Ruston Webster Makes His Bid for Continuity
by John Morgan on Dec 17, 2009 3:45 PM PST
123 comments
Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post is reporting that Ruston Webster, Seattle's interim general manager and formerly Tim Ruskell's right hand man, is interviewing for the position of general manager today. I support Webster as a conservative move, and a chance to retain the good parts of the Ruskell years while, perhaps, eschewing some of his greater weaknesses. Namely: An unwillingness to draft talent from small schools and a sometimes maddening inability to see the forest for the trees.
Webster is more involved with Seattle's current roster and less likely to bring a fresh perspective on the team and its needs. Without extensive research, I can't compare him to every potential GM candidate, but instinctively, I assume he is neither the best nor the worst. He is, it would seem, the least radical possible candidate.
If I may propose a suggestion: Why not retain Webster, sign an offensive guru to an equal complementary position, and allow Tod Leiweke to be the moderator. It seems committe and consensus and the power of intelligently assembled groups is the future of leadership, and the Big Man, man in charge, ruler, king and god approach is an artifact of early humans that is no longer relevant in the new millennium.
0 recs |
123 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Are they doing this without the Search firm's input?
Am I right in assuming the Rooney Rule doesn’t apply to ‘in Organization’ hirings?
Rooney Rule applies
This is just the first interview. In order for the Rooney Rule to not apply they would’ve had to name Ruskell’s successor in advance.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 17, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
No. I like the "One Vision, One Plan" direction.
Even if it didn’t work out with Ruskell, it was a concerted effort from the organization to enact that vision. If the plan fails, the blame falls on one guy, and there’s little or no infighting or finger-pointing.
Given the past success of the scouting and draft, I think Webster is the guy to go with, even if that means another year of “Ruskell’s Plan” by default. The structure is there – let’s plug him in for a year and see how it goes.
A mess heaped on one man is easy to sweep out?
I don’t know if that concern is worth fear though because it seems quite often that when one goes more follow throughout the next year or so. I’ve never heard of an Organization so clearly disowning a GM but liking all the other parts. Seems uncommon to me, I’m probably wrong, but even John Clayton sort of thought Tod’s comments were different from the average CEO in these types of times.
That's an interesting proposal, but I have my doubts
If I may propose a suggestion: Why not retain Webster, sign an offensive guru to an equal complementary position, and allow Tod Leiweke to be the moderator. It seems committe and consensus and the power of intelligently assembled groups is the future of leadership, and the Big Man, man in charge, ruler, king and god approach is an artifact of early humans that is no longer relevant in the new milenium.
Anyone who’s risen to a position of authority is a hard-driving person. That is, they have “alpha male” attributes. You can’t get into a position of authority without signalling that you’re monomaniacal about football. If you’re that focussed, then you’re not going to be willing to share authority.
While a nice idea in principle, I think it breaks down in execution because of the associated personality conflicts. We’re not so far removed from our hunter-gatherer days that we can ignore the fundamental psychology there.
Would have to disagree. The fundamental psychology you speak of is a social construct.
Hunter-gather’s are and were the epitome of cooperation – thus cooperation is hardly a nice idea in principle, it is one of the defining features of humanity. Projecting an ‘every man for themselves’ view on the past ignores the reality that, while power structures existed, the only way people survived was through cooperation. To be cast out of the group meant near certain death.
A successful leader knows when to act with authority, when to delegate and when to seek the opinions of their employees. A substantial amount of research on organizational development shows that people are most engaged in a plan when they are included in its creation and implementation, not ruled from on high (check out Marvin Weisbord among others).
Alpha males with power issues don’t typically make for inspired leaders or successful organizations.
by Menthu Ra on Dec 17, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Both.
Evolution largely occurred on a macro scale. Even now we are all both dependent on others in our communities for many things, and also competing with them for many things.
I see credence to both sides, of John & Rob. I don’t know that Rob being correct precludes John’s suggestion from being a good one, that would work. I have some doubts, too, but then we all also have doubts about top dog being a surefire approach, too, don’t we? It doesn’t always work. Obviously. I like John’s idea. Executives will still likely be Type A’s. Just get the right guy(s). That’s all I care about.
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
If your going to eschew the concept of one ruler,
then everything will fall into chaos and only compromised decisions will be made (ie safe decisions). Oh and it’s millenium.
Actually it's millennium
But I appreciate the catch.
I can’t think of an modern civilization run by one ruler.
Yes, my bad, millennium
And look at today’s civilizations, not really what I would want from a football team. A whole lot of back room deals so everyone gets what they want, not what they need.
In theory
A single ruler is more efficient but less considered, but a group is slower moving but more knowledgeable. I’m not advocating a senate, but I think something smart can be achieved between the two. A group of three, maybe, with a simple majority making decisions.
Et tu, Fearless Frog?
How about a cloud-sourced GM? Paul Allen should love that. No trolls allowed of course (JM, you could be in charge of that), but clearly the collective wisdom of TNT, Seahawk Addicts, and Field Gulls armchair-GMs trumps that of any mere triumvirate.
A Triumvirate!
That worked great for Rome. Occasionally. When the mood took them.
I think you’d need to find three guys who are relatively self-effacing and congenial. In the high-ego world of professional sports, I have my doubts.
The two major Roman triumvirates--admittedly my knowledge is limited--were a compromise rather than a model
It’s not too surprising absolute rulers would bristle at the suggestion of sharing power. I believe Julius Ceaser used the triumvirate as a form of treachery to weaken the senate and then, when his military might was greater, turn on and destroy his allies.
And a dictatorship gives people what they need how?
I don’t see how anyone could ever look at dictatorships as the good ol’ days. I get what you’re saying, but this is a bad comparison.
by B.B.Finnegan on Dec 17, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
This is a business, not a dictatorship
Since this is a business, there is one person who makes the final decision, right or wrong. That person takes input from others, but ultimately lives and dies by the decision, sorry Ruskell. If there are too many people making the final decision, each person will need to give up what they need to get a part of what they want. If the team needs a dominant pass rusher, but the coach wants a DB and the OC wants a QB, what pick/FA do they target. You need one person (or two if they are identical twins) to pull it all together and give a direction.
I had the rare occasion to hear the thing in full, live
and the most remarkable thing of it all, is how positively the press corps responded. To be honest, that day, Mora reminded me of me.
And not in a good way. I’m pretty verbose in writing, but you should see me in person. I’m a rambling mess. I already had a problem with Mora’s composure, something that had been building. So this probably had me lose more respect for him than anything else.
Not that the respect is completely gone. But man. He came off so guarded. Nearly every statement was subsequently diminished of significance or outright contradicted (very common among athlete interviews) in an effort to prevent sound-clip controversy.
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Good grief!
What are the “good parts” of the Ruskell years? The drafting of useless losers in the first round that wouldn’t start on other teams? How about the “rebuilding the secondary” effort that gave us the joke of a secondary we have today? Maybe it’s drafting as many linebackers as we can that play well, but ultimately don’t make the defense any better? Perhaps it’s the coaching staff we currently have that is regularly outcoached by other teams? Maybe it’s the laughing stock of an offensive line we now have out there or the BS that substitutes for a running game. Maybe the DL that never gets any pressure or the stockpile of Wide Receivers that never seem to be open.
What players do we have on our team that fans of other teams can even name, or that require double-teams or extra game-planning by opponents?
How about the inability to win any games outside of Qwest field?
I give a vote of no confidence to anyone on the current staff. We were 4-12 last year, and we will be lucky to get 6 wins this year. Ruskell had one good year (2005) of bringing in Free agents that impacted the team, and from then on I consider most of the rest of what he did to be nothing short of complete failure. Once he ran out of Bucs and Falcons to bring here, he was done.
I don’t want the “least radical” candidate. I want a radically different candidate from what we’ve had. I watch the Giants play the Eagles and wish our team was a respectable “blue-collar” team like one of those, and realize that we haven’t had anything like that since the 1980s. Even in 2005 we were a finesse team that didn’t dominate anyone but teams that were garbage.
We’ve gotten our asses kicked too many times on the road this year, and were down 17-0 to Detroit at home. What we have now is embarrassing, and I’ve been a die-hard Seahawk fan since 1975 (yes, before they played their first game I had merchandise). I want the Seahawks to be a respectable franchise people are worried about playing rather than an easy “W”.
Right now our team is a bad joke. Anyone associated with getting it to this position should be sacked (Holmgren included, but he’s gone already). Webster should be out with the rest of the dirty laundry. There’s no baby in this bathwater. Dump all of it.
While you make a few valid points
saying things like
The drafting of useless losers in the first round that wouldn’t start on other teams?is just going to get people to roll their eyes and tune you out.
Just a friendly suggestion.
So did I.
That very line.
Sorry, mate. Truth be told, I have something to learn in this regard myself.
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
Every team goes through winning and losing cycles
I think you put too much of your gut into the process. Lawrence Jackson would start for plenty of teams, as would Chris Spencer and Aaron Curry. The team is losing because it is a below average team, but I do not think any executive could have escaped this decline.
If you actually audit Ruskell's moves, instead of giving him sole responsibility and blame for the team's decline
he was a smart general manager that has added tons of young talent to the defense. Wilson starts for many teams. Mebane starts for most teams. Julian Peterson, Patrick Kerney, Deon Grant—it’s irrational to say Ruskell never made a smart decision.
He paid big money for all of those players
Peterson, Kerney and Grant. What did we get for the money? Did the defense get better?
Quite a bit
Peterson was hugely impactful in Seattle making the playoffs in 2006 and Kerney in 2007.
we made the playoffs the previous years without these players
Was our defense ranked any higher? Did it perform better overall? No.
in 2007 our defense was rankned 15th overall
19th against the pass, 12th against the run. Big deal. If that’s the best it’s been in a decade, then the bar has been set really low.
Seattle was ranked 12th against the pass and 5th against the run by DVOA.
and sixth in scoring defense.
Total yards is not a great way to measure a defense. Different teams face a different number of attempts. Seattle was the best defense in football per drive. It’s not the defenses fault that Seattle faced almost thirty more drives than most teams.
That just tells us about pace
and Seattle couldn’t run out the clock because of Alexander. Drives are what matter, because each team gets an equal number.
DVOA stats are special now
But I watched the games. We didn’t dominate anyone. Teams moved at will against us and we looked like crap on the road. Where was the magical DVOA against Green Bay in the playoffs?
Our defense was not special that year, we sucked. Other teams did not fear us. Nobody double-teamed anyone on our DL. What good did it do for 0-21 against Pittsburgh, or how did it help us giving up 44 points to Atlanta? Our defense didn’t scare anyone.
Seattle had nothing to play for
Against Atlanta.
The Steelers were doing nothing on offense until late in the 1st half. There was nothing on offense.
ME! BANE!
Our defense was top 10 in sacks
And was 3rd (or 4th?) in the league in interceptions.
Got a shutout against the 49ers, dominated Arizona, and bailed us out against St. Louis and Philadelphia.
They weren’t phenomenal but they were very good.
ME! BANE!
If anyone's curious, comments like this will get you banned.
This falls under both name calling and trollish behavior.
wheres the name calling?
LordTD is saying unpopular, annoying things and is tenacious about it, but at least he attempts to back up some of the things he says.
Course, I disagree with him about 2007 and Free agents. JP/Kerney were both good signings and helped this team. In 2007 they combined for 24 sacks.
How so?
Trollish maybe, but name calling?
He’s blatantly wrong, in fact the most common incorrect argument against advanced stats is “but I watched the game”. But I don’t see where he was name calling.
I think he's referring
to the tone of the words.
Where was the magical DVOA against Green Bay in the playoffs?
Emphasis mine.
The way he says it sounds pretty…dickish is all I can think of to describe it.
I'll concede "dickish"
I was having a lousy day and was mostly inarticulate. The “magical” comment was uncalled for, but there was an actual point hidden in it.
The season DVOA doesn’t always show the whole story. Good performances against San Fran at home (shutout) can average out complete collapses against other teams. Statistics can tell lies. Talk to me about 2007 and the last thing I remember is a giant egg laid on the ground in Green Bay after we were spotted 14 points, on national TV. When I try to tell my buddies in Philly and Pittsburgh that “we sure had a good DVOA that year”, I don’t get much mileage with it.
Several times we let mediocre 2nd string QBs light us up (a constant theme for the Seahawk franchise over the years) and had big let-downs against Green Bay and Atlanta at the end of the season, and several during the season that were signs of things to come this year and last. The home loss to New Orleans (0-4 at the time) wasn’t a stellar day either.
My “gut” feel is that our defense in 2005 was overall superior to that in 2006 and 2007. I think the coaching was much better that year, and Marshall had some sort of Mojo going on that he totally lost in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Do the DVOA statistics bear that out? I have no idea. But the results on the field did.
The high priced free agents (Kerney, Peterson) were good players, but the defense wasn’t reliable. We had whole-game collapses that year (that we didn’t have the previous year without those guys) and we have those same collapses this year. We did have those same types of collapses in 2004 and 2003 (Baltimore and St. Louis come to mind). I recall thinking prior to the 2005 season that the defense had better come around that year or it would be time to give Rhodes the boot.
Ruskell was supposed to fix the stuff we saw in 2004 and 2003 on the defense. The offense was clicking those years, but I felt like Holmgren had neglected the defense. Ruskell was supposed to fix that. Here we are in 2009 and the same problems seem to exist.
If I was the owner, I’d consider Ruskell’s rebuilding of the defense to be a failure. Maybe it’s a coaching problem more than a talent problem, but in 2009 the defense is not better than in 2005 and feels an awful lot like 2004. If I felt that Ruskell’s strategy had failed, I don’t think it would make any sense to fire him and keep his staff, who were here for the same failures.
If I believe Ruskell was a failure, I wouldn’t have any way of knowing that his underlings would be any better. I’d be inclined to start over unless I fired Ruskell because of a personality conflict rather than because of performance.
Why is it a below average team?
Who’s fault is that? There are other teams (NE, Ind, Phil, NYG, Dallas, SD) that were in the playoffs the same years as us who haven’t had the same decline. How come NE has been able to keep “above average” every year? Pittsburgh is down this year, but they are regularly good and not losing by 30 points in road games. I don’t think the decline is inevitable at all, and there are plenty of other teams not in decline that indicate otherwise.
Plenty of other executives can, did and continue to escape such decline. Ruskell and his staff failed to do so, and they should be sacked.
Every team you cite has a young or Hall of Fame quality quarterback
Seattle has Matt Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck is a good quarterback, but like most good quarterbacks, he’s not good now that he is older and often injured.
Matt doesn't play defense
None of those teams get beat regularly by 20 on the road. Plus, with the exception of NE and Ind, I think Matt’s the better QB.
I am not sure why you think Matt is the better quarterback
when McNabb, Brees/Rivers, Manning and Romo all routinely outperform him.
They have better people around them
Better OL, better WRs, better RBs, better Defenses. Who is responsible for that deficiency on our team? Ruskell.
You could just as easily say the defense puts Matt at a disadvantage
by giving up too many scores and putting pressure on him to match.
Myself, I’m beginning to think the offense and defense don’t affect each other as much as popular wisdom suggests. Each gets its set of downs, and what they do with them matters far more than what the other half of the team did with theirs.
Rather than whine about the offense not getting first downs, the defense should focus on their own side of the business and get more three-and-outs. If they did that, guess what, the offense would have more possessions and time of possession would tilt in our favor.
On offense, rather than whine that the defense isn’t stopping anyone, they should concentrate on getting more first downs, controlling the ball and denying possessions to the opponents.
Am I saying that right? I have a head cold today and might not be expressing myself very clearly.
Rubbish
How about a 64 yard strike on first down. How did Matt do that? What about being down 14-0 at home before the offense is on the field? Is that Matt’s problem?
You know how they got down 14-0? and 17-0?
the 14-0 against AZ was a special teams fumble and the Williams/Vallos O-line getting blown up and Matt fumbling ( I don’t totally blame him for that one though), The lions went up 17-0 partly because of a Matt INT inside the red zone. I’ll put the first play of the Houston game on the defense, but the other two games were on the special teams/O-line/Offense.
SEA!
I don't think the defense is playing well, but I do think the talent is there for them to break out.
SEA!
I say the talent is NOT there, and you can't provide evidence otherwise
Other teams score at will against us. Hasselbeck had nothing to do with Houston moving up and down the field all day against us, and nothing to do with Indy and Dallas doing the same thing.
Our defense is awful. We have our starters mostly in on defense, and we suck. We can’t stop anyone. No pressure, no coverage. I’m tired of hearing about potential. Screw potential. Potential is for losers to talk about. Results are what matters and we don’t have that.
Arizona comes to town and we can’t cover their wide receivers and can’t pressure their QB. Their guys run free all day. Wait till we go to Green Bay. That’ll be another 34-7 game.
Ruskell was supposed to be this defensive guy, and spent all this time beefing up the defense. He failed. The defense is not better. They bite.
You think Arizona is some sort of offensive stalwart or something....
Two shutouts. I know it’s the Rams being one of them but it’s hard to shut a team out.
I see hope for this defense. They are young.
ME! BANE!
No Arizona scored on their opening possession
And then the special teams gaffe (wasn’t a fumble) happened. Then Matt gave them 3 more points.
ME! BANE!
We have disadvantageous reciprocity going on.
Everyone’s hurting each other a lot more than helping. Mare excepted. Even that idea that the good run defense might be hurting more than it helps by putting teams in passing situations on 3rd down, seems plausible to me.
by jacobstevens on Dec 18, 2009 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
I'm with you on wanting a change
That said, I like Webster and if it is somehow possible, I’d like him to be retained in the scouting department.
Exactly
I knew this board wouldn’t like your post but those are my thoughts exactly. These guys are not at the game. It always comes down to Hasselbeck when the line cant even block to 2 Mississippi.
First it all Russel all the time Now its all Hasselbeck all the time.
yea dude
Lawerence Jackson and Chris Spencer might start
But they wouldn’t have been drafted in the first round. Spencer was a total reach, he had played one year at that position in college. Jackson was a steady player, but not dominating and completely unworthy of a first round pick. Kelly Jennings? He doesn’t even start on our team. Deion Branch? Good grief.
Curry was a safe pick, but we didn’t need a linebacker. We traded Peterson so that we had a place for him. Was that a net gain? Not so far and as a result we didn’t draft other positions in the first round, like OL and DL.
Mebane wasn’t a first round pick. Curry, would he start for other teams? He’s starting for us because we drafted him, but I’ve seen nothing out of his play so far to justify the 4th overall pick or even starting him. He’s riding the pine on third down.
I never said his decisions weren’t smart, but the certainly were not successful. Grant and Kerney are nice players, but is the defense better with them than before they came? No. Same with Julian Peterson. He’s a good player, but did our defense get better when he was here? No. We’ve got most of our starters in on the DL and in the DB slots (not much in the way of injuries), and our defense is crap.
Say what you want about how great the players were and the coaches were he brought in, but after 2005 none of what he did worked. Our defensive backfield did not get better when he replaced Hamlin and Boulware. Hamlin went to the pro bowl and our defense was just as bad.
At the end of the day, Ruskell’s time here was a failure. The moves he made, the players he drafted did not improve the team. The DL isn’t better, the DBs aren’t better, the OL isn’t better, the RBs aren’t better, the WRs aren’t better. The individual players might be nice guys with talent, but they aren’t helping us. The players might be better than the guys they replaced, but the results on the field are not better.
You are blaming Ruskell for the team breaking down
but that has a lot more to do with the people Ruskell replaced. If you look at the 2004 Seahawks roster, he had an offense, growing old, and nothing else to build off of. There’s only so much a GM can do in five seasons. He was tasked with rebuilding the defense and he started. It’s full of young talent, but that talent hasn’t matured yet. Just last season, people were complaining about the 49ers for the same reason: Lots of young talent, but little performance. All that really happened in 2009 was that young talent came of age. In theory, that exact same thing should happen for Seattle.
I'm blaming him for his moves not improving the team
His job is to improve the team by making player moves. His moves have not improved the team. It hasn’t got better in any way. Other teams draft players that have huge impacts right away. Other teams don’t take 6 years to see improvement. Other teams get new head coaches and go to the playoffs the first year and stay there for several years.
And Seattle has drafted a lot of players under Ruskell that have made impacts right a way.
Hill, Tatupu, Sims, Tapp, Plack, Jennings (when he was playing well in 06 and 07), Mebane and Forsett.
SEA!
And you'd lose the argument.
How many pro-bowls? Who outside of Seattle has heard of this guy?
I like all those players too, but they haven't made "impacts"
Nobody outside of Seattle has ever heard of these guys. They might be making nice individual plays that we fans see, but we aren’t winning because of them. They are footnotes on a losing team. They aren’t going to the pro-bowl, and our defense bites.
"Other teams draft players that have huge impacts right away."
I can’t think of any player Indy or NE has drafted in the past few years that fits that criteria.
Admittedly Mayo was good
but New England’s defense was still pretty suspect. He didn’t have a huge impact and the team missed the playoffs.
"Other teams" is generic, not Indy or NE.
None of our draft picks ever do anything. What first round pick of Seattle has gone to the pro-bowl since Ruskell too over? Several of them aren’t even good starters.
Who cares about Pro Bowls?
You can be effective without having the wow factor of being a Pro Bowler.
ME! BANE!
If the Seahawks played in the northeastern US
and won at least 9 games, Mebane would be enjoying his 2nd, maybe even 3rd pro-bowl right now.
While I think that probowls is a terrible way to measure success
And that playing on the east coast makes players more visible, the “if we won at least 9 games” is a bit of a strange argument?
Surely if we won 9 games or more it would be because we had (among other factors, but primarily) better players than we have?
ProBowl defenders...
2008 – 0 first rounders, 0 total.
2007 – 4 first rounders
2006 – 2 first rounders, 1 2nd rounder, 1 6th rounder, 1 7th rounder
2005 – 2 first rounders, 3 2nd rounders, 1 3rd rounder, 1 5th rounder, 1 7th rounder.
That’s a total of 17 Pro Bowl defensive players drafted while Ruskell was in command. Tatupu was one of them. Every team drafted multiple times in those years, and only 17 players made the probowl on defense.
There were 1020 draft picks the four years Ruskell was in charge. Divide that by half, and subtract another 10 spots a year for special teams special teams specialists and you have 500 picks a year for defense. 17 of 500 = .034 of all players drafted over that time making the probowl to date.
3%, and we have one of them. I’d say Ruskell actually drafted BETTER than most, then.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a ridiculous way to judge players, just that even by the broad sweep of Pro Bowler drafted, that Ruskell came out ahead of average.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 17, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions
You might have missed my point
I’m saying that arguing that we would have more probowlers if we won more games is a stupid argument.
by GarethLewin on Dec 18, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
its not
The pro-bowl is a popularity contest. Stars on bad teams (teams that win fewer games) are often over-looked. Mebane is a great example of this. If you want a non-Seahawk example, how about Adrian Wilson? He was considered one of the most under-rated safeties in the league for years and didn’t make his first pro-bowl until 2006.
Not at all... I gotcha
I was merely continuing, but under you not the lordtd guy, the futility of assessing quality through the false metric of “pro bowl players” and saying that even by his own (insanely useless metric) that Ruskell was better than average.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 18, 2009 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
but by no means better than Mebane.
by John Morgan on Dec 18, 2009 12:37 AM PST up reply actions
Are you really
saying that first round to pro bowl is the best measure of a GM? Look at it objectively. Ruskell only got 3 first round picks (Jennings, Spencer and Jackson). Jennings was a miss, but Jackson gets better every game and Spencer is our best lineman. He also got us our two best defensive players in Lofa and Leroy in rounds two and three, respectively.
I’m not saying he is the best drafter in the world (I’ve facepalmed myself several times watching the draft) but to say that “none of our draft picks ever do anything” is not only a wild accusation but is also completely untrue. Since 2005 the only players that are not currently starting for the Hawks that Ruskell took in rounds 3 or higher are Jennings and David Greene. The others are Mebane, Tapp, LoJack, Lofa, Leroy, Carlson and Pistol.
by Fightfightfight on Dec 17, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions
Not that I disagree with you, but it would probably be good to mention Aaron Curry
"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 17, 2009 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
I knew
I was leaving something out…. namely the entire 2009 draft haha.
Add Aaron Curry and Max Unger to that list.
by Fightfightfight on Dec 17, 2009 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
It was an inarticulate moment
I overstated myself and you all got lost in the “pro-bowl” statement and missed the real point. My point was simply that I don’t think Jennings, Spencer or Jackson were have performed worthy of their draft order.
I don’t like Jennings, and don’t think we should have drafted him. He’s not a good cover guy and has not justified his draft position.
I don’t think Spencer is “our best lineman” or even that good. I think Sims is better and I think Spencer will be gone next year, replaced by Unger. I thought he was a total reach in the first round, and had really only played one year at that position in college. I don’t think the coaches like him either. I believe we could have gotten him in the 2nd round, or taken another lineman and been better off. I don’t think Locklear is a bad lineman either. He’s not good at LT, but he’s fine at RT or maybe even he’d work at RG.
I don’t think Jackson has proven worthy. He’s had a few good games earlier this season, but overall has not proven to be worthy of taking in the first round.
Let me give some other examples:
Steve Hutchinson, Walter Jones. Taken in the first round, worthy of it.
Marcus Trufant. Taken in first round. Worthy.
Marcus Tubbs. Taken in first round. Worthy. Retired from injuries, but when he played he was dominating.
This is the sort of thing I want in the first round. They need to be good, solid, contributing players that nobody should question are starting.
A lot of our 2nd and third rounders have been outstanding. Lofa, Mebane, Tapp, etc.. All great picks. That’s great, but not good enough. You can’t wiff the first round and get a pass because of what you do in the 2nd. You have to be good in all the rounds.
Kind of like a football game. It’s not good enough to rule the 1st and 2nd quarter.
Had Ruskell been retained, I was going to suggest we trade our first round picks next year for 4 second rounders. If we could have had Ruskell picking 2nd rounders for us and gotten 5 Lofa/Unger/Tapp/Mebane types, we’d have been dominating things very quickly.
Hamlin went to the pro bowl due to the fan voting, not because of any real outstanding play.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 18, 2009 8:51 PM PST up reply actions
I don't want anything to do with Ruskell or his right hand men.
I want this team to start in a new direction. Hiring Webster would be regressing if you asked me.
I don’t want to have any person who had any ties to Ruskell to be the head of this football team, in terms of personnel.
We need a stud GM with a proven track record and contacts throughout the league to come in, clean house and work it.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
Ugh, I just threw up from a headache.
I think Unger is Proof Ruskell could have a good chance of drafting talent to the right kind of system. He’s more of a guard, but his football acumen is pretty high and his football attitude is something that pleases me. I haven’t seen guys race down to get in on plays down the field with the amount of speed and just…ugh…it fires me up because this guy is gonna understand it.
Walter Jones’ whole career should be shown in a Single highlight where he rode Julius Peppers 40 yards down field on a running play and didn’t stop until he landed on the guy in the endzone. We need finishes that are even 70% of that, because if you have five guys that can explode like that on any given play, defenses will fear you. I think Unger can put the fear into teams, at guard or at Center I just don’t know if we have any other players that play with that kind of ability.
Well
Walter Jones is perhaps the greatest offensive lineman in the history of football, so that’s a pretty high standard.
That's an argument for another day
Perhaps when we get to the dog days after the draft and free agency, but before training camp, we can explore whether Big Walt really was the best ever.
John it struck me last night that sims is very similar in body type to Chris Gray, am I wrong? and does he fit with the Zone Scheme?
Seems like, and I’ve watched the two games where the run game worked that they don’t run behind sims too often.
I think your hunches betray you
Sims is much larger and stronger than Gray, and Seattle has been most successful running toward left tackle and mid/guard, where would expect Sims to have the most impact.
He had that nice block against the texans for a great run pick up,
I’ve just always seem to find it easier to follow runs to the strong side. Thanks for your link. It’s sort of what I thought I saw after the game against the bears. He seems more polished in the run game.
Do they has pass protection stats there?
If you keep Webster, then keep Mora...
Otherwise, if he’s firing Mora then no point in keeping Webster and we start from scratch. Other than maybe Dungy, Webster would be on board with “stay the course” philosophy with defense first, Tampa 2 scheme. It makes no sense in having Webster fire Mora, would have to find another coach to fit the front office “scheme”.
It's most likely that Webster retains Mora, but it's not 100% set in stone.
Maybe Webster likes the staff a lot but just doesn’t think Mora is the right leader. If you’re on the Dan Quinn/Gus Bradley for head coach bandwagon Webster is probably the best bet. Hiring Webster says the Front Office thinks this teams is close but needs a little tweaking, firing Mora could be one of the moves.
SEA!
I don't buy it...
Mora was the cheerleader in bringing in these two from the get go. What makes these two fit to head coach? If the FO wants to make as little changes to the coaching staff, they’d have to have Webster be the guy to stay the course. What other GM out there, outside of the organization, would keep the current staff as is? (Dungy! Dungy!) The new GM would most certainly would want to bring in his own guys, bottom line.
Also, Bradley hasn’t done ish and neither has Quinn, in fact, I’d be for replacing one or the other…
I don't want either of them here.
Like this great country of ours, The Seahawks need a change.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
In the future
if someone’s arguments amount to picking and choosing facts, referring to DVOA as “magical”, saying things “sucked” or that other teams “did not fear” whatever, please ignore that person.
Do not feed trollish behavior.
I myself have been musing about a "commitee" GM approach in recent weeks
I like the concept. One person is bound to have flaws and blind spots. Add two or three different perspectives, and in a perfect world you could have every blind spot covered. I don’t know if I’d trust Leiweke as a the moderator though. Ultimately, he’d be playing GM with extra advice in that situation, and he’s a business man with a non-football background.
Plus, a GM by committee would probably mean a more vague approach and less of a designed plan. And there could be infighting or guys that don’t mesh together well. Like the poster says, “none of us is as dumb as all of us.” Still, the idea has potential but would be very difficult to build successfully.
I'm not a big fan of the "committee" approach myself
Although I agree about the concept. I just think of it more as a “best case” scenario rather than a “reality” scenario, like two-three people could really fit together that well.
"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 17, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
What happened here?
Did we open a portal somehow to TNT or Seahawks Addicts?
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.
People are becoming emotional.
I’m one of them, but I’ve stayed outa this one.
I’m going to watch for awhile and rarely comment.
Ruskell and the need for new blood
Overall Ruskell did a good job with the first rounds of the draft. He made a couple of bonehead moves like the Branch trade. Jennings & Wilson showed potential (Wilson is a good returner at least) and we really did need a corner at the time. Lawrence Jackson had all the right skills, but he is underachieving, that is on Jackson. I think the inability to see the forest for the trees is very appropriate, instead of taking the best player available he took what we needed, and as a result other areas started to fall apart. I think about the end of the draft last year, we took Nick Reed which was a good choice, but ignored the safety from Oregon State who is now a starter for the Bucs.
I think we need some new blood, nothing against Webster a promotion, make him the draft expert give him the ability to make the picks or something like that because he has shown he can make good talent choices.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
