The Future of Matt Hasselbeck is the Future of the Seattle Seahawks, Pt. 2
There is no third-year wide receiver rule and no single path a quarterback takes to competence. The Seattle Seahawks could employ any strategy this offseason and still not start a competent quarterback in 2010, 2011 and 2012. If it sticks with Matt Hasselbeck, it will commit itself to Hasselbeck's decline phase, starting him in his age 35, 36 and 37 year-old seasons. For perspective, a quarterback performs at 83.2% of total capacity at 34, but historically, that capacity drops to 76.8, 69.9 and 62.9% from 35 to 37. The Seahawks could attempt to offset that decline through building a better team.
Whoever drafts Hasselbeck's replacement, whoever that replacement is, and however that replacement is integrated into the offense, the Seahawks will most likely decline as a passing offense in 2010. Old quarterbacks lose ability in chunks. Young quarterbacks gain ability in leaps. The two cross paths sometime around an old quarterback's age 36 season and a young quarterback's age 24 season.
Hasselbeck will turn 35 next season. Seattle can retain him through the end of his contract while simultaneously adding the quarterback of the future. Hasselbeck would be the presumed starter and presumably better than his young replacement, help transition Seattle towards its future, and potentially resurrect his own career, should he desire.
That's why I dub this the "Graceful Exit Plan." Seattle could draft a quarterback in the top ten, but is less likely to with Hasselbeck under contract and costing $10 million against the cap. In the last ten drafts, two quarterbacks have been selected in the top ten five times. In the last twenty drafts, two quarterbacks have been selected in the top ten ten times. It's difficult to project a draft so early in the process, but it is likely Jimmy Clausen will join Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Tim Tebow, Tony Pike, Dan LeFevour and Sean Canfield atop this year's quarterback class.
Clausen is the most likely top-ten pick. The impact of keeping Hasselbeck is that Seattle is unlikely to select a quarterback within the top ten, and therefore we will assume Clausen is unlikely, Bradford could likewise be unlikely, but the remaining five will be available. The remaining five represent the most likely pool of replacements for Hasselbeck.
Canfield's age is not publically listed, Rotoworld lists him at 108, but he is a senior now and graduated from high school early to attend spring drills. It's most likely that Canfield is 22, and like most of the rest of his class, will be a 23 to 24 year-old rookie.
It's ridiculous to discuss a quarterback prospect's upside. Every legitimate prospect is capable of making Canton or selling Cadillacs in five years. Likewise, the age guidelines presented by Pro Football Reference evidence that quarterback development is initially about experience. The greatest single delta is between age 21 and age 22, when a quarterback jumps 22.2%, and the second greatest is between 22 and 23, when a quarterback jumps 18.5%. Most 22 year old quarterbacks are rookies. All 21 year old quarterbacks rookies. After the sophomore sprint growth is more gradual.
The Plan Might Be Enacted Thus:
Hasselbeck is a lame duck. The media loves to pick on such situations and tease out whatever controversy possible. The ownership, management and Hasselbeck must agree to bury the subject and unite behind a common plan. That starts the day after the draft, when the team provides a unified front: Hasselbeck is the starter, but his drafted replacement, the future.
If Greg Knapp is still Seattle's offensive coordinator, Seattle's pick will most reflect his personal preferences in a quarterback. Tim Ruskell has deferred to his coaching staff, sometimes smartly, and sometimes, like when re-signing Shaun Alexander, stupidly. It will reflect Knapp's system and Ruskell's eye for talent. Let's quickly vet potential candidates.
Knapp Approved:
McCoy
Tebow
LeFevour
Canfield
Ruskell Approved:
McCoy
Tebow
Tebow could fall off Knapp's list and Canfield appear on Ruskell's. The most likely candidate is McCoy. He fits Knapp's system and passes Ruskell's standards. Tebow is the second most likely candidate and then maybe Canfield. I'll run with Tebow and McCoy, because the two are similar types and would be built around in a similar fashion.
We'll assume Seattle's spends its first overall pick on McBow. Seattle would not likely spend additional early picks on the offensive line. Knapp would protect the quarterback by moving the pocket, establishing the run and extending the short passing attack. It would want a top receiver to pair with T.J. Houshmandzadeh, replace or eventually replace Nate Burleson (2010 is voidable), grow with McBow and one day power the McSeaBow's offense. Or, should that talent be unavailable, an elite running back prospect to lead Seattle's developing committee of backs.
Knapp likes speed and Ruskell likes polish. The two might settle on Brandon LaFell. Many players are faster than Lafell, but few are more polished. Lafell does not satisfy Knapp's desire for speed, but he can be a deep threat. He's a big player, known for his blocking ability, that passes Ruskell's standards and can fit within Knapp's system.
If Seattle retains or re-signs Burleson, or postpones its need at wide receiver, it could address its defense or add a running back. The one thing it will not likely do is invest heavily into its offensive line. Another GM might.
Seattle will face a difficult free agency before it reaches the draft. Retaining Hasselbeck means a major chunk of its salary cap is invested into a player very unlikely to contribute to its future. It could cut Patrick Kerney and Walter Jones, either, but it would be hard pressed to retain all three. It must cut someone or be dragged down by sunk cost.
That period will determine who Seattle targets in the draft, but skill position and defense should populate their prime targets.
How it Works: Seattle's coaching staff and executives buy themselves a stay of execution. Emphasis is on the future and Seattle's existing offense is culled for talent. One of Chris Spencer and Rob Sims will join Deon Butler, Max Unger, Justin Forsett, John Carlson, McBow and Sparkly New Skill Position Player to form Seattle's offensive core going forward.
McBow starts for most of the preseason and subs if Hasselbeck is injured or grossly ineffective. Hasselbeck endures his victory lap with statesman-like aplomb and tutors his young understudy, to whatever undetermined effect. Seattle is not a true contender in 2010, but it could contend for the NFC West. The defense gels and Seattle's young offense shows flashes.
How it Fails: If Seattle cannot sooth Hasselbeck but feels compelled to retain him, it will struggle to keep the media hounds at bay. Management accepts 2010 as a season spent towards its future, but the media exploits the fanbase's impatience, growing dissatisfaction and entitlement, and not so subtly splits the franchise between Hasselbeck and management; The past and the future; winning and the losing it takes to win again.
McBow struggles in the preseason and is stuck behind Mike Teel or Seneca Wallace on Seattle's depth chart. The offense, built to be cheap and good, versus expensive and dominating, like the Seahawks of yore, is cheap and bad. The defense does not pick up the slack. The Seahawks spiral towards their third straight losing season, a little older, and further wedged between a full rebuild and mediocrity.
2 recs |
126 comments
|
Comments
Tebow? ew.
If Vick couldn’t revolutionize the QB position, I highly doubt Tebow will. What it is they were supposed to be revolutionizing I still don’t know. Ooh, you can run instead of pass, good job. That would also mean they get hit a lot more, putting them closer to the 30 year old running back dropoff.
If a top franchise QB is there with the first pick, I think they have to take it regardless of Hasselbecks status. I’m having a hard time seeing Hass limp through even one more year. I just hope whomever makes that decision knows what they’re doing, grabbing a bust would set the team back for many years. Or turn Mike Teel into a hero.
If there isn’t a top QB with the first pick, then grabbing someone with the second pick is a good option, but risky. I still have no idea how the QB ranking will play out, nor have I paid much of an attention to most of them, so I have no idea who I’d want or can get and when.
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 30, 2009 7:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm a huge Oregon State Beavers fans (Sorry Huskies fans)
And I tell you. Sean Canfield is the guy. He’s a left handed QB who is very precise and fits so well into a west coast offense. I see Canfield at best a 2nd rounder and would be a steal for any team and I would most definitely like the Hawks to draft the guy. I followed him ever since he came to OSU and I knew he was the QB for our Beavers team and he proved it this year.
Beavers will win the Civil War and advance to the Rose Bowl!
by Seahawksfan23 on Nov 30, 2009 7:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I wonder where Canfield will go?
I wouldn’t mind taking a chance on him. I figure if he ‘busts’ he’ll be a Trent Edwards, Kellen Clemens, Derek Anderson-type (Just naming Pac 10 QBs who weren’t terribly awesome). Using up a 2nd round pick isn’t the worst thing in the world.
by LantermanC on Nov 30, 2009 9:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I think it depends
How good he does on the day of the NFL Combine if he’s invited and at his pro day. If he impresses scouts and coaches then I see him at best a 2nd rounder. And there’s something different about Canfield from those other guys. Canfield is much more precise and accurate and is a West Coast QB for sure.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 1, 2009 7:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing to be sorry for, now go kick the crap out of Oregon this week.
by LantermanC on Dec 1, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We will man
I hate the Ducks so much. Jeremiah Masoli and LaMichael James are a bunch of jokes. Masoli is like a Michael Vick gone wrong and James isn’t NFL quality. We will be smelling roses after the Civil War game. :)
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 1, 2009 7:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rotoworld lists Canfield at 108?
108 years old? So he’s like the next Oden?
by Fear on Nov 30, 2009 8:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
At least he'll bring a lot of experience right off the bat
However, I wonder what the percentage dropoff is from 108 to 109?
by B.B.Finnegan on Nov 30, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Canfield will be a steal to any team
I haven’t looked at where Canfield is on the list but I wouldn’t be surprised at 108. Considering that OSU doesn’t get that much media attention at all. Here in Oregon there’s debates about whos the better QB. Masoli or Canfield? And it shouldn’t even be a debate really. Canfield has all the mechanical tools to be an NFL QB and since he is a left handed QB that would in a sense mean that the Right Tackle is protecting his blind side not the Left Tackle. So that could definitely be interesting to think about and to evaluate.
by Seahawksfan23 on Nov 30, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So does that mean put Locklear at his natural right side and call him good?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying that,
i’m just saying i forgot to consider switching the blindside with a leftie.
However, I would think right tackles are slightly cheaper than left tackles due to the prominence of right-handed QBs. But as rule of thumb (to be taken with a pinch of salt), aren’t left tackles better pass protectors than right tackles? So it might not be as straightforward as it seems.
by rex92 on Dec 2, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He must have a lot of grit too
to still be playing at that age. Instant winner!
by Fear on Nov 30, 2009 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'd be pretty upset if Seattle used it's first overall pick on McCoy or Tebow
Both of those guys should be available with their second first rounder and probably their second round pick.
by Nate Dogg on Nov 30, 2009 8:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't see either of them being top 10 picks at all
Locker and Clausen could be in the top 10 but this year is loaded with QB’s in the draft. We should use our second round pick on a QB. Use our 2 first rounders on a left tackle and a defensive end or runningback.
by Seahawksfan23 on Nov 30, 2009 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Locker isn't coming out.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 1, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I'm not surprised
He should wait another year to show scouts and teams what he’s really capable of.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 1, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ya another year with Sarkisan will be good for him.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 2, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is the personnel on the offensive line going to help Seattle win on the road next season?
Ruskell or, another GM, will need to ask themselves that question.
by Seahawka 12th on Nov 30, 2009 8:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A good question to ask is who is likely to pick a QB before us?
At the current standings, the Hawks are slated to pick 9th, with the following teams drafting ahead of us and whether they need a QB:
Buffalo (not likely)
Washington (50/50 – depends on if they resign Campbell)
Kansas City (no)
Oakland (yes)
Detroit (no)
Tampa Bay (no)
Cleveland (not likely)
St. Louis (most likely – unless Boller kicks it up a notch, he likely becomes their #2)
Thoughts?
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Nov 30, 2009 9:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, No, No, No, No, No, Yes (regardless if they retain Campbell) and maybe
if Brohm is in fact awful.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I figure Rams take Clausen, Skins take Bradford and Raiders take Taylor Mays.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That about sums up what I said too.
I concur.
by LantermanC on Nov 30, 2009 9:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mays is the first person to kill someone
beheading Wes Welker after his helmet falls off.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is forever loved by Raider Nation.
by John Morgan on Nov 30, 2009 9:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, I can't tell if this is good or bad.
On one hand, Taylor Mays just killed someone!
On the other hand, Taylor Mays just killed someone…
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 30, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sold on Mays
He reminds me of Michael Huff hype wise. Michael Huff was suppose to be this dynamic playmaking defensive player and interestingingly the Raiders drafted him and has had a slow career. I do like Eric Berry though. He should be top talent. But as long as Mays runs a 4.3 he’ll be drafted by the Raiders for sure.
by Seahawksfan23 on Nov 30, 2009 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seems about right.
Let’s assume STL takes Clausen and Washington takes Bradford. Oakland probably would want Locker or some other type of player? Cleveland will be content with Quinn for a year? They have so many concerns it’s hard to tell. Buffalo might want a QB. I can’t see them being sold on Edwards?
by LantermanC on Nov 30, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If there is going to be a new head HC in Buffalo...
Than there is going to be a new QB.
by Seahawka 12th on Nov 30, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Buffalo – Yes.
Washington – Yes. It’s no secret that they’re unhappy with Campbell.
Kansas City – No.
Oakland - Yes
Detroit – No
Tampa Bay – No
Cleveland – Yes
St. Louis – Yes
by SPENCEMAN on Nov 30, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Oak passes on Taylor Mays.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 30, 2009 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I also don't think Cleveland will draft another 1st round QB so soon.
Holmgren would rather trade for one.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 30, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was under different management.
New management will be willing to cut ties with both of them unless one of them finishes strong.
In regards to Oakland, I agree, but I was just addressing who actually needs a QB, any one of them is a possibility.
by SPENCEMAN on Nov 30, 2009 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True on that Oak needs one.
I really don’t see Mangini not keeping Quinn, and if it’s Holmgren he would probably trade or sign Campbell than draft one.
by DJ C-Raig on Nov 30, 2009 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
They have decent safeties, and ust used a 2nd rounder on a safety last year. It’s not like there’s not some other athlete (Dunlap) they can go after.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 3:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are Cleveland and Oakland really going to draft QB's?
Aren’t they already sitting there with QB’s in their pocket? I can’t see either team drafting a QB at the moment with their recent guys still sitting there on the roster. How can Oakland justify paying humongous bucks to both Russel and a new player?
by djafrot on Nov 30, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They an cut Russell
Seeing as how there likely won’t be a cap next year.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 3:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're saying this as if Al Davis thinks rationally.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Dec 2, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
But I think even the craziest MF’er in the world would realize Russell is god-awful. Then again I talked to 2 Pats fans a few weeks ago who thought Russell would be pretty good with a better supporting cast, so who knows.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yuck
Give me the next Sean Payton please. No Tebow. Canfield sure.
If this scenario comes to pass, season ticket holders will know they are buying a shit product for years to come.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 30, 2009 11:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This may come off rude
But have you guys actually sat through an entire Florida game this year. They are brutal to watch. The offense is awful. Tebow has regressed so much this year it is frightening.
If we cannot give Rothlisberger (sp?) credit for “willing” teams to victory, then one cannot give Tebow credit for being a game change via his presence.
Really watch Tebow, and the Florida offense, and you will really be uninterested.
If you go McCoy or Tebow, you better get a spread attack offensive coordinator. Maybe someone to help with the dive play too; Florida lives off the dive play.
Yuck. Yuck. Yuck.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Nov 30, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Florida's offense is bad this year.
One reason for this is that Florida has all of one competent WR. But I agree, Tebow will not make a good pro QB and I hope and pray he doesn’t come to Seattle, unless it’s like a 5th rounder.
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.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 1, 2009 3:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
EDSBS wins again
I’ve watched almost every Florida game this season and that is the perfect graph.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
by bluemax on Dec 1, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a Tebow fan and would rather completely avoid him
"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 Dec 1, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My other question is, can we jettison Matt's salary and get another vet in his spot.
Thus enabling us to put big money into a early-first round QB’s salary?
by djafrot on Nov 30, 2009 11:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
John made this argument earlier in the season
and I tend to agree. I’d like to see us pick up Campbell and another QB in the 2nd round (maybe). I am not much enamored with wasting a first round pick on a QB, feels like there have been too many that just fail completely. Unless of course the Seahawks front office has a surefire way of determining a QBs future value… and I don’t think the geekery has really reached that kind of Michael Lewis moneyball level and if it has then those kinds of QBs are going to be found in the 2nd round or later. Having said all of that… maybe we pick up Campbell, keep Teel, and spend our picks on more shiny skill position players. Lets hope when the season is declared dead that Teel gets some playing time.
by Professor on Dec 1, 2009 2:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
What of a new CBA?
If the year is capless there wouldn’t be a problem fitting Matt’s and Shiny New Top 10 QB salary for a year. Well, not an accounting problem, anyway.
by Frostbite43 on Dec 1, 2009 6:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You don't know that for sure.
Balmer isn’t a rich man because he blows money right and left.
It wouldn’t shock me if he was a more fiscally conservative team owner in an uncapped/un-floored year, so to speak.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 1, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dreaming of Sonics Christmas Futures I suppose...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fuck. Allen. I knew that. Brain fart.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 1, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And you all still avoided my point!
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Dec 1, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to!
But I managed to nest it wrong.
by Frostbite43 on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Ruskell were Ballmer
this would be the “”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE" target="new">linebackers, linebackers, linebackers" dance.
by jacobstevens on Dec 1, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dammit. I'm pissed I just spent 3 minutes trying to get that video up
but couldn’t find it. What the hell did you do to it?!? I’m not a tech guy, I can’t discern the actual link…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great. So now I just spent another 3 minutes WITH the video up.
That’s 6 minutes of my life gone forever, and the only thing I have from that is A) developers B) it is possible to sweat completely through a dress shirt.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
Which is why i specified the two salaries not being an “accounting problem” (against’ the cap), as opposed to a “good god that’s a lot of money at one position” problem. (We already have one of those).
Though it is good to think back fondly on that Simpson’s episode, when Bill Gates’ thugs trash Homer’s internet business. “You think I got rich writing checks?! Buy him out, boys!” :smash smash smash:
by Frostbite43 on Dec 1, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It depends where Holmgren ends up
I think the Seahawks QB situation will depend on Holmgren. If Holmgren comes back to Seattle, no changes in QB. If Holmgren goes somewhere else, then Holmgren may want to trade for Seneca Wallace (1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick).
by LostLeader on Dec 1, 2009 8:54 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
1st, 2nd or 3rd for Wallace??!
I do hope that was an attempt at comedy.
And whether Ruskell is our GM or someone else, QB NEEDS to be addressed in the offseason.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comedy only if Holmgren is GM somewhere else
What did Holmgren give up for Hasselbeck, an unproven 6th rd draft pick? Wouldn’t it be reasonable that Holmgren may give up the same or more for Seneca?
by LostLeader on Dec 1, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only a fool would give up more than a 6th for Wallace.
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.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 1, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously? A 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for Senecat? Are you stoned?
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
by Benne on Dec 1, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He said "or"
…but that’s still not going to happen.
by thebyron on Dec 1, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest
it would not surprise me if Holmgren did something like that. Would it be stupid? Yes. But it’s within the realm of possibility. GMs and Coaches do funny things when it comes to the players they know. Especially Holmgren. He loved to keep players he knew far longer then he should have. But it wouldn’t be a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. More like a 5th, 6th, or 7th. And this doesn’t mean I think it’s likely. I think it’s highly unlikely. But I do think it’s possible.
by Fear on Dec 1, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Value judgement fail
If Seneca gets traded for a 1st or 2nd round pick, I’ll eat my right foot.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 3:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok with the whole CBA mess.
Does a new agreement likely mean that the crazy draft bonuses will finally get under control?
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 1, 2009 1:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Cause if this is the case why not wait one more year?
And not spend 40 Million on potential bust Qb?
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 1, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a hope that the bonuses will get under control.
No guarantees though. Last I heard, both the teams and the players wanted it reduced because that meant more money for the vets.
by Fear on Dec 1, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the info.
I would assume Teams would push hard to get this done.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 1, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn't veterans push for it?
They have no vested interest in rookies getting too big of salaries. The pie is supposedly finite in size, at least in the context of the current year, so if the new rookies are getting less money, some FA will get more money.
by LantermanC on Dec 1, 2009 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying they wouldn't
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 2, 2009 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that they won't go OL
John, you seem certain that the Hawks avoid OL because they figure they can move the pocket, use short passes, and establish the run. But they have to know that you can’t have a moving pocket or throw short on every play, right? And please tell me that they know that the run game is best built by the OL than RB.
I don’t know how I feel about the top tackles in the draft, and so I’m not necessarily advocating for one of them, but if they use that logic to rule out a 1st round OL, then I’m going to be pissed.
by Oly on Dec 1, 2009 4:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I like your avatar and name...
reminds me of home.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Passing on an OL with both of the Hawks 1st rounders would likely be a mistake in my opinion.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 3:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
inquiry vs advocacy
Don’t want to speak for him, but I think this is JM working through the thought process of how to field a competitive team next year while building for the future. Doing that requires adding an offensive playmaker to add some explosiveness to the playbook and using our other first rounder on a QB, hence the combination of "McBow and Sparkly New Skill Position Player. "
Drafting a LT and QB with our first round picks will almost lock the Hawks into another 4-7 win season as the rookie QB and tackle develop. This approach might yield bigger rewards down the road, and I expect John will write on this scenario at length.
This is not JM advocating this particular route, just working through what it would look like and the pros and cons.
by cro-mag! on Dec 2, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt is playing like he's 37.
I’ll take the ‘under’ on playing % of historical capacity.
I hope the McCoy ‘makes sense’ argument is not a personal bias like Stafford was (although I liked Stafford).
Knapp has had limp-armed QBs (Garcia) and Cannon-armed QBs (Vick). I don’t know that we know what kind of QB he would like if he had the choice. He appears to adapt well to the personnel he’s been given. I’m not sure he’s had a say or not with regard to other QB-talent decisions. I don’t think we have a Knapp-based template for ‘his’ kind of QB. We do know Ruskell’s tendencies, granted. How they meld will be interesting. I sincerely hope we have a QB, whomever that may be, that can make all the throws. I would love to see a Knapp playbook fully available for use.
We need a field general that can pass the ball deep as part of his arsenal of throws. Throws that can beat coverage allow more possibilities within a passing-game.,m
Just look at Brees last night (except the blown-coverage(s)). He made throws with strength and accuracy that a less strong-armed QB would not have completed. Hass certainly wouldn’t. I’m not sure if McCoy has the kind of upside I hope he does if we end up with him. I’m interested in learning more about all the candidates for early-round selection.
by Misfit74 on Dec 1, 2009 4:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Heres Brees draft profile.
Analysis
Positives… Touch passer with the ability to read and diagnose defensive coverages…Confident leader who knows how to take command in the huddle…Very tough and mobile moving around in the pocket…Has a quick setup and is very effective throwing on the move… Throws across his body with great consistency…Hits receivers in stride and improvises his throws in order to make a completion…Puts good zip behind the short and mid-range passes…Shows good judgement and keen field vision…Has a take-charge attitude and is very cool under pressure…Hits receivers in motion with impressive velocity…Has superb pocket presence and uses all of his offensive weapons in order to move the chains…Has solid body mechanics and quickness moving away from center…Elusive scrambler with the body control to avoid the rush.
Negatives…Plays in the spread offense, taking the bulk of his snaps from the shotgun…Tends to side-arm his passes going deep…Lacks accuracy and touch on his long throws…Seems more comfortable in the short/intermediate passing attack…Does not possess the ideal height you look for in a pro passer, though his ability to scan the field helps him compensate in this area…Will improvise and run when the passing lanes are clogged, but tends to run through defenders rather than trying to avoid them to prevent unnecessary punishment.
Looking back its funny because Brees throws one of the best deep balls in the NFL.
abender20 hates freedom.
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 1, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting.
That could be the profile for a number of perceived weaker-armed signal-callers. I agree that Brees does throw incredible deep-balls. They travel and land in the breadbasket or hit guys in the hands. That was some show last night – just watching his passes in detail.
by Misfit74 on Dec 1, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The WR has a lot to do with deep accuracy
They can cover minor under or overthrows because there is time to run under it. Brady’s accuracy over 25 yards was something like 24% career before Moss came to town.
by jacobstevens on Dec 1, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Brees does not have great arm strength
and Stafford was not a “personal bias”.
by John Morgan on Dec 1, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty good
And his deep ball is also awesome, as evidenced by like every Saints game this season.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 2, 2009 3:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great write-up...
Couple things:
1. What is the metric used to evaluate QB decline? I am assuming it’s QB rating? Interesting nonetheless.
2. I am a little bit torn about Tebow. I haven’t really done any scouting on my own. I only know what I read, and these reports seem to be varying. Some question his ability to pass, but I don’t know what the basis of this thought is. Does he lack arm strength?… or is it touch and decision making?
The other reports talk about a major league athlete with loads of leadership qualities. Speed, Power, and ability to get the most out of his teammates are qualities you can build around.
Any thoughts, or were you planning on doing a specific post on Tebow and how he might fit in at some point?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 1, 2009 6:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tebow's leadership skills are without question.
Some of the hate on his passing is that, just hate. But there is some truth in there. Tebow’s accuracy is wildly inconsistent. A lot of his deeper throws have serious wobble. His wind-up is very, very slow. For three years he’s been surrounded by the best team in college football. Excellent defense, excellent offensive line, excellent receivers.
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.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 1, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
QB peak is evaluated using ANY/A and a replacement level value
It’s explained in the link.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 1, 2009 7:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I assumed it was but the link wasn't working for me...
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 1, 2009 10:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
I am sick of you Hasselbeck haters. He has more quality years ahead of him. So how about use both 1st rounders on the O-line. The deep ball isn’t there this year because Deon Branch plays over Butler, and Hasselbeck has to keep 70% of his vision on who’s gonna elbow him in the adams apple. Think about it. You move Locklear back to right tackle. Let Unger play center, move Willis to right guard. and pick up two left Tackles in the first round, letting one play left guard.
Forsett is your starter, with JJ and whoever else you can pick-up in free agency. At WR they are to deep. The remainder of the picks should be used on Defense, with a strong focus being on the secondary. Not a pass rusher.
Also Teel has something about him, I think he has a future as a starter somewhere in the NFL.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 5:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This isn't Madden.
You can’t just pick up tackles and magically transition them into guards. Also, not using one of our first picks on a QB would be suicide if we didn’t get a quality FA like Jason Campbell. You think we have no deep ball because Deon Butler isn’t playing? I’m guessing we should just throw Branch’s considerable talents to the wind and let Butler run deep routes on every play. That would fix everything.
Watch the games. Dink, dunk, dink dunk. Our immensely talented receiving corps is neglected while Hasselbeck checks down to All Pro Badass Justin Griffith. If we DID manage to pick up Campbell, then we still need to use one of our picks on the 0 line and one on defense, either DT or safety.
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.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 2, 2009 7:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we have no deep ball because of branch..... and the o-line.
Vision is important my friend. If you’re watching the pass rush you can’t throw deep. Branch is good, don’t get me wrong, but Butler doesn’t play enough.
And I think Hutchinson could play LT for us this year, so you can just plug people in. Unger is doing a admirable job at RG. Madden? please.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Never said that.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Blaming him specifically for the lack of a deep ball implies that.
Butler is faster, but Branch’s aggregate skills are superior, and he’s certainly not slow. That’s why Branch usually plays instead. A speedy WR does not necessarily a deep threat make. (Darius Heyward-Bey is a good example.)
by thebyron on Dec 2, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, looks like someone's been reading his Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
I think Butler also makes a more willing blocker, just sayin’. Also the new GM will cut/trade Branch quickly. (I’ve been reading my Nostradamus.)
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 3, 2009 7:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"[Hasselbeck] has more quality years ahead of him."
What are you basing this on? Hass is declining due to age and injury. He will most likely continue to decline. Nearly all QBs do as they age. Favre and Warner are very unusual cases; they show that this age-related decline doesn’t apply to absolutely everyone, but they can’t be used as evidence for what we should expect from Matt a few years down the line. I love Matt, but expecting him to carry our team in the future is delusional.
by thebyron on Dec 2, 2009 8:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His, dare I say it.... drive to play.
And I’m glad you can determine the Favre, Warner argument inadmissible, your honor. I do agree though that the opinion you are perpetuating, is the most prevalent.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His drive to play doesn't make up for the lack of NFL level ability
by Nate Dogg on Dec 2, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So you think he shouldn't play in the NFL?
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Picking two outliers to build a case doesn't work well.
John provided statistics in the second paragraph about the general dropoff in skills that QBs experience as they age.
For perspective, a quarterback performs at 83.2% of total capacity at 34, but historically, that capacity drops to 76.8, 69.9 and 62.9% from 35 to 37.
Again, the decline doesn’t apply to absolutely everyone, but it happens to most. Expecting Hass to buck the trend doesn’t make sense.
by thebyron on Dec 2, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, personally Im less of a Spock, and more of a Kirk.
So the numbers don’t mean much to me. I also think Matt will start next year because of Mora’s opinion of him. I’m not validating his opinion, I just think it effects who will play QB for the Seahawks next year.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice, that cracked me up.
I also think Matt will start next year…but what about the year after that?
by thebyron on Dec 2, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Time will tell. I think 1 more year is it at this point.
But it is possible he plays even longer. If not in Seattle somewhere.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 3, 2009 7:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course that's possible.
However, is it likely that he’ll continue to play at a high level despite being at an age when QBs historically have a significant drop-off? I don’t see that as probable, and I certainly don’t want the FO to gamble the team on it. We need to be looking for Matt’s replacement. If we luck out and Matt pulls a Kurt Warner on us then let the new guy ride the pine like Leinart.
If it winds up being Teel, great. I haven’t seen much of him, but one of my co-workers is a big Rutgers fan and is sold on him being a future starter. However, even if Teel does have that potential I think it would be a good idea to draft another QB to compete with him.
by thebyron on Dec 3, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So what do you base your opinion of Teel from? A few preseason snaps? Great body of evidence to work with there.
Branch plays over Butler because Branch is currently the better player.
Drafting two left tackles in the first and immediately using one of them to play guard is a tremendous waste of resources especially when there are multiple positions that need addressing early.
Furthermore, no one here is a “Hasselbeck hater.” The people here who are calling for a new quarterback are doing so because Matt’s age, injury history, declining arm strength, and the single year left remaining on his contract scream for the team to address the position this offseason. No one here hates Matt.
by BrianL on Dec 2, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In regards to Teel, his arm strength, Film, College career.
And Hasselbeck, well it seems like people point out his flaws all the time. Which is how I meant the word “haters”. There are people who hate on him.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 12:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think most people here think Hasselbeck in his prime was underrated.
It’s just that at this point, we’re not hating or bashing. We’re being realistic.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
by Hopefulmsfan on Dec 2, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, and the Spanish Inquisition was an Inquisition.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Dec 2, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's correct (Hasselbeck hating response).
In fact, most of us are conveying our perceptions of Hasselbeck. I own a jersey of his, and by no means dislike him, let alone ‘hate’ him.
by Misfit74 on Dec 2, 2009 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The future answer at quarterback is.....
Riley Skinner.
Please hear me out. If the Seahawks continue along their line of running the WCO, which appears to be the continued course of action regardless of whether the GM is Ruskell or Holmgren, they will need a cerebral quarterback-type and team leader. Skinner has proven effective at both in his career at Wake. The guy may not possess the skill level of a Matt Ryan, but the guy is competitive, smart and has put up some pretty good numbers with some subpar pieces around him.
I think Skinner is being highly undervalued thus far in draft conversations which could play right into the Seahawks hands. The Seahawks have many needs in many areas, but drafting a guy in the top 10, who most likely won’t play right away, let alone having to learn the most complex offense in professional football, certainly points to reasons why you don’t draft one of the top QB’s in round one. If you could tell me right now that QB is our #1 concern, I most certainly disagree. We need offensive line help, defensive line help and help at safety.
Look folks, we have a huge opportunity to grab three potential starters in the upcoming draft based on where we might be potentially positioned. There are some elite defensive lineman and safeties at the top. If they want a starting tackle, they’ll most likely have to grab Okong. The others are not at the level of the OT drafted last year. Skinner makes sense to me because they can focus on immediate needs with their top picks and potentially grab Skinner in round 3 or 4. They may need to trade down with one of their high picks to amass more picks to get back into the third round, but so be it.
This offseason is so pivotal for so many reasons. This has to be a can’t miss draft for the team. They have to absolutely maximize every pick. By the way, I’m all for keeping Ruskell. Holmgren did nothing as a GM. I wish him good luck in Cleveland!
by Homeygc on Dec 2, 2009 7:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 



















