Lost. Looking for answers ...
by nut_house on Dec 21, 2009 2:37 PM PST
Email
Print
New poster here (and long time lurker). Sorry to start with a fan post - and quite possibly a venting exercise - but yesterday's debacle left me wondering ...
How in the world were we so optimistic about this team before the season started? I mean the one thing that everybody says we are lacking is talent; however, before the season we thought we had talent at every level (except for maybe running back). Now that we are missing Jones and Tatupu with the rest of our team essentially healthy, we are suddenly lacking talent. I am sorry but I just don't get it nor do I necessarily believe it.
I think we have "solid" players on both sides of the ball - no real playmakers, but guys who do have skill. So this thinking would lead me to believe that we are misusing our talent (i.e. using Branch as a deep threat being a prime example). Does our problem lie in coaching then? Or is it that our players are having down years? But couldn't that also be attributed to coaching?
I think Mora played us all before the season started. Well played, Mora. Well played.
88 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I wouldn't say people here had high expectations.
It’s rare that a team finishes 4-12 and comes back the following season to have success. I figured this team would finish somewhere around 7-9, perhaps 8-8 if thinks broke right, significantly worse if people got injured.
I expected 9 wins!
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 21, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
But that's the point, right?
We seem to be far off the 7-9, 8-8 pace. So I guess my point was that those are high expectations compared to where we are at now and the level we are playing at.
But 5 seems so much worse than 7
Especially given the manner in which we have been losing.
by nut_house on Dec 21, 2009 7:20 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
In NFL Football the differnece between 5-7
this late in the season could mean the difference between a playoff birth and not. Especially in the NFCW.
So yeah, the expectations were higher. I am right on par with what nut is saying in this post.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
I was thinking 7-9 at first, but then with the FO report
and the ‘undefeated pre-season’ (stupid I know) I figured 9-7 was possible. However, I was expecting Hasselbeck to be more like Matt Schaub than JaMarcus Russell. I also expected our coaches to be a neutral factor, not a negative factor.
If Matt had rebounded to 2007 levels this would have been a good team
He didn’t, he got hurt again, the offensive line had injury issues, the offensive line transitions didn’t go over all too well, the defensive line was mangled, Trufant missed time and is now a shell of himself, Tatupu was a shell of himself and then got hurt. And then theres Mora.
I wouldn’t say that anything that could go wrong did go wrong, since none of these things happening is a huge surprise, but Seattle didn’t see anything break their way.
Touche. But he did talk a big game ...
It just seems that a lot of teams go through adversity such as this and we seem ill prepared to combat ours. Frustrating especially considering that before these past two years we were at the top of the league in average wins per season for the 2000’s.
I don't think Trufant is suited to zone
He was a damned good man coverage DB.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
He sucks in Gus Bradley's Zone heavy System.
Plus Trufant didn’t even get to practice with the team until week 7. That whole time he was concentrating on rehabbing his back.
I really don’t think Trufant is to blame for his poor play. Next year, if he is healthy, he will be better.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
I think what people mean when they say that the Seahawks are lacking talent..
Is elite talent at certain positions, and a capable quarterback, if not an elite quarterback.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
Wrong.
Hasselbeck is not the problem with this team.
It all starts with the trenches. Then we have to weed out the non-exsistant-over paid talent on this team, i.e. Branch, Jennings, Both Safety positions, Jones, and special teams.
I agree we need a couple of great skill position players especially at RB and DB but I would rather have Suh and some OL prospects that pan out.
This game is won and lost in the trenches and This team is week on both sides of the ball.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
Hass very much is A problem, though not THE problem.
There are many gaps that need to be fixed, but Hasselbeck is certainly one of them.
He’s old, injury prone and lacks arm strength. His mobility is less than it used to be and his decision-making has been tentative at times and just plain poor at other times. In addition, if our rebuilding takes more than a year or two, is he the guy you want at the helm through the process, when he’ll be even older and more brokedown when the team has been rebuilt around him?
I love the guy, I do. However, he’s running on fumes, and the sooner we move on from him, the better we’ll be in the long run.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Whenever I say Hass isnt the problem I get jumped on.
He’s not 28 anymore, but we have uglier problems than his weakening arm.
Think about it.
How many years does he have left? 1? 2? 3?!?? How many years since he had a good year? 3? These are uncomfortable numbers in my book.
I’m not sure we have uglier problems than his weakening arm— it’s just so damn obvious. HOWEVER, I do believe we have additional problems, and the OLine is the first place I look as well. But I don’t believe Hass is going to be around by the time the OL gets good again, so let’s safe time and move forward now…
I do think our problems are not on the defensive side of the ball primarily, and I believe a better offense would make our D a hell of a lot better, but I don’t believe the same thing could be said the other way around.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
You just said, "Whenever I say keep Hass."
Then you followed it with “we have uglier problems than his weakening arm.”
Thought that meant you were advocating keeping Hass.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Please read and comprehend my post properly.
I never said that Hasselbeck was THE problem.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 22, 2009 10:20 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think we are bleeding from everywhere...
I do believe that we are deficient in a couple critical areas.
QB: Single biggest area of need and the quickest way to a turnaround (assuming the replacement is good). You would be hard pressed to find a single position in all of sports as important as solid QB play. A pro-bowl level QB on this current team (at minimum) competes for the postseason. Top Tier QB’s require less time to get passes off, and keep defenses on their heels. Our current QB allows defenses to play “going forward” (aggressively) with us, because of our inability to challenge seams and deep thirds.
DE: Lack pressure exposes secondaries. I do not believe that our DB’s are as bad as they look right now. The lack of pressure on opposing QB’s is a massive problem for our defense. It’s akin to leg problems stemming from misaligned vertebrae. When your core is having issues, your extremities begin to hurt.
DT: Adding a DT (obviously that performs well) such as Suh, McCoy, or Williams could dramatically change the face of the defense. Pairing another monster next to Mebane could be the cornerstone to a dominating defense (because of the peripheral advantages a defense has when a pocket is collapsed and gaps are filled).
WR: A game changing WR.
These 4 areas are very addressable with (2) first round picks, a high 2nd rounder, and free agency.
I do NOT see a complete overhaul needed as long as the right moves are made.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I agree with this ...
However, I would make either a dominant DT or a dominant DE a need since one of those would elevate everybody around them via double teams by the offense. Thus giving us more one on one matchups.
And I would add a playmaking RB to the list. I love Forsett, but if we could get one with a third gear it would force the defense to pay some attention there.
I would also like a true LT so we can utilize Carlson better and shirt Locklear back to the right.
But these are a lot of “needs” for one offseason.
by nut_house on Dec 21, 2009 7:19 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I knew what Houshmandzadah was.
A possession receive just like Bobby Engram. Ruskell took Matt’s Sole possession guy for another possession guy who didn’t have continuity and cost much more.
The reason Housh caught 90 passes or more a season with the Bungals is because of OchoCinco, period. Chad commanded the coverage and left Housh open.
It doesn’t help that our offensive line is the worst. Therfore, the problem does not lie with Matt Hasselbeck.
Hasselbeck would be just fine if he didn’t have to improvise because of a shambled offensive line.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
Hasselbeck can't throw anymore, durtee...
His arm is just shot. Sunday he threw a 20 yard pass to Carlson and I celebrated because he threw it 20 yards.
Housh was not solely benefiting from Chad Johnson. If that was the case, wouldn’t the replacement receiver taking Housh’s receptions be having a monster year? Particularly since Palmer has looked much better this year.
Also, in 2008, OchoCinco only had 540 yards on 53 receptions. So with a superior receiver beside him compared to this year’s motley crew in Cincy, why did Chad’s numbers go down?
Don’t get me wrong— Housh benefitted from OchoCinco, but is there any chance at all he benefited more from a different system and a superior QB that could stretch the field??? Put it this way— if OchoCinco and Housh were together with Hasselbeck would they have good numbers or not? And if Carson Palmer was given our WR’s this year, would he do better statistically than Hass?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
I agree.
His stats are not even very far behind where they were last year. He only played 15 games last year, and he’s on pace to be 15 receptions and only 54 yards behind last year after 15 games this year. The biggest negative about Housh coming into this year that I kept hearing was that his yards per catch had been in decline for 4 straight years and that that trend should continue. But so far he’s averaging 11 yards per reception which is his best since 2006.
Overall I think we got what was expected from Housh, it’s other parts of the team that are failing to live up to expectations.
by Mind of no mind on Dec 22, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Your both wrong.
Yes Hasselbeck has been declining.
The big thing everyone misses out on recognizing is the pure simple fact that we have not offensive line.
Plain and simple: Cincy’s offensive line is better than ours. When our line was healthy and Branch was healthy and Engram was here Hass had good stats. Last year our receiving corp was injured so the continuity wasn’t there.
Plain and simple, no matter how bad Hass is now we need to fix the line first, on defense and offense. Hasselbeck can go another year then, 2011 we draft Locker.
FIRE TODD LEIWEKE NOW!
Oh grasshopper
but the bad line contribute to his decline so what goes first?
The bad egg or the chicken?
FIRE TODD LEIWEKE NOW!
Which is easier to replace?
The one QB or the five O-linemen? The one QB is also old, expensive and nearing the end of his contract.
You don't need five
Just because you get another QB doesn’t mean he will fare better behind a bad line and just because you get a couple of line men doesn’t mean that Matt will perform at 2007 levels. You need a combo of both, there is no singular answer.
Clearly, but the line isn't one piece away from being good.
We do need both, you’re completely correct. I love Matt so it hurts me to say this, but he’s gotta go.
In my mind
good quarterbacks can overcome bad offensive lines. Good offensive lines cannot overcome bad quarterbacks.
Heck, even the right bad QB can overcome a bad OL.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions
Problem is
who is the good QB you would plug in next year. There are no guarantees with whomever you pickup. I have heard Jason Campbell, and some of the rookies names bandied about, but they are still unknowns. Others have said Manning or Favre would be able to defer the bad line play, but that is neither here nor there because we are not going to get either. My point being you have a known in Matt and putting an unknown in you could very well get exactly what you had before in Matt because they are not able to overcome the line play. It really doesn’t matter what management does, we will likely be in for at least another year of mediocrity.
Campbell.
He is NOT an unknown. Here is a comparison of 3 different well known QB’s, from 2006 on. Care to guess who the three are, and which stat line belongs to each of them?!?
1157/1973 58.6% 94/59 TD/INT 13,402 yards (216.2 per game)
950/1,556 61.1% 53/37 TD/INT 10,380 yards (207.6 per game)
930/1563 59.5% 66/49 TD/INT 10,280 yards (218.7 per game)
The first is Eli Manning, 2nd is Jason Campbell, 3rd is Matt Hasselbeck.
What’s more, this includes Hasselbeck’s finest season (not to mention his last healthy season), and if you took that outlier away from this grouping, his numbers would look terrible in comparison.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, I meant unknowns in our system
Nice totals, but hardly an improvement. Since Hasselbeck is a (I am paraphrasing what I think you are saying, so correct me if I am wrong) bad QB, and Campbell’s numbers are only slightly better, Campbell is the right bad QB who can overcome a bad OL. Seriously, I don’t have the answer, I am skeptical about some of the solutions presented here. Not compelling enough for me.
Just to clarify
It does not matter what we do next year, it will not be a better season than this one. There may be hope at the end of next season, but there are too many holes to fill this year and too much flux in management. I am setting my expectations such that I will enjoy the good times and ignore the bad times.
Campbell has already been overcoming a bad OL...
and remember— his numbers have come again Justin Tuck, Osi, DeMarcus Ware, Trent Cole and a host of other defenders far superior to those we’ve faced in division, both from a pass rush and DB perspective.
The other thing is, Campbell has been trending upward not downward, he’s entering not quickly leaving his prime, and he’s done so with new offensive coordinators pretty much every year he’s been a major college or pro qb. I’d say he’s a model for “can hang in there no matter what you give him” and he’s also going to be CONSIDERABLY cheaper than Hasselbeck (5 mil a year, maybe more), further freeing up money/resources to boost other weaknesses.
I threw those 3 players together because one is a SB MVP with a 15mil a year contract, one makes 10mil next year despite being the worst of the three statistically, and one is 27 years old and overlooked by pretty much everyone in comparison to the other two, and will probably sign next year for 5mil a year.
If not for John Morgan, I wouldn’t have realized the upside of Jason Campbell either, and the most intriguing thing is that it really looks like we can get him for exceptionally cheap, allowing us to draft and build in other avenues without wasting one of our most significant resources (2 first round picks) on a QB that will need seasoning anyway.
By the way, he’s quite a bit better than Hass minus Hass’ career high 2007 numbers. Here are Hasselbeck’s numbers 2006-2009 minus his outlier monster 07.
578/1001 57.7% 38/37 6314 yards 203.7 (31 games played over 3 seasons).
I’m willing to blame a fair amount of those bad numbers on last year’s WR issues when Hass was healthy, but he is getting worse, and older, not better, and there is no time machine to take us back to when he WAS good. Best spend the dollars we’d be giving him 10 mil!!! on a cheaper more reliable player with some upside.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 4:49 PM PST up reply actions
The Redskin line may be bad
but Campbell has had the benefit of a couple of bail out skill positions that the Seahawks haven’t had recently. Portis in the run game has 3272 yardage from 2006-2008 while a combo of Morris and Jones has 2504yds. And Cooly has 2369 rec yds while the Seahawks had 1131 with the revolving door of Stevens, Pollard and (finally!) Carlson. Point being that given the right supporting cast yes Campbell is competent, but we currently don’t have the skill positions to make him successful. He may be a fine pick up, but there are more pieces to address as you have said.
I agree there's more to be done.
And good point on the RB/TE comparison.
Also to keep in mind, Campbell has never had a WR opposite Moss until this year as a couple young guys such as Devin Thomas have started to emerge, and Fred Davis replaced Cooley quite efficiently.
But yeah, a big point in my argument FOR Campbell is A) cheaper than Hass B) we can still address other weaknesses after going for him.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
Mostly. I mostly agree with this.
I’ve essentially made the same case, re: RB-line relationships, a handful of times on here, and haven’t gotten much but opposition to it.
by jacobstevens on Dec 23, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
We don't need to fix the DL more than get a new QB.
I can understand your desire for a better OL, and I’m not in disagreement. However, a younger better QB would make our OL look a lot better as well.
So which is the chicken, and which the egg?
Plus, you can’t just say, “then, 2011 we draft Locker” as if he is going to be available.
I’ve progressed to the Jason Campbell camp, and last night’s game doesn’t change that. He’s going to be available, he’s not going to cost as much, and everytime he gets hit you don’t expect him to crumple into a little ball. Why not sign the QB and draft the OL?!? Why not have it both ways.
And again, I’ll take my chances with the DL if the O improves. Our D is for the most part young and has the potential to improve if it doesn’t have so much pressure on it by a weak O on the other side of the ball. I’m not really happy scheme-wise either, I’d like to see us do more coaching-wise, maybe even fire the staff.
All that goes out the window if by some reason we lose out, teams pass us, and we can get one of the elite D tackles, simply because the value outweighs the logic behind drafting for need.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
QB: Yes we need a new one. Keeping Wallace this long was criminal.
DE: Thank you Mr. Kerney, it was nice having you in blue.
DT: Is one planet-crushing DT too much to ask? Someone that makes can cause a partial eclipse.
WR: I just want a couple that can get it done.
I also think we need a CB (or two) a Safety (or two) a stud RB, unless Forsett has even more improvement in him, and a whole new coaching staff.
I cant figure out where on the OL we dont need help, RB, QB and if they got rid of all the WR’s and replaced them I wouldnt shed a tear.
Oh and Mora/Knapp have to go. It doesnt work.
Stop saying we need a QB
We need a line first. Both sides of the ball.
"If, now this is a hypothetical, If I were offered the job, I would start with the offensive line" Mike Holmgren on KJR
We've laid out why a new QB is important many, many times.
If you wish to ignore that, fine, but that’s not going to change the fact this team needs a new QB in the worst way.
The cross field 12 yard 1st down pass to Housh in the first QTR
was a bullet. There are not that many QB’s in the league that can make that throw.
Now you tell me can Hasselbeck still sling it?
Hasselbeck was never really a long ball thrower anyway. He is suited for a West Coast system that relies heavily on mid range throws.
Stop thinking that your ideas and rational for a new QB are the be all to end all discussions about this team.
FIRE TODD LEIWEKE NOW!
How many could make any throw Hass can make? Starters alone... roughly 25.
AFC East
Sanchez
Brady
Henne
AFC Central
Big Ben
Flacco
Palmer
AFC West
JaMarcus (though he’d probably miss the throw as many times as not, you can’t doubt he can “sling it.”
Orton
Rivers
Cassel
AFC South
Peyton
Schaub
Vince
NFC East
Eli
Donovan
Romo
Campbell
NFC Central
Favre
Rodgers
Stafford
Cutler
NFC West
Warner
NFC South
Ryan
Brees
Josh Freeman
And at least 20 of those guys have CLEARLY stronger arms than Hasselbeck.. Plus there are more than a few guys on benches with a better arm.
You are correct, he is best suited to a West Coast Offense. Not being able to throw a deep ball makes him ONLY suited to a West Coast Offense. But stop for a second— wouldn’t you LOVE to have the capability to beat a team deep? To have WR’s NEED to be double covered past 15 yards, which would further open up the short and mid routes? Because Hasselbeck can’t beat anyone deep anymore, the field is no longer stretched, making the West Coast Offense much less effective.
It is VERY rational to consider a new QB, and it is foolish not to. What’s more, addressing the QB position does not inherently disallow you to invest and address in the OLine. I’m not saying “QB or bust!” I’m saying let’s get a better QB AND address the O LINE. If we finish that, then we go ahead and address other positions as much as possible…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
I dont recall saying he would, actually.
In fact I recall repeatedly saying I would like to see if Teel has anything, since the best thing that could happen before the end of the season is better draft position, and I also recall saying repeatedly that I’d like a new QB.
Just because I think Matt isnt the major problem does NOT mean I think he’s got lots of zip and he’s cloned from Manning’s DNA and can do no wrong and has never fucked anything up. Its not Hass’s fault the O-Line is below average and I might be mistaked but I thought it wasnt him covering Andre Johnson in the Texans game.
who is we?
I don’t care what you people say about the QB of this team. As far as I am concerned your all diluted to the fact of blindness as to the real problem with this team. The line
I am not ignoring anything your people are. Ignoring the fact the offensive line is more important than QB at this point.
If Hasselbeck has time in the pocket, he doesn’t make bad decisions, bad throws, or get sacked (as much). The lack of protection is what is limiting Hasselbeck, not his ability or skills.
FIRE TODD LEIWEKE NOW!
We’ve laid out why a new QB is important many, many times.
If you wish to ignore that, fine, but that’s not going to change the fact this team needs a new QB in the worst way.
This is what upsets me about this site and others. Your opinion and fact based analysis of this team is not the definitive answer. Your opinions are not the last option or written law.
The simple fact is Hasselbeck can play and I am not ignoring that. I am not ignoring that we need a QB of the future but we do not need to plug in a stopgap until we fix the offensive line.
Last year Hasselbeck couldn’t benefit because his receivers were all hurt and he spent time hurt too.
This year Hasselbeck has not benefited becuase his offensive line has been beaten up all year and Greg Knapps new system. Hasselbeck is not done by far and if we replace him this off season then this team is doomed for at least another couple of years because the real issue was not addressed.
FIRE TODD LEIWEKE NOW!
Pot, kettle, black.
Your opinion and fact based analysis of this team is not the definitive answer. Your opinions are not the last option or written law.
Then what is different about you that makes your opinion and fact-based analysis the definitive answer?
I don’t think anyone here is pleased with our O-line’s performance, but fixing that will probably take a year or two. During that time Matt will continue to age and almost certainly decline further. QBs decline as they age. Yes, there are occasionally outliers like Warner or Favre who have great seasons when they’re 38, but those are few and far between. In all likelihood Matt will decline further, and I don’t want to see a replay of the SA situation with our QB.
It wouldn't make it right for others.
If a politician wants to end corruption but is taking under the table bribes, is his point any less valid?
I personally think our o-line isn’t horrendous and that our Hasselbeck is most of the problem, however I don’t believe it is fact and could concede that with more time or better WRs or a better scheme, Hasselbeck could experience a Favre/Warner-like resurgence, especially since I don’t think anyone can lose that much arm strength in 2 years.
A "Favre-like resurgence."????
First, Hass could NEVER throw like Favre. Losing a little off a 98 mph fastball, you still throw 93. Losing a little off an 89 mph fastball, you’re suddenly throwing BP.
Hass is a lot more like the 2nd example than the first.
He absolutely will NOT experience a resurgence like either of them. They both can and have always been able to throw a deep ball, for one thing. They both have elite WR/skill talent around them, and we simply can’t expect to rebuild EVERY position on offense to a superior point just to carry a mediocre QB.
I love Hasselbeck, but his tank is empty.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
I would say the best you could hope for is more a "Pennington-like" resurgence with what Pennington did last year.
Much more comparable arm and system-wise.
And yet, here we are a year later, and he’s injured yet again.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm...
Due to the injury issues and initial arm strength, I’d say he’s far more comparable to Matty than either Favre or Warner.
Not to mention the fact that he is 33 to Matt’s 34, which makes them far more comparable than older outliers such as Favre and Warner anyway…
I would say 33-34 year old signal callers with a track history of injury and reduced arm strength find age very much a factor in their employment, and I wouldn’t be surprised if both are looking for a new home at the end of the year.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
Nor did I till I looked it up. I thought he was around 30...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
Favre and Warner are the most unlikely of scenarios.
But I wouldn’t rule it out. Obviously highly unlikely, but the fact that he’s not 35 yet signals that some of his arm problems are not due to age only.
Perhaps a Kerry Collins or John Kitna-like resurgence would be more appropriate?
Except that Collins always had a stronger arm...
and were either a John Kitna or Kerry Collins like “resurgence” something that you would want for the Seahawks?
A resurgence to mediocrity from craptasticy is not something I am wishing on my team.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 22, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
"Luck favors the prepared"
I did not mean for this to become a trash Hasslebeck post. Fact of the matter is that he is getting up there in age and is a looming free agent. If we do not plan for a successor now, then when?
Also, I think the talent on our OL is okay. I just think it is being mismanaged right now:
- Locklear is clearly not a LT and should be moved to RT with Willis being the first guy off the bench in case of emergency.
- We need to get a true LT.
- If we can keep Sims at LG, I think we will be okay there.
- We should be set at center with Unger.
- I am not too sure what is up with our RT situation now.
Saying that, I think that there are two spots open on the line. Upgrading those, plus a little continuity should fix that situation.
With 3 picks in the first 50 of this upcoming draft we should be able to upgrade our OL and get a QB of the future. I do not see this as an either or situation.
Would you spend all three of those picks on the offense?
What say you to the people who are wanting a DT to replace Cole?
What about people like Rob Staton over at the Seahawks Draft Blog, who are arguing for CB Joe Haden?
After quarterback there really is no wrong way to go with this team
SUH, Berry, Haden, Brown, Spiller, Morgan, McCoy, all of these players would find a spot. The Hawks should be aggressive in trying to identify quarterback talent and take the best talents available otherwise.
Joe Haden is very intriguing.
And while he hasn’t been talked about, I’m willing to bet he will be on Seahawks’ fans tongues next year as a draft option.
I would love to have a MOUNTAIN in the middle of the DL!
Mount McCoy (who could very well be available) next to Mebane would be awesome! I am not opposed to any scenario really. There are a few which I am not a fan of – like the Joe Haden pick since I think we have spent lots of resources on CB’s lately and we have more pressing needs. However our strategy should involve BPA and a QB in some way …
My point was aimed at the people saying its either this or that. With those first 3 picks, we can get substantially better. They also make it so that we can position ourselves better than most teams and with that we “should” have an advantage over other teams in the draft.
Maybe its time to have a 'who should we cut and how much money would it free up' article
because the draft is only have the deal. Free agency should plug a few holes.
Safe List
First Field Gulls Comment!
Hawthorne, Forsett, Housh (not after the contract), Carlson, Butler, Tatupu, Josh Wilson, Babineaux, Mebane, Schmitt, Walker, Morrah, Bryant, Colin Cole, Cory Redding, Burleson, Curry, Hill, Unger, Willis (maybe), Locklear (another maybe), Rob Sims (maybe), Louis Rankin.
Everybody else is fair game.
NOTE: The o-line (except Unger) needs help. D-line or at least another pass rusher would help greatly.
Touchdown, Ronnie Brown Edition!
Rob Sims is a maybe?
You definitely want to keep Louis Rankin?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
- Terrell Owens is still clinging to the NFL dream
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
