The Rise and Fall of Tim Ruskell: The Steve Hutchinson Saga
by John Morgan on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM PST
72 comments
Shaun Alexander and Steve Hutchinson were free agents. Both were 28. Hutch had completed his five-year rookie contract, and, if re-signed, his cap cost could double. Alexander was already expensive. The Seahawks had franchised him in 2004. Seattle could have signed both players, and attempted to, but would have tied up much of their available cap. Tim Ruskell was aggressively targeting Julian Peterson and John Abraham. He wanted Hutch, but he wanted to improve the Seahawks too. Signing Alexander tied up $5.9 million against the cap.
Hutch expected offensive tackle money. The market for guards was soft. Hutchinson was the fifth highest paid offensive guard in 2005, but cost only $3.5 million against the cap. Even Larry Allen, the league's highest paid guard, only cost $6.5 million. Only three guards total cost more than $5 million against the cap.
Running backs were much more expensive. Eight cost more than five million against the cap in 2005, and Edgerrin James cost over $9 million. The league perceived running back to be a premium position, on par with wide receiver, offensive tackle and cornerback. If Seattle put the franchise tag on Hutchinson, his salary would reflect the salaries of all offensive linemen and not just guards. The Lions placed the tag on Jeff Backus in 2006. His base salary was $6.98 million. If Seattle franchised Hutchinson, it would have had $25 million in cap room dedicated to Hutch, Alexander, Walter Jones and Matt Hasselbeck.
Ruskell did something he has done many times since: Let the market to set a player's value. Placing the transition tag on Hutchinson allowed him to negotiate with other teams and Seattle the right to match. It avoided guaranteeing Hutchinson $6.98 million, and, in Ruskell's eyes, enabled negotiations towards a long-term contract. Ruskell was willing to spend big to retain his Pro Bowl guard. His hope was he wouldn't have to. His hope was that he could sign Hutchinson, but structure his contract so that Seattle could still sign Peterson, Abraham or both.
Early March, and shortly after the league ratified a new collective bargaining agreement, Minnesota offered Hutchinson the largest contract in league history for an offensive guard. It was a bold move made audacious by a now notorious poison pill clause. The clause stipulated that if Hutchinson was not his team's highest paid offensive lineman at any time after the first year, that his entire contract was guaranteed.
If Seattle wanted to match Minnesota's offer, it would not only need to match the Vikings unprecedented offer, it would be forced to guarantee Hutchinson's entire salary. Peyton Manning was the league's most expensive player and his contract guaranteed only $34.5 million. Matching Minnesota meant guaranteeing Hutchinson a staggering $49 million. Hutch would cost $13 million against the cap in 2006, forcing Seattle to forget Peterson and Abraham. Ruskell, supported by Paul Tagliabue and the NFL, contested the poison-pill clause, even restructured Walter Jones contract, but arbiter Stephen Burbank ruled in the Vikings favor. Seattle would either ruin their cap or let Hutchinson walk.
The deadline passed midnight of March 20, 2006, and Steve Hutchinson became a Minnesota Viking. Tim Ruskell fell on the wrong side of history. He attempted to make his Super Bowl losing team a Super Bowl winner. Instead, he lost an irreplaceable piece, alienated his coach, and began the Seahawks slow burn towards rebuilding.
0 recs |
72 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
People who should know better...
frequently opine that “Ruskell should have just tagged him,” as if that would have had no consequences on the field.
Ruskell is responsible, but it was just a shot that didn’t go in rather than an epic act of “stupidity”, “rigidity”, or “hubris” as it’s been referred to. The poison pill was the quintessential act of bad faith negotiating. It just didn’t explicitly violate the provisions of the CBA.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Now that I think of it
I shouldn’t criticize Ruskell that much when it comes to the Steve Hutchinson conflict. I mean back in 2005 only a retarded team would not re-sign their star MVP runningback and I don’t think any of us knew that Steve Hutchinson made THAT much of an impact to our running game because Ruskell probably thought that even with Hutchinson gone we still have Walter Jones, a young center named Chris Spencer with potential, a good veteran by the name of Chris Gray, a right tackle who is improving every year named Sean Locklear and that we could easily replace a left gaurd through the draft but turns out it didn’t work that way and Hutchinson was the guy we should have re-signed. But at the same I don’t think any team would choose Hutchinson over Alexander at the time IMO.
Especially with the needs we had at defense.
The JP signing turned out to be a great one, and the Abraham signing would have probably been good as well. Just think, if Ruskell had pulled off what he was trying to do we might have had JP, Abraham, Hutchinson, AND Alexander (who probably wouldn’t have fallen off the cliff quite as fast). We could have actually made another legit SB run. Instead he got blindsided by a new tactic by the Vikings and lost Hutchinson. Oh well.
Oh yeah definitely
It would be sick to have all those guys on our team and the JP signing was brilliant. But the question is could we afford both Hutchinson and Alexander to long term deals? If we would have resigned both of them then I don’t think we would have signed JP at all.
by Seahawksfan23 on Dec 1, 2009 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
This is funny...
I was driving home from the factory last week and I did something that reminded me exactly of this scenario.
I drive the same route everyday. Stop at the same lights, and pretty much take the exact same amount of time to get back into the Khon Kaen city center.
I happened to be running late to an afterwork meeting last week and decided to try something. I know all the side roads and alternate routes like the back of my hand, and in “analyzing” the situation, decided I could take several kilometers off my trip time if I used a detour. As luck turns out, it was even more jammed up than my normal route, and I ended up wasting another 10 additional minutes.
Oddly enough, Tim Ruskell popped into my head at that time. The situations are very similar. Ruskell knows cap management and contract negotiations like the back of his hand. In the 2006 offseason, he saw an “alternate route” that, under normal conditions, might have given him an advantage. What he didn’t see was the Minnesota “road block”. Like John mentioned … he got caught trying to be too smart … trying to get to clever with a situation he knows all to well.
It’s obviously speculation, but I would be willing to bet that if Ruskell had made the same maneuver 10 times, with 10 different players (in an attempt to complete his “straight flush”) that he might have been successful in half of them. I might characterize it as calculated risk management, made with a gamblers mentality.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Interesting analogy
The last paragraph is indeed speculation, and I’ll indulge in a little myself: I think that if Ruskell makes that maneuver 10 times he succeeds in 8 attempts. As John said, Ruskell has allowed the open market to determine a player’s value many times. Moreover, the poison pill clause in the contract was unique. IIRC the only similar clause was when we retaliated with the offer sheet to Burleson.
John, I respect your blog and your attempt at perspective but...
You left out some important details in trying to be ‘fair’ to Ruskell.
Ruskell saved six hundred thousand dollars between the transition and franchise tags. While true that he was letting Hutchinson let the market set his contract, was six hundred grand really worth losing a future Hall of Fame player? Not with the way Ruskell has attempted to fix the problem he created.
I know that you’ve stated before that Ruskell doesn’t view offensive line as an important investment (unless I’m misinterpreting your previous position – shown in your offensive line series from earlier this year; Part 1, Part 2, http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/10/19/1091499/the-offensive-line-part-3-the, and http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/10/19/1091708/the-offensive-line-part-4-a). He’s attempting to build the offensive line on the cheap (Mike Wahle slightly excluded, and the Kris Dielman contract offer excluded). In fact I believe that he views them as a fungible position. To him, they’re easily replaceable and he’s trying to save money.
As you’ve stated before, Ruskell invested in the offensive line, he just didn’t do a very good job of it.
While you admit that Ruskell made in a mistake in allowing Hutchinson the opportunity to look at other offers, you prefer to point the blame at the poison pill clause. I’m sorry, but that’s just wrong. The problem isn’t the pill, its that Ruskell allowed Hutchinson to hit the market in the first place. You’re blaming the result instead of the cause.
For the record, I’m not sure Holmgren is the right fit to come back to this organization. I just see it more as a lazy ‘The Devil you know…’ thinking.
Again, I respect your opinions John. In fact, I appreciate your perspective on a great deal of issues. Your knowledge has influenced me into to looking at issues at various points-of-view. This is my first posting here because I value your knowledge and I feel that I usually can’t add anything to your articles. Thanks for the forum to agree and disagree.
I don't think the $600,000 mattered much.
The franchise tag would have locked Seattle into a big contract. Hutchinson would have been paid tackle money at a time when tackles made considerably more than guards. Hutch would have had the upper hand. He could decline any contract and still be paid more than any other guard in football. Hutch could have done that indefinitely.
Ruskell let Hutch enter the market because Ruskell thought the market would correct Hutchinson’s expectations and allow Seattle to sign him to something more reasonable. He did something similar with Ray Willis this past offseason. Instead, the new CBA expanded the cap and the Vikings offered Hutchinson the biggest contract for a guard in NFL history.
As far as offensive linemen: I don’t think Ruskell thinks linemen are fungible, only that good line play can be accomplished through coaching and continuity. Regardless of that, he defers to his coaches more than is recognized. Holmgren valued the offensive line and so Ruskell attempted to acquire linemen for him.
Thanks for responding
I know what you meant. I’m just saying that the risk of losing a future Hall of Fame player in his prime is greater than the reward of saving money. You apply the exclusive franchise tag to keep his rights, if no agreement is reached, you can receive compensation in a trade.
I’m strongly disagree that your belief that Ruskell would have committed a guard to tackle type money is flawed. Yes, Ruskell would have set a precedent with Hutch, but in not doing so, he actually help create a worse, long-term precedent when the Vikings created the poison pill clause. His thinking was he would have created a league-wide bad precedent. Instead, he helped create a worse league-wide bad precedent. Just because he didn’t want to partake in setting the precedent, doesn’t excuse him for his inaction that helped lead to the lose of Hutchinson. Foresight would have been helpful, yes, but managing risk was the proper course for a future Hall of Fame player. You don’t let those types hit the open market in their prime.
I agree with....
…the part in which you proposed that the Hutch precedent (big bucks to a guard) wouldn’t have been all that bad given the rewards for having that perennial All-pro on the line….
but
I strongly disagree (in a nice way of course) that Ruskell was in any way responsible for the actuation of the poison pill, or that he was thinking that paying big bucks to Hutch would have been a negative precedent. Instead, I wholly feel that TR was trying to convert the proverbial “straight flush” (Hutch, SA, Abraham, Ju-P) and got caught staring at a garbage “flop and river”.
He couldn’t franchise Hutch upfront and still have enough juice to go after the rest. He took a calculated risk and got burned by a bizarre move, created by a trash lawyer.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
But couldn't Ruskell..
have franchised Hutchinson and then gone for a cheaper option on defense? It would’ve been the reverse of what happened. He went for the more expensive option on defense and then had to use cheaper fill in’s at LG.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 1, 2009 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
Without question, that was an option...
Ruskell’s “fault”, if you will, was possibly in getting a bit to greedy. He wanted it all (not tying up spendable cash in a Franchise Tag), when in retrospect, a safer move was more in order.
My comment posted above was regarding the opinion that Ruskell helped create the poison pill clause. There is zero correlation between Ruskell T-Tagging Hutch, and the shady contract put together on behalf of Minnesota.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
That's funny.
One of the common criticisms of Ruskell is that he isn’t aggressive or risk taking enough.
I was thinking the same thing..
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 2, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
Do we have to throw "Future Hall of Fame Player"
into the mix constantly? We don’t know Hutchinson will be a Hall of Famer.
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 3:50 AM PST up reply actions
Normally I agree
The tag “Hall of Fame” player does get thrown about a lot. And we don’t “know” he will be in the HoF, but that’s kind of like saying we don’t “know” Walt Jones will be in the HoF. Of course he will.
Equally, if Hutchinson retired right now, he’d still have an outside shot at Canton, and there’s no clear sign of him falling off a cliff. If this Vikings team goes as far as it should, and if Hutchinson has a few more All Pro/Pro Bowl years in him, he’s a shoe-in. Those are both ifs, but not exactly unlikely ifs.
It's still a question of talent evaluation
The issue of ‘letting him hit free agency’ is complicated by the timing of the new CBA and of course the poison pill, but Ruskell clearly expected the offers to be lower in part because he didn’t quite know what he had in Hutch. I think that may be true of a lot of Seahawk fans, who found it hard to separate Walt’s contribution’s from Hutch’s.
Still, Hutch was and remains the best guard in football, and Ruskell had an opportunity to keep him here. I’m not surprised that this move worked with Ray Willis, but I think it goes without saying that Hutch/=Willis. Likewise, it doesn’t much matter that it was a time when guards didn’t get tackle money. It’s a mitigating circumstance, but again, Ruskell made some of this mess.
(Yes, Larry Allen ‘only’ made $6.5m, but Larry Allen was 34 in 2005. Hutch was a full six years younger.)
Allen was 34 and at the end and most expensive portion of his contract.
$6.5 million is the second most he ever made in a season.
Ruskell had every intention to match the offer. Hutchinson had said that he wanted to stay in Seattle.
The poison pill was unprecedented, and thus, the actual cause in losing Hutchinson. Are you suggesting that Ruskell should have foreseen this?
I disagreed with the transition tag, and wanted Hutchinson to be franchised, because if on the off-chance that the Seahawks lost Hutchinson, they would have gotten two 1st-rounders in return, but I saw the logic in his decision to let the market dictate Hutchinson’s value. It was a good faith move that was ruined by ill-faith negotiations.
It was never about saving $500,000 or so in the difference between both tags. It was actually about saving much more than that. Millions more.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 2, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
I'd really like to see the Transition tag fixed
If the T-tag worked as intended, we’d be applauding Ruskell and Hutch would probably be a Seahawk today.
Still, I think the franchise tag should have been used, or the team should have just agreed to Hutch’s terms. The two sides were only off by about 1 million per year. Minnesota’s poison pill was special, but it wasn’t the first. More conventional poison pills (extreme front loaded contracts) were already a known danger at that time, and according to Doug Farrar, this was something the Eagles discussed doing for Hutch a couple months prior.
If Hutch was a lesser player, I would probably be on Ruskell’s side here. For example had this tactic been used for Alexander, and the team lost him in free agency, I would have been under-standing, because a 28 year old RB is replaceable, even a very good one. As such, assuming a little risk is understandable. But I don’t think you should take a risk, even a 5% risk, with a player like Hutch who is the best in the league at his position with most of his career ahead of him.
I believe that is the real lesson from this. Don’t gamble if you can’t afford to lose. Although its possible Ruskell believed at the time that he could afford to lose Hutch. Reinfeldt certainly felt that way and was adamant about it.
For all intents and purposes the poison pill destroyed the transition tag, which wasn't much used anyway
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Yeah the T-tag needs an overhaul.
Contract chicanery like the poison pill must be banned or else it could continue to cause problems for t-tagged and restricted free agents. Like you say it destroyed the transition tag, although the t-tag wasn’t used much anyway.
The reason it wasn’t used much is because even without a poison pill, the t-tag creates disincentive for other teams to spend time and energy working out a deal that likely would just be matched. Max Starks was one of the top OL free agents in 2008. He’s the only player to be transitioned since Hutch. No one had the balls to poison pill, and you know what happened? He didn’t get a single offer from anybody. He ended up just signing the T-tag tender, a 1 year contract to return to Pittsburgh.
The T-tag needs to be re-thought out, so that teams don’t need to have a poison pill to show interested in a tagged player.
And the NFL still hasn't figured it out.
I heard somewhere they’re going to give teams extra T-tags for the non-Cap year. Coal in Christmas stockings would go farther.
Stephen Burbank is a moron, to hell with him and the NFL brass
This whole “poison pill” was a joke and still pisses me off. How can you have a “right of first refusal” to match his contract, when the contract you sign does not have the exact same terms as the contract Minnesota signs? It makes no logical sense. The poison pill nonsense totally voided the entire point of the transition tag.
The Seahawks also restructured Walter Jones’ contract to make Hutch the highest paid player and the idiot Burbank ruled that didn’t count either. In other words, the Seahawks had to sign a contract that stipulated a condition had to be met IN THE PAST! What sense does that make, that the only way Seattle could meet that provision was to have a time machine and go back and fix Walter Jones’ contract before Hutch’s was signed by Minnesota?
I’m not a Ruskell fan, but he totally gets a pass on this one. The NFL screwed the Seahawks on that deal. They didn’t enforce their own rule. No way Ruskell had any idea this sort of crap could happen. He figured by using the transition tag we could match any offer and keep him.
What is the point of having a transition tag if any team can simply sign a player by putting in some bullshit poison pill clause? There already is a method for this sort of thing, it’s called “free agency”. What point is there for 2 differently named things that are functionally the same? It makes no sense. Clearly the transition tag was meant to be something different than free agency. Burbank ruled that it wasn’t and is clearly a moron.
Burbank could have ruled either way, and the Vikings would have had no more recourse than the Seahawks did. If he’d had an ounce of sense, he’d have enforced the obvious spirit and intent of the rule and deleted the Poison Pill provision from the contract. He’s a pussy, and simply caved because he didn’t want to fight the NFLPA, which would prefer that there were no restrictions on player movements.
by lordtd on Dec 1, 2009 10:34 PM PST reply actions 6 recs
Rec'd for pointing out the obvious.
I still can’t logically fathom how the poison pill was valid given different constructs between the past/present salaries involved AND the inherent differences between the two teams’ player salaries.
Totally bullshit unfair.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 1, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Good points. The NFL Special Master screwed the Seahawks. They never saw it coming.
For those who still complain this was Ruskell’s fault as he should have seen this coming, it is notable that no similar poison pill contract had been approved by the NFL in 11 previous years.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
As much as that pissed me off
The poison pill is legal, and a judge is forced to follow the law as it is written even when the law is horribly flawed. A long time ago I was taking law classes and my text book gave examples not unlike this one where there are sometimes situations where one side is clearly getting hosed, but you still rule on the side of the rules.
This is why people hate lawyers.
No, I hate lawyers because my ex was one.
And she was a [insert worst word you can possible use to describe a female here.].
But that’s special circumstances I suppose.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 2, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions
I was thinking a word that has a "C" to start the ball rolling..
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 3, 2009 12:20 AM PST up reply actions
the real culprit is the poorly written or enforced rules
The transition tag is virtually meaningless in the face of a disgruntled player (which to some extent is all of them when franchise/transition tags are involved) and a willing third party. Burbank’s ruling essentially validated Condon’s and Minnesota’s intent to flout the spirit of the transition tag. Shame on them for trying, I guess, but the bigger problem lies with the rules and/or their enforcement.
Why did we wait until the last year of Hutch's contract to extend him?
Teams often offer long term deals to there superstars one year before the last year of there contract so you can avoid these delicate situations. I’m pretty sure that pissed Hutch off a bit to not receive a legit long term offer before his last year with the Seahawks. I feel if your going to go to the very end with your superstar, you better Franchise him or be better prepared to loose him. We didn’t do either and we all see where it’s gotten us.
We made it to the SB the year before without JP but with Hutch. The defense we had played well enough to get us to the big game. We were a team built around Alexander and our Stud Offensive Line so I just think the priority should’ve gone into maintaining that dominance instead of a bigtime FA Defensive Player. (this post wasn’t a knock on JP either, he was a stud for us). Another words, our offense really was our best defense.
Tight payroll, salary caps, massive front office turnover, an incredible amount of unsigned free agents following the 2004 season.
Paul Allen fired Bob Whitsitt on January 14th, 2005 and on the same day Ted Thompson was hired by the Packers. Mike Reinfelt was brought in as a consultant and immediately was looking at 16 unsigned free agents including Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, and Walter Jones. Jones and Hasselbeck were signed to long-term deals and he franchised Alexander. That’s a significant chunk of payroll and cap space lost right there.
Ruskell would be hired on February 23rd, 2005 and was tasked with sorting through the remaining unsigned free agents as well as having to prep for the 2005 NFL draft.
The time between the 2004 and 2005 seasons was incredibly chaotic and there were a ton of pressing issues that needed to be tended to. At that time Hutch still had one season left on his contract which bumped him down the priority list.
Excellent history lesson...
Did you just “know” all that? (honestly not being a smart ass here)…. if so.. that’s impressive recollection.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I had to go look up the specific dates and I had completely forgotten that Thompson was hired away at the same time Whitsitt was fired.
I wasn’t exactly sure of the total number of unsigned free agents, but like most people I remembered that the front office had to do a crazy juggling act to get Walter, Matt, and Shaun resigned.
I was thinking "DAMN"..
I checked the comments thread one minute and when I had come back later you had this chronology completely laid out.
I also forgot about Thompson.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Good point.
I still think we should’ve franchised him if we couldn’t sign him though. Hutch signed for 49 mil over 7yrs and we gave JP 54 over 7 years. I would’ve opted to give that money to Hutch instead of JP.
But you have to guarantee that you get your guy.
Your point is well taken but the result illustrates the flaw in the whole situation. Sometimes it’s not worth the risk of one to attain both. You get the guy highest on your priority list first and then move on down. What if JP signed somewhere else? Then we could’ve lost both in an effort to sign both. It looks like we signed Hass first then Alexander second, which made Hutch 3rd on our priority list. Getting both Hass and Alexander signed to long term deals left it open for us to Franchise Hutch. That’s what should’ve happened. All well…it’s over and done now.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 2, 2009 8:03 AM PST up reply actions
A day late here, but...
Ruskell had, as it turned out, a complete misconception of the risk involved. The spirit of the T-tag was to have the market set salary. I think Ruskell was prepared to match a pretty good salary. That turned out to NOT really be the risk though. Minnesota’s offer was in effect crafted to destroy Seattle’s salary structure — not just in amount but in distribution. That is, the poison pill tied Seattle’s hands exclusively. It allowed no flexibility, which obviously would not have been the case with a long-term deal. That’s why it went to arbitration.
A different arbitrator may very well have ruled differently, and we might be having a very different conversation about Ruskell.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
That ruling still really upsets me
I don’t see how it can possibly be fair for a competitor to tie an offer to the original team’s salary structure, creating stipulations that the competitor does not have to meet.
Others may have better memory of the details than I, but I recall that the contract’s language was something like “if he plays more than 4 home games in the state of Washington…” or some such thing. The effect was that only Seattle and not Minnesota would have to meet the salary stipulations (i.e., must be the highest paid lineman every single season or the contract’s full amount is guaranteed).
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
It hurt more because he was and still is the best guard in football
I used to love going make to game tapes and watching Hutch pancake the sorry linebacker in his path, giving Shaun nothing but daylight. When Holmgren came back from vacation wanting to wring Ruskell’s neck, I completely understood his pain. In my opinion, if you have the best player at his position and he has barely hit his prime, you don’t risk losing that for anything. I’m sure Kansas City is feeling the same way about Jared Allen right now.
Regardless of how unsporting the contract situation was, the poison pill was a shrewd, genius move on Minnesota’s part. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the team is one of the best in the league with a front office so skilled in getting what they want. I tip my hat to the Vikings.
I think that at that time, the consensus was that Alan Faneca was the best OG in football.
A lot of people thought that Hutch was the beneficiary of playing alongside Walter Jones, rather than the other way around.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 2, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
Not so sure about that
Maybe in some people’s eyes Faneca was. Hutch received more than twice as many votes (40) for the 2005 All-Pro team than Faneca received (18). I’m definitely not saying that All-Pro voting is the be-all end-all of player evaluation, but with twice as many votes, it sure seems like most thought Hutch was #1 at the time. In any case, if Hutch wasn’t the #1 guard in the NFL in 2005, he was a very close #2 and has gone on to become the virtually undisputed #1 guard in the league.
Beauty is the eye of the beholder. To me, there was nothing more beautiful than watching Hutch run block. But then I’m biased.
Good posts
Great info and insight, especially for know Ruskell basher like myself.
Just a note; the franchise tag went to Josh Brown that year.
there were a lot of unforeseeable events during that time that led us to where we are. Alexander rolling over. Marcus Tubbs knees (dude would have been great) Jerramy Stevens going full douche bag. Chris Spencer being mediocre. Michael Boulware letting everybody by. Kenny Hamlin takes one on the head. then Mike Wahle’s shoulder and Kris Dielman cant take the rain and takes less money. These people all turn into holes that need to be filled with quality players immediately. its not always possible .
yea dude
I still hate Dielhman.
He was never going to come here, he just wanted to drive his price up in SD. Reports say he’s declined in the past couple of years, so I guess we win that one.
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 7:42 AM PST up reply actions
Everybody knows you never go full douchebag....
You went full douchebag, man. Never go full douchebag. You don’t buy that? Ask Jeremy Shockey, 2005,
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 2, 2009 8:20 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Josh Brown got the fanchise tag after the 06 season not 05.
We didn’t use the franchise tag that year.
Please remind me why we leave Hutch himself out of the blame picture?
Was he simply feeling alighted by the T-Tag? Was there bad blood with a brand new GM? With Holmgren? With teammates? They just went to the freaking Super Bowl for chrisakes.
by swamp_fox on Dec 2, 2009 9:02 AM PST via mobile reply actions
That always bugged me, too.
It seems like he wanted out of Seattle badly, but why? They were coming off a Super Bowl and he was blocking for the league MVP. He must either be one greedy bastard or he had a serious personal problem with Holmgren or somebody on the Hawks. It’s not like he moved to Minnesota for the weather.
Maybe he knew the Seahawks would be in decline
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 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
prediction: Steve Hutchinson will play every down for the 7 years of his contract
Just to rub salt in the wounds of Seahawks fans, Steve Hutchinson will not miss a game for the duration of the 7 year 49 mil contract. Arguably, as we write/read this post, Hutch has played well enough and often enough to have justified a 7yr/49 mil guaranteed contract. Hell, with 13 mil out of the way at the end of ’06, the remainder of the contract would have been 6 years, 36 million dollars. Seems like a reasonable hit.
Yep.
I was just thinking that as I read this article. Hutch was 28 going into his playing prime for a guard (26-34 or 35), he would have been around for much of (or all of) that deal had he stayed healthy. I would have risked it to keep that left side strong for years to come.
Even saying that, I’m still not mad that Hutch left (really), I’m mad that in the four years since, the team has done nothing to build the O-line (in my book) till they drafted Unger. Jones was getting older, Hutch was gone, Gray was old when Ruskell came here, Tobeck was at the end and Lock has gone from a prospect to an after thought since his rookie year. So Ruskell has drafted Spencer (to high, and he is average at best), then drafted Sims, Willis, Vallos and Wrotto in the mid to late rounds and thought that was ok. Add in guys like Wahle (coming off injury and old), McIntosh this year (band-aid), and that sounds solid, am I right?
My main point is the guys he lost (Jones, Hutch, Tobeck, Gray, Terry) to the guys he has drafted or brought in (Lock, Unger, Spencer, Sims, Wahle, Vallos, etc) so far are not even close to equal. None of this would even be an issue had Ruskell not overlooked the line and running game for that matter for so long. Oh well, he built up the defense to be a top 10 D right, right? Oh, and the LB he was so high on is still here right (you know the one this team needed so bad coming off a solid year (you know a Superbowl) I think their names were Hill, Lofa and Lewis)? It seems like more money well spent, right up there with Branch, Housh, Colbert (lost draft pick), Wahle, Jones, Duckett, Russell, and so on and so on.
You say...
“in the four years since, the team has done nothing to build the O-Line until they drafted Unger” then you list drafting Sims, Willis, Wrotto (and I guess Vallos) while also signing Wahle.
Do you realize those are all players brought in to help the O Line, or not? Understand no team in the league could have withstood the barrage of offensive line injuries we’ve had, but there are a lot of linemen in this league drafted later than the first round that are high caliber players (not to mention a lot of highly drafted lineman that do not play at a level befitting their draft status.)
To say the team has done nothing to address the line is false. To say that none of the things they’ve done has worked like hoped? That would be a fair statement.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 2, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
OK.
You are the main reason I always hesitate to write on these boards. When you shoot off after someone rights something and you toss in your sarcasm like"Do you realize those are all players brought in to help the O Line, or not? ", look I get you want to make a point and take shots (that’s what alot of people on these blogs do), but your not pointing out anything I didn’t know, you are just trying to make yourself feel big by taking shots at someone who you will naver have to face, face to face.
Feel free to make you points, just find someone else if you want to be a smart A**. I felt they have done nothing to solve the problem,they just brought in people to patch holes, but no one to really fill the problems, until the drafted Unger to be the future center. All of the other guys are at best backups on most teams. That is how I feel about what Ruskell has done to help the O-line, end of story.
If you think that Sims, Spencer, and Locklear are backups on most teams then there is a problem with the way you're evaluating line talent.
Willis perhaps, but the others definitely not.
I'm sorry you feel like not posting because of me..
I truly am. That’s not my desire whatsoever.
However, when you make blanket statements like “your [sic] not pointing out anything I didn’t know” you aren’t being very consistent. You went for the “hyperbolic homerun” statement of “the team has done nothing to build the O-line (in my book) till they drafted Unger.” This simply isn’t true. They have. You’re “in my book” doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that you have an opinion.
And I stated that you were wrong, the Hawks have addressed the Line. Now you agree with me apparently. But that isn’t what you didn’t originally say.
They DID do things. Admittedly, it didn’t work well, and the theory could be re-evaluated. That I will agree with you on 100%. But then that isn’t what you said. You said the team did nothing, not that nothing the team did worked. Those are two very different concepts…
Again, I never meant to be a smart ass. However, patching holes is a big part of team construction. The hope is, while finding guys to “fill holes” that some will not only fill the hole but become bigger than the original gap and become a strength. This, I would again agree with you, has not worked a bit. But you don’t simply replace a Walter Jones (or Hutch) you do the best you can and move forward. Walt is among the top 5 ALL TIME at his position. You don’t replace it in the same way. If you did, San Fran wouldn’t still be looking for the next Jerry Rice. I don’t say that in a smartass way, I simply mean that some players are irreplaceable. Two of those type of players were lost, and we must fill in as best as possible.
Sims could start for a lot of teams, Spencer as well, and Willis was wanted by Washington to start for them as well. Are any of them Jones or Hutch? No. But if they can stay healthy, they all have the potential to be average to above average NFL starting linemen. The fact that health has been a huge issue has very much altered how we view them. But that’s what you can hope for while replacing guys like Hutch and Jones— average to above average NFL starting linemen. And I’m still hopeful all three will be there within a year or so. They’re all 3 close right now.
So again, sorry. But I didn’t mean anything personal, and I’m not trying to be a smart ass. But I also don’t just “shoot off” I respond to what people write with what I hope is a level of logic in either support or disagreement with the point the prior party made.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 3, 2009 12:38 AM PST up reply actions
hutch signed the deal..
The poison pill didn’t make him any extra money. The hawks would have matched the deal and paid him the same amount. He opted to sign a contract that would make it impossible for the seahawks to retain him because he wanted to leave. Most players would prefer to stay with their current team, especially a winning team, for the same money. Hutch is from Minnesota and he wanted to go home, so he did. I don’t really blame Ruskell..
Hutch is from Florida.
Minnesota isn’t home for him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 2, 2009 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
The 'Hawks were ready to match any offers
so I really don’t think they envisioned a scenario where Hutch would get away. I still think he’s a complete butthole for pulling that on us. He just hosed his own team. Then he had the nerve to say that he felt disrespected by the Seahawks knowing full well we would have paid him as much or more than any guard in the league.
Saying this was Ruskell’s fault is like having your kid spontaneously combust and having people blame you for not constantly pouring water on them ahead of time.
I stated many times going into that offseason that Hutch needed to be the priority sign for the Seahawks. Running backs are much more replaceable than elite offensive lineman and that still holds true. Let’s face the facts! Ruskell gambled and lost, but could you imagine the backlash he and the organization would have received had they chose to sign Hutch over Alexander and Alexander walked. You know as well as I do, most every fan would have called for his head.
I appreciate what Alexander accomplished as much as anyone. However, I saw through his running style and knew he was a lazy runner except for when he was inside the 10 yard line. Heck, the way I see it, he should’ve given half his salary to Hutch and Walt for making an average back into a league MVP.
The fact is that we are stuck with what happened and it sucks, but we can’t change it. We can only move forward.
I strongly disagree with the notion that Shaun Alexander was a lazy runner, and that he was average. Respectfully, of course.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 3, 2009 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Five unanswered preseason questions
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
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.
