Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Seahawks Offseason Checklist, Part 3: Draft Michael Hamlin

Seattle values Brian Russell. It shouldn't. Seattle sees Russell as a great football mind that leads the Seahawks secondary. In reality, he's a weak link with minimal talent that does his best work on practice fields and in film rooms. A young player like Michael Hamlin could save Seattle from itself.

Seattle is rebuilding its defense from the playbook up. That sounds exciting, and is even specific enough to be exciting, but will not matter unless Seattle changes its talent evaluation. Consider this quote from Ziggy Hood.

[I]n my meeting with the Seattle Seahawks, I sat in with the General Manager, Head Coach and most of the coaching staff. They really drilled me and tried to find out if I had a high football IQ...They wanted to understand my football knowledge, as far as me knowing my assignments and my teammate's assignments in a specific defense. They wanted me to point out where I'd be if a certain play was called and try to pick up different schemes of the offense and defense. It was pretty intense.

Using an interview to find out more than if a prospect is a honey or barbecue sauce man is intelligent. Overvaluing interview skills is not. Overvaluing a player's ability to articulate their knowledge is not. If Hood knows his assignment and the assignments of his teammates, it should show on the field. And though it's valuable, knowledge does not replace raw ability.

When I read that quote I thought: Brian Russell. It was a Rosetta Stone moment, when something cryptic and baffling became clear. That's why Seattle values Brian Russell. The man Mike Holmgren wanted to be the "quarterback of the defense" knows how to talk shop. He'll make a very good secondary coach should he be so inclined. But like many teachers, it is that playing free safety in the NFL is so abstract to him, so far from his own natural abilities, it is that Russell cannot do and so has had to struggle and work and attain an encyclopedic knowledge of his position to make it in the NFL, that makes him sound like an exceptional free safety when he's easily one of the worst in the league. You don't go to Jimi Hendrix for guitar lessons, you don't ask Randy Johnson how to throw a slider and you don't ask Ed Reed how to play free safety, because as hard as they work, and as talented as they are, they couldn't tell you. They were born that way.

Seattle doesn't need talent at free safety, it has it. Unfortunately, Deon Grant has been moved to strong safety to accommodate Russell. Seattle does need talent at safety. Jamar Adams could probably improve the team right now, but as an undrafted free agent, Adams lacks that all important mandate to play. Seattle's continued confidence in Russell means it won't sign a free agent. A free agent won't sign knowing Seattle has an established starter. What Seattle needs is a young kid that through sheer determination unseats Russell. Call it a youth movement, the destiny of coach Russell or simply mercy for this poor blogger, but what it should be called, replacing the weak link on a defense with aspirations of dominance, won't play. Seattle needs a recruit to win the position, as the team "looks to the future", and in a way that saves face for Russell.

Suddenly a very interesting name is in the mix: Malcolm Jenkins. Jenkins flunked out at the combine. That might be his last act as a cornerback prospect and his first as a free safety prospect. For an athlete with his prima facie athleticism, the forty should be way discounted, and I, personally, don't think the separation in value between safety and corner is great. Still, Seattle does not see safety as a dire need and drafting Jenkins, a pick that would be seen as a huge reach at four, does not seem likely.

Seattle will be thinking coverage first with whatever safety they take, so ignore big boppers with questionable cover skills like William Moore. Instead, the true favorite, both because of expected draft position and the Tim Ruskell Pick Draft Rubric (See below) is Michael Hamlin. Hamlin is projected to go in the early third. As for that résumé:

Name: Michael Hamlin

Position: CAT safety (strong safety)

DOB: November 21, 1985

Conference: ACC

College: Clemson

Four Year Starter

Stats: 283 combined tackles, 14 interceptions, 17 pass break ups, four forced fumbles

Named "permanent defensive captain" his junior season.

Graduated in May of 2008

Academic Honor Roll

Clemson ranked 10th in pass efficiency defense, 12th pass defense, 13th in scoring defense, 18th in total defense but 108th in sacks. Despite finishing 7-6, Clemson finished 21st in FEI. Their defense was especially impressive, finishing 4th.

This kid is going to be a Seahawk. He better be.

0 recs  |  Comment 37 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Add another safety to the list that I'd be fine with.

Did he get a masters or something, how did he graduate in May 2008?

by LantermanC on Feb 25, 2009 1:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

He's going to be 24 this year.

So I’m assuming he redshirted his freshman year and graduated in the normal four years.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 25, 2009 3:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

yeah but the Seahawks brass keep starting Russell, therefore he must be pretty darn good

jk

What Mora does at the safety position might give some good insight on what to expect during his tenure. He of all people should know how terrible Russell is and if he does nothing about it, well I’ll probably end up spending half of next season throwing my arms in the air, which can’t be good for the joints.

by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 25, 2009 1:08 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

On the positive side....

if Russell does continue to start for us, then I’m sure you, myself and everyone here won’t have to worry about dieting ever again. If explosive vomiting is good for one thing, it’s keeping the weight off so pile on the pizza, ribs, buffalo wings, onion rings and beer!

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Feb 25, 2009 1:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sold.

Great info, as usual, JM. I’d love to have had guitar lessons from Jimi, though…even a hack could surely pick up something from a great, but I see your point. I’m thinking of seeing the ‘Experience’ for the first time (actually going in, not just walking by) in May. Worthwhile?

Hamlin in the 3rd would open up a myriad of possibilities in round two (this post begs the question). I can’t wait to talk about that. OG, C, RB? Hmmnn. WR? I’m excited.

Crabtree/McCoy/Hamlin
Crabtree/Mack or Unger/Hamlin
Monroe/Robiskie/Hamlin
Crabtree/Marks/Hamlin
Stafford/Robiskie/Hamlin
Crabtree/Robinson/Hamlin

I can envision a million scenarios. I would love to think WR, OL, and S all get addressed. But how DT fits in is a big question. I like Marks and Hood. There are others. Although I’m enthralled with Mack and Unger at G or C, Spencer surely gets one more year, clouding the round 2 thinking for me and although I’d be thrilled in some ways to land LeSean McCoy in the 2nd, he’ll likely be gone or passed on by the team.

John, with Spencer entering a contract year and not exactly having discarded all the questions about him, maybe you can shed some light sometime on what you think happens at center for us.

by Misfit74 on Feb 25, 2009 1:46 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

What about Bret Helms?

Would he be a good fit for our blocking scheme? He can play all the interior line positions and has been a starter at LSU for a while. I think he is seen as a fourth rounder so it wouldn’t be too soon for Ruskell to draft a linemen. Has anyone looked at him?

by laubster on Feb 25, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, so the mocking the draft

piece on Hamlin doesn’t sound that great, even going so far as to call him a fringe first rounder, but then it says projected round: 2.

by LantermanC on Feb 25, 2009 2:49 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, interesting scouting report
He lacks natural agility and has stiff hips so he has trouble covering receivers. Poor change-of-direction ability. Stiff hips. He lacks good speed and has trouble chasing down ball carriers in the open field

Not many more ways you can say the same thing. Hamlin isn’t a phenomenal athlete, but he’s a good athlete. He doesn’t pop on screen and a lot of people are trapped into thinking that means he’s slow, or stiff, but he’s actually pretty quick and moves around pretty well. Sort of like Lofa Tatupu.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hear stiff hips a lot with a lot of people.

And obviously there is such a thing as a guy who can change direction a lot, but sometimes I think they use stiff hips as something when they can’t explain why they don’t like a particular guy.

by LantermanC on Feb 25, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

that's why...

it would be absolutely ideal if the Hawks can trade into the mid 1st in exchange for a mid-2nd.

jerry,moreno,oher/robiskie/mack,unger,robinson,meredith/hamlin,pegues

i really like Derek Pegues as a player but he’s poor 40 at 5’11 195 hurts, and Ruskell won’t like his off-field issues.

If we don’t draft Crabtree I think Robiskie is an obvious Hawk much like Carlson was.

I think 3rd round is where we get ur safety.

i could see something like

crabtree/unger,mack,robinson,mredith/hamlin/j davis

j smith,monroe/robiskie/hamlin/j davis

by puerto on Feb 25, 2009 2:50 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

3rd rd

Good run down, he is one of the DBs the Hawks are targeting in the 3rd round. OL and QB will be the first 2 rds. Stafford/Unger, or Smith-Monroe/Bomar.

by Hawkwiz on Feb 25, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You think Bomar is 2nd round material?

I dunno, I was under the assumption that he was 3rd-4th round material. After Stafford and Sanchez, there’s a pretty steep drop to Josh Freeman, and an even steeper drop to guys like Bomar and Nate Davis. Even though Ruskell likes to pick guys before they’re supposed to go (eg. Spencer, Lofa, the Schmitts), I doubt any team is going to reach for a 3rd-tier QB in the very early 2nd round.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 25, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bomar is a solid 2nd. rounder He throws laser passes, has the size and the tools for the pro-game. He is down graded now because he played the last couple yrs for Sam Houston State, But people forget before he ran into the NCAA summer job violation he was the starter as a freshman for OU. If someone gets him in the 3rd or 4th it would be a huge steal.

by Hawkwiz on Feb 25, 2009 3:27 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I would consider him a sleeper in terms of his ability,

a guy who is capable of being a solid pro, but guys with potential to be average pros don’t get taken often in the second round. And the only reason he was starting as a freshman at OU is because they had no other QBs after Jason White had graduated. Not to mention, its hard to judge how a QB’s game will translate to the pros when the only defense he’s faced in the past three years have been the Iron Curtain defenses of the Southland Conference.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 25, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wait, when the hell exactly did Rhett Bomar become a "solid 2nd rounder?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

2nd rounder?

Just my opinion, cause i know TR likes to reach for “his” guy. Several of his former OU team mates feel he is just as good as Bradfford, who replaced him the following yr.

by Hawkwiz on Feb 25, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So if he's projected to go early third

Ruskell will probably “reach” for him in the second. And although all the draft graders will say he “would have been there in the third”, he’ll probably outplay just about everybody else picked in the second round. We see this story every year, right?

by busplunger on Feb 25, 2009 3:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah

That would be one way it might play out. If TR can find a trading partner I see us with 2 2nd rd picks, then the whole mix will change. The trade picks for more picks is very tempting, Gawd I can’t wait for the draft to get here.

by Hawkwiz on Feb 25, 2009 3:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

As for Jenkins, he's not much use if he isn't going to be a CB, right?

He transitions into an FS, and we still have Deon Grant out of position at SS, which isn’t good.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 3:53 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

We run a Cover-2, though.

Both safeties have important coverage responsibilities, so there really isn’t much difference between them.

by redwolf75 on Feb 25, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How does a team rank 10th in pass defense

while being 108th in sacks? That seems flukey.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2009 6:08 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

with so many teams, and sack/PD stats being roughly close in number...

…I’d guess that a few sacks or pass yards one way or the other could really swing those numbers closer together. It’s pretty interesting, though.

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 6:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

THANK YOU!

For providing a concrete explanation for why Russell still starts and plays. We went round and round this one on a fanpost a little while back. I would caution that this is still speculative reasoning, unless someone has actually HEARD Russell talk defense. For all I know he could sound like a cat hacking up a furball when he opens his mouth. But Hood’s quote at least suggests this reasoning is on the right track.

by Kumar on Feb 25, 2009 9:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

No, Russell is a very well-spoken person.

He’s generally reputed as a high-character guy, so that’s probably why he’s still around. Even if we draft his replacement, he’ll probably remain on the roster for his ‘leadership’ and gritty veteranosity alone.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have liked Hamlin for a while

He definitely sounds like a Ruskell guy, and someone who can contribute. Minor injury issues but not a huge concern. If we went Crabtree – Mack/Unger – Hamlin I would be ecstatic and wouldn’t even mind Bomar in the 4th.

by t.hast12 on Feb 26, 2009 1:18 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

What about Moore makes you think he has poor coverage skills?

He had 8 INTs as a junior, ran around a 4.5 at the combine. He has some questionable coverage/decision making skills at times, but I’ve heard the same concerns for both Chung and Hamlin.

Just wondering what separates the latter two from Moore in your mind?

by LantermanC on Feb 26, 2009 10:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I also wondered this.

I’ve seen fairly a lot of Moore and the rest of the team and he seems to be pretty decent at coverage, much better than Mays or Chung. He usually holds deep coverage soundly and goes for low-risk INTs most of the time, from what I’ve seen.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 26, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thirded

I thought William Moore was considered a complete safety. Mike Hamlin sounds like very good value for his projection, and able to start soon, at SS moving Grant to FS.

by jacobstevens on Feb 26, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He looks stout and not terribly agile

I think he’ll grow out of the sub-optimal agility he already has. He’s also weak against play action and not great at tracking the ball in flight. He has one season of eight picks, and then three others with one. Teams are talking about him playing linebacker. That might be a stretch, but I think he’s primarily an in-the-box safety and I don’t think that’s what Seattle wants.

by John Morgan on Feb 26, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Huh. Where did you hear this?

What you’re describing is what I thought fit Taylor Mays to a T. And wasn’t the in the box stuff happening because the team forced him to bulk up and blitz a lot because of their inadequate pass-rush?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 27, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Huh. Where did you hear this?

What you’re describing is what I thought fit Taylor Mays to a T. And wasn’t the in the box stuff happening because the team forced him to bulk up and blitz a lot because of their inadequate pass-rush?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 27, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Thanks, Walter.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Post Your Hawk: Week 9
6a00d8341c873353ef00e5528e99be8833-800wi_small
Wild speculation
Rainbow_small
Video Preview - Detroit Lions vs Seattle Seahawks
Small
Chris Spencer is the Betancourt of the Seahawks
Small
SBN Layout Upgrade
Dscn0146_small
The necessity of shutting Detroit out on Sunday
Jj_flag_detail1_small
Seahawks Fall Hard - Bitch Thread
Small
In defense of Tim Ruskell
Front_of_car_small
What's Bugging Me
Small
Post Your Hawk: Week 8

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation


Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Editors

Rainbow_small Scruffy Lefty

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)