Ruskell on Hill (and More)
To wrap up the LeRoy Hill news, the TNT was kind enough to post a transcript from a Q&A session with Tim Ruskell from yesterday.
As you would imagine, the Hawks didn't franchise Hill just to keep him here for the year:
Q: Are you hoping for a Marcus Trufant kind of situation? That you tag him and eventually you get him to sign?
Ruskell: We want to get Leroy done to a long-term deal. We do. That’s our goal.
How did Ruskell see Hill's offseason incident?
Ruskell: It did shake me. I was surprised, and I told Leroy that. It just seemed out of character. And as he said to you guys, he was disappointed in himself and embarrassed. And wants to get his name back, because he does a lot of things with kids, not only in the Seattle area, but in the Atlanta area where he’s from. And that’s just hard, right? So in addition to being a great player he wants to get that back, and he knows he’s made a mistake. But I had to see him face-to-face and hear that from him and see that sincerity, which I saw, and other people saw, including Jim Mora. That was very important.
Ruskell, being Ruskell, cares a good deal about character. However as we saw after Lofa Tatupu got a DUI last spring, Tim is willing to forgive isolated incidents. Handling these player issues with consistency sets a good standard for the organization as a whole.
With the combine upon us, Tim Ruskell also handled a few questions related to the draft, and I wouldn't want to rob you of that.
Q: You’ve said the last couple years because you’ve drafted as low as you have, there’s certain tier players you’re just not going to get.
Ruskell: We try to stay true to our grading system. “Okay, he’s gone. Here’s the next five. Put those guys up there Get ‘em right. Now let’s take the next guy. And I think at four, our strategy is – and I talked to you guys about this the last time we were together – you’ve got to get the most impact guy for your football team. You can’t get focused on the darn need, that’s when you make a mistake. Now, when they sync up that’s great. But it’s too tempting to say, “Well, we need a defensive lineman. Oh, look at that, he just happens to be right here.” You have to fight that urge and make sure is that the most impactful player at four? Is that the next best player?
For what it's worth, Ruskell also hinted that the team is in the timeframe where finding the next quarterback makes sense. The skill position guys get on the podium today, so Doug Farrar will have some interesting thoughts later on the QB's.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like drafting the best player available,
but at some point you have to foucs on need. Especially with the 4th overall pick. I’m not saying if you have one guy rated 8.5 and one rated 7.5 you take the 7.5 because he’s in a position you need, but if there is a 8.6 rate linebacker and a 8.5 rate OL guy, don’t you have to take the OL guy.
Though there are two ways to look at the #4 pick. The player is going to cost a lot, so draft the guy you’re certain will succeed, regardless of position. Or, #4 picks are extremely talented and capable of making an immediate impact, so draft somewhere that you need a starter. For example, in the 2nd round, it would be kind of dumb to draft for need because that player might not start for 2 years, and by then who knows what you will need? But for the #4 pick, I’d like to think that the ratings between a bunch of guys are not so far off from each other, so we should select whichever position we feel we need the most, unless we feel like there is a lot of value at that position in the later rounds.
Guy with the most impact, eh?
One might argue Crabtree would have more impact than any other players that have been postulated to go at 1.04 (at least in the short run)
why do I......
feel like the mother telling her son that he needs a new pair of pants, because the ones he has on are old and torn.
Crabtree.
Cogito Ergo Sum
interesting bit on qb future
Q: How much do you need to have your future quarterback, not to say anything about Matt Hasselbeck in the short term, but I know you considered it even last year.
Ruskell: Yeah, we’re in that zone where we have to consider every time there’s a free agency period, a draft. So we’re in that zone. Whether it happens this year or not, it just depends. But we’re in that zone.
Q: Would you like it to happen this year rather waiting the next year or the year after if there’s a guy who fits what you’re trying to do?
Ruskell: It would have to happen that way. We’re not just going to do it because we know we’re in the zone. That’s not how we’re going to do it. We’re going to do it because everyone has been evaluated, the quarterback coach and the coordinator feel good about the future, and then as an organization we say "You know what, we’re all on board let’s do it." Not just because we’re in the zone."
I must have skimmed over that.
Thanks for highlighting that part of the article.
So, good, I’m glad he won’t take a QB just because it’s a need and we’re in a good position to take one, but rather will take one if he feels like there is good value at that spot, and all of the coaches agree that that QB has the potential to start.
That being said, did everyone feel that way about Greene and Frye?
on Stafford vs Crabtree
i think this clears things up a bit on their strategy going into the draft. It will all depend on how the players grade out. Sounds like they will make a list of the top 6-8 elite players, and choose the best one come the 4th pick. Crabtree will most likely be one, not so sure about Stafford, but it’s possible he grades out that high.
dang it
i mean that as a reply to LantermanC. why do i keep doing that?
by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 20, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, drafting at #4 is theoretically very easy
You make a list of your four favorite players. Then you rank those four players. Then when the time comes you pick the highest one left on your list. Bam.
It’s a lot different than sitting in the 20s somewhere and you have no idea who might actually be available by the time you get to pick.
pretty damned good point...
…allows the draft team to focus on later rounds… and trade offers for that #4 pick, too.
Easy, sure
But the different that it’s higher profile and higher visibility … if the player is a bust, you look like an idiot
by Nick Andron on Feb 20, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, but what if you have 8 guys that you rate about the same.
Then in that case, you’d willing to trade down 4 spots for theoretically nothing. Actually, you’d be willing to give up a 4th rounder to go down 4 picks because you’d be paying half as much.
A team would give up a 4th round draft pick to draft lower?
Unless they were outrageously cash-strapped, I highly doubt that.
Yeah, that's why I said theoretically in that particular case.
You always get something more for going down, but if you were completely indifferent between 8 players, and you had the 4th pick, theoretically you would be willing to give up something to go down to the 8th spot.
HAHA I see a crazy scenario...
Teams wouldn’t necessarily trade to get DOWN, but they can simply not pick at their spot and let the next team have their shot… and in a somewhat shoddy top-ten year like this one, maybe multiple teams could do that?
This is ridiculous, of course… depending on exactly what the difference in cost is between #4 and, say, #8 or 9.
I forgot about that rule.
If you take up the entire clock time you go back 2 picks or something right? Which the Vikings did 2x.
Exactly. Your worst case if you really wanted to move down would be to just not turn your pick in.
Ceding picks to do so would be loony.

by 































