The Rise and Fall of Tim Ruskell: 2005
Tim Ruskell was announced as Seattle's new general manager of football operations February 23, 2005. He inherited a good team, a team that had made the playoffs in each of the prior two seasons, and a team with a winning record in four of Mike Holmgren's six seasons as head coach. He inherited a franchise quarterback turning 30, Matt Hasselbeck, two hall of fame talents on the offensive line, Steven Hutchinson and Walter Jones, a great running back in his prime, a good young cornerback, a three-tech, an oft-injured one-tech, a pair of system correct wide receivers and two controversial young safeties. A year later, the team Ruskell inherited represented the National Football Conference in Super Bowl XL.
Rumors notwithstanding, Ruskell's contract is up after the season. Seattle was 4-12 in 2008 and is 4-7 so far in 2009. His job is in the balance.
Seattle ranked 16th in DVOA in 2004. It ranked 9th in 2003 and 18th in 2002. It had a below average defense in all three seasons. Ruskell was brought in to fix Seattle's defense. He built his reputation under Rich McKay and the Bucaneers dominant Tampa 2 defense was his living resume. The 2004 team finished 21st in total defensive DVOA, 17th in passing DVOA and 30th in rushing DVOA. Pro Football Reference provides the starting defense in 2004 and the starting defense in 2005.
Seattle finished 15th in defensive DVOA in 2005. It was worse against the pass, fading to 24th, but better against the run, 5th overall. The team did not make a sudden leap as is often described. It did improve significantly and through a significantly remade roster. The front seven was gutted. Rookies Lofa Tatupu, Leroy Hill, and free agent acquisitions Chuck Darby, Bryce Fisher and Jamie Sharper all started eight or more games.
All but Sharper started for Seattle in its two playoffs wins preceding the Super Bowl. Seattle allowed under 300 yards to the 10th ranked, Washington, and 14th ranked, Carolina, team offenses. It smothered the Redskins. Shaun Alexander missed most of the game, and Seattle lacked the rushing attack that defined it. The Seahawks dropped five fumbles and lost three, forced no interceptions and lost the turnover battle three to one. But it held the ninth ranked Redskins rushing attack to 59 yards on 25 attempts. The Redskins had only three rushing first downs, and were 0-2 in red zone efficiency.
Seattle hired Tim Ruskell to remake the defense and he did. The Seahawks won their first playoff game in 20 years because of that defense. It then blew out the Carolina Panthers, powered by three interceptions, a forced fumble, its trademark rushing attack and sound execution in every phase, by every unit.
Seattle lost Super Bowl XL, but was not outplayed. Ruskell was the toast of the NFL. He was hired to remake the defense and did, and his remade defense was critical for the greatest run in Seahawks history. Ruskell also scored on offense. He signed Joe Jurevicius and Jurevicius was Seattle's most valuable target, keeping the pass game afloat after Darrell Jackson missed ten games.
Ruskell was unimpeachable. He was the pulse of the organization and the face of its future. The Seahawks success lifted all boats. Mike Holmgren was venerated after a controversial start to his career. John Marshall stepped in for Ray Rhodes, who had suffered a stroke in September of 2005, and his defense looked young and promising. Fringe players like Jordan Babineaux had earned a following among a resurgent fanbase. Matt Hasselbeck was in the discussion of best quarterbacks in football. Shaun Alexander was the league's MVP. Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson formed the best left side in football. The spectre that haunted Seattle, the Seahawks could not win in the playoffs, was exorcised. It had won and decisively.
It finished the season Super Bowl losers. It was a team in decline.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Comments
Truly depressing.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
This
John Marshall stepped in for Ray Rhodes, who had suffered a stroke in September of 2005
Felt like the beginning of the end. Marshall singlehandedly took a talented defense and destroyed it with his stupid schemes and idiotic timing (3rd and 16 = Bring the house). I liked Ray Rhodes a lot. JM was an idiot with a playbook and he set our defense back as a result, in my opinion.
I miss Chad Brown.
ME! BANE!
I was pleased with John Marshall for three years.
I was always disappointed with Ray Rhodes, I thought he was beyond conservative. I never understood how he had this rep for looking for cold-blooded killers, but then would underwhelmingly play not to lose.
But I liked Marshall. I always felt he more than doubled the stunts and twists we employed, to very great effect, but maybe the disparity was because of the personnel. Maybe Tubbs’ one great year simply enabled the rest of the guys.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2009 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
Marshall was actually pretty good in 2005 in 2006.
He came up with a great scheme to stop Steve Smith in the 2005 championship game. The Mashall decline seemed to begin in 2007 and then it seemed like he just gave up (I’m sure he didn’t, just felt like it) in 2008 probably knowing he was on the way out.
SEA!
I've heard on KJR
two inferences that Holmgren actually told Marshall he wanted to schematicaly remove Smith from the game. Not that it was completely his idea, but that it originated from him and stemmed from his observation of the Panthers. It’s KJR, so I dunno, but it was interesting to hear.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
I thought JM stepped in pretty good for Rhodes at first.
Marshall was pretty good at first. I thought he got predictable the last 2 seasons. But inside the numbers his defenses gave up less points the last 2 years by week 11 than Bradley’s defense this year. So it’s kind of pick your poison.
by Mr. Blache III on Nov 30, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions
It's worth noting...
that Ruskell also inherited a team with a terrible injury profile. In many ways he never recovered from that. Injuries are hardly an excuse for some things he did. Nevertheless, he spent a lot of time re-doing things thought done.
All GMs deal with injuries. But this goes to your last sentence John. Instead of adding onto the base of a conference champion Ruskell was patching and gluing on the way to the Super Bowl, much less after the loss. Never getting ahead, in fact barely staying afloat—kinda like when a college coach fails to recruit well after a surprise good season. In 3-4 years that guy is usually gone.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
What's our injury profile now?
After 5 years of Ruskell? Seems to be getting worse.
by stallz on Nov 30, 2009 8:19 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
any more articles coming on alternatives to ruskell/holmgren?
minor tangent, i know, but i was interested in this and was wondering if there might be more than just the two guys you mentioned before.
John, please work on your book and blog 24/7.
Make that 32/9. No, I know you don’t mean it like that, just kidding. I’m interested, too.
by jacobstevens on Nov 30, 2009 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely Excellent Article.
This is needed perspective, John. Ruskell really did an excellent job with the 2005 defense and he deserves considerable credit for the 2005 playoff run enroute to the super bowl. its so often forgotten these days.
Comparing DVOA between 2004 and 2005, however, sort of masks the fact that the new defense was improving throughout 2005 and really performed once the playoffs started. That’s what great teams do, and Holmgren’s defense never did that before Ruskell rebuilt it.
I think its odd that you end the article with “It was a team in decline.” The 2005 super bowl team was not yet in decline. The decline began when Hutchinson signed in MN and then Alexander broke his foot. Things really started snowballing after that. Of course, everyone knows that. But just imagine if Ruskell had franchised Hutchinson, cut Alexander loose, and drafted Maurice Jones-Drew instead of Kelly Jennings in 2006, or Frank Gore instead of Spencer in 2005? That peak experienced in 2005 might have just keep going for awhile.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
if he'd drafted frank gore instead of spencer
we’d be lamenting his lack of attention to the OL. spencer isn’t great but as far as i’ve read he’s not bad. disappointing but not awful. kelly jennings on the other hand..

by 





















