is a legitimate option, you do not lock the team into anything that is BASED on Wallace. It may be that something good for Wallace and something good for Spiller overlap, but if there’s a hint of a conflict there, you have to do what’s right for whoever isn’t the 30 year old career back-up.

by marc w on Nov 3, 2009 10:09 PM PST reply actions

Seneca = Jeff Kemp, Kelly Stouffer, etc.

Let’s start a turd at QB and revisit the past glory of 2-12 and zero offense. Sure Seneca can run. Great. Buy me a Vick or Young jersey and draw a smile on my face w/ a sharpie.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Nov 4, 2009 12:10 AM PST reply actions

I agree completely.

Seneca just can’t get it done. We saw a glimpse of Seneca again as a starter this year, with a full arsenal at his disposal. What did he do? Ran backwards, created his own pressure, etc. We need a pocket Qb with a cannon arm and good pocket awareness. Hell, I’d rather have Rex Grossman as our Qb than Seneca.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

They forgot El-ahrairah, for what use had they for tricks and cunning, living in the enemy's warren and paying his price?

by Wayward Llama on Nov 4, 2009 4:29 AM PST up reply actions

The notion that a team can be competitive (but not great) with Wallace isn't all that controversial

To me, the most interesting aspect of this piece is that it implicates—if not an outright rejects—Ruskell’s o-line building philosophy. I may be reading into things more than was intended, but the o-line is the one area where I believe Ruskell’s basic thinking has been wrong while Holmgren’s was right, even adjusting for the specific demands of the two different offensive systems. Holmgren, for all his other faults, tried to do on the offensive line what Ruskell has done at linebacker — keep it continuously stocked with talented depth. I’m not saying Holmgren never missed on the o-line (e.g., Wayne Hunter) but his thinking was unmistakable. He wanted guys talented and athletic enough to do multiple things.

Ruskell’s philosophy on the other hand seems more muddled. Obviously he had to transition away from what Holmgren was looking for in a lineman, but even accounting for that, what we have is the “not-Holmgren” offensive line. It lacks a clear character. I don’t think you can rightfully claim that it’s Alex Gibbs-type line. It’s kinda Kansas City but not really that either.

I think the identityless character of the line is the outcome of Ruskell’s penchant for living at opposite ends of an odd continuum. At one extreme he really likes talented but raw, inexperienced players with high upsides based on athleticism (e.g., Spencer, Sims, Wrotto, Willis). At the other extreme he also likes uber-experienced players from big programs, who are more technician and project to a different pro position than college (e.g., Vallos, Unger, Kyle Williams). Of course almost every line has a mix of such types but with Ruskell my impression is that it’s more random hodge podge than any intentional blending. One thing I will say for Ruskell/Mora is that we have good position coaches again. I fear, however, that Ruskell has hired an excellent offensive staff but shackled it with a sub par mix of line talent.

As it concerns this upcoming off-season my fear is that the top draft talent (Okung, Trent Williams) appears to be strictly RT material. So, unless someone shakes free in free agency there may be little opportunity to make a major upgrade over Locklear at LT. (My concern about the two draftable players you mention, Brown and Capers, is that both list as sub-300 pounders.) Lock is not be an altogether bad plan, particularly if Brandon Frye comes back to battle Willis for RT. The big thing is, I suspect, that it’s MUCH more likely than not that Lock remains plan 1a at LT and that we stay on the current path to a mediocre o-line rather than to make a qualitative leap forward.

In many ways I feel like that’s a bigger decision this off-season than what we do at QB. Or, put another way, what we do on the o-line this off-season will have a bigger long-term impact on this team than what we do at QB.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Nov 4, 2009 5:00 AM PST reply actions

Nice read.

There are many factors at play here, and quantifying the offensive line’s worth or effectiveness is tough to do considering all the variables. Holmgren’s lines worked well for a variety of reasons that aren’t true with today’s roster. There is a lot to be said for a HoF LTs stabilizing power next to a potential HoF LG. But, not just the line is a consideration here: Hasselbeck in his prime, an elite RB in his prime, and a weaker division are 3 reasons that helped those Holmgren lines. #4 would be Mack Strong.

How much the transition in blocking scheme and the mix of Holmgren vs. Ruskell players along today’s line affects the product on the field I’m not sure. There have been so many changes and injuries that I don’t think it can be fairly evaluated, can it? I mean, like Locklear or not, when in the lineup he’s still a (fairly) stable LT.. The big distinction here is that a key element to all offensive lines is cohesion. The best lines have had most of their components together for long stretches of games, sometimes over multiple seasons. We have had a revolving door at several spots, mostly due to injuries, though sometimes due to ineffectiveness (Vallos, anyone?). You can’t field a shell of a line in a different combo every game and expect to to work in concert. Blitz pickups get missed, run-blocking assignments blown, QBs hurt.

That said, I fear that even a healthy starting line from our current roster still has too many question marks. Could it be that Sims, Willis, and Unger will blossom at just the right time together? What about Spencer, or is Unger the guy who isn’t strong enough to build around at Center? I’m certainly not convinced that Lock is our answer at either tackle spot. The rock-solid Left Tackle (or Right Tackle) spot has to be tough enough to play those extended stretches of games or seasons to have it all come together. Nothing indicated Locklear can do that. He’s fast becoming the new Pork Chop Womack.

Simply, if we retain Spencer and add a stud Left Tackle, I could see it all gelling together. Rookie LT, Sims, Spencer, Unger, Locklear/Willis could play together and hit stride all at the same time. A large part of that would be predicated on the rookie LT being good enough to start right away and produce good results right away. I think there will be several of those guys to be found in the coming draft. Maybe it’s a plan coming together. Maybe, it’s a recipe for disaster. I could see it going either way right now. It’s hard not to let my own frustration with our team and watch our QB getting beat on week after week and not just throw my arms up and say ‘we need to rebuild the line’…. ‘we need to draft or sign 3+ guys this off-season to fix the line’. Maybe we do. Building a quality offensive line must be a priority. Though I’m hopeful of a few of the pieces we’re working with, I can’t help but see a need for a ton of improvement.

I really hope we’re not blinded by the ‘promising young talent’ we have right now. The line needs help. A few rookies to pressure for starting jobs that fortifies our depth against injury and ineffectiveness. Let’s not have the same thing happen to the offensive line that happened with the passel of young receivers. Is our line just a bunch of Courtney Taylors and Logan Paynes right now? Or, is there a plan?
.
.
.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Nov 4, 2009 7:59 AM PST up reply actions