After Chris Spencer

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 3:31 PM PST

I wonder where Chris Spencer would be drafted in this center class. Second round-second day? Tim Ruskell's first ever draft pick as Seattle's GM defies many of his typical criteria. He only started one full season at center. He was considered extremely raw. He wasn't a standout until his senior season. And his best asset was his strength and athleticism. Scouts opined Spencer would need time to adjust to the NFL, but should he; he could be an All-Pro center. It's been three years, two starting, and Spencer has taken time to adjust, but there's not proof he'll ever be an All-Pro.

Spencer ended the 2008 season on injured reserve. He enters 2009 an impending free agent. A 25^th overall pick, Spencer has never cost even two million against the cap. He will cost double that in free agency. Spencer finally showed some life in 2008. He can still be great if injuries haven't taken the edge off his power and athleticism, but the time to prove that in Seattle blue is ending.

Steve Vallos substituted in Spencer's place and put on a clinic.

Matt Hasselbeck was in stitches.

Vallos should be what a zone blocking center needs to be, smart and agile enough, but it took one nose guard of ability to prove that even the most undemanding position has demands. Vallos is already 25, but so insanely cheap that he's in the mix. With one center an injury risk and approaching free agency and the other too weak for the Arena League, center talent should be added. Given Seattle's team needs and the good chance Spencer fulfills his promise, Seattle should bag a handful of non-drafted free agents and stash the best on the practice squad. It's a good draft to do so. Strong top end talent and good depth should force a few decent picks down.

Here's a few prospects to keep an eye on:

Tweet Comment 33 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Garcia would appear at face value to be a nice upgrade over Vallos

Then again, I freely admit to being a bit of a homer on that one.

"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 Feb 25, 2009 3:39 PM PST reply actions

So, are you advocating these guys soley for depth purposes?

Because I love me some Max Unger, who can potentially have a dual role at guard if Spencer hopefully breaks out.

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

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 3:55 PM PST reply actions

I love me some Alex Mack

by Built2Spill on Feb 25, 2009 3:59 PM PST up reply actions

Can't argue with that

by LantermanC on Feb 25, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions

Flawless victory

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

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 4:16 PM PST up reply actions

?

So confused.

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 4:21 PM PST up reply actions

google it...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108921/

I didn’t get it either, that’s why I did…

I'm kinda sad Shanahan is gone... I liked the Donkeys being 8-8 every year...

by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 25, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions

haha I thought she looked familiar...

“10 Things I Hate About You”… underrated teen comedy.

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions

I like Unger

but don’t like his pop as a guard. I’d prefer Seattle draft depth.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions

Unless the Steelers pick up Jeff Saturday in FA

I doubt Mack gets by them at 32. Unger could still be there at 37, and I love his experience at all OL positions. He could be plugged in anywhere. Any word on whether Ruskell has shown any interest in him like they have Ziggy?

by diehard82 on Feb 25, 2009 4:07 PM PST reply actions

FA

I know he would cost us more,,,but, I still want Jason Brown - think of what it would cost for Unger or Mack, Thinking that way, Brown would be more than worth it. He is experienced and in his prime, Bal wants him back, but, I think he may test FA. If he does, I see no reason, Seattle wouldn’t make him a good offer, after showing him the stadium, taking him to dinner, and driling him with questions. ;-)… They only have two more days to sign him, then we can talk with him. What are the chances here??? He hasn"t be re-signed yet

by BUSTINHEADS on Feb 25, 2009 5:14 PM PST reply actions

Outside of Housh I've heard very little about free agents that the Hawks might be interested in

John’s pitched some guys but I haven’t heard much more than that.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions

Seattle is tied up right now

I think it’s concentrating on signing Leroy Hill.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions

Sounds like they're pretty serious about TJ as well

but that may just be conjecture and chatter.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions

Where have you heard that?

The only places I heard that were PFW’s The Way We Hear It and ESPN Rumors. Both were unsubstantiated. Unless something new came up recently I haven’t heard about.

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

by Fearless Frog on Feb 25, 2009 5:30 PM PST up reply actions

I haven't heard anything about this either

Signing both him and Hill sure reduces the options with our first draft pick, no?

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 5:36 PM PST up reply actions

I haven't heard anything serious

but I’ve heard it from several different places, PFW and ESPN included. I’m not saying it’s a for sure thing or anything close but it’s the only free agent activity I’ve heard peep about regarding the Hawks.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2009 5:39 PM PST up reply actions

It would make a ton of sense and I'd applaud the move

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 5:44 PM PST up reply actions

Really?

I thought you had little hope of the Hawks challenging for anything next year… signing a 31 year old FA WR doesn’t quite thus sound right. Doesn’t that mean he’ll be 33 by the time we really get going?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not quite as pessimistic as you about our chances next year… depending of course on whether or not the Hawks FO decides to clean house.

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions

He might not be great when he's 33

but he could bridge the gap until Seattle develops a receiver and by 2011-2012 or so, I don’t think the cap hit for cutting him would be prohibitive.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2009 6:58 PM PST up reply actions

but won't his presence inhibit said "developing" receiver's, uh, development?

It just seems to me that we have a lot of young talent at the position who need reps, and if we’re not going to make a run in the next year or two, why spend the money on an aging veteran?

I’m not against bringing in more receivers, I’d just want them to either be younger FA’s who might be around for a while (see Reggie Williams) or higher draft picks with good chances to be future stars (Crabtree, Robiskie, etc.).

TJ would cost a pretty penny, too… wouldn’t he?

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 7:58 PM PST up reply actions

Not more than Crab,

by LantermanC on Feb 25, 2009 8:23 PM PST up reply actions

obviously not

but the two of them isn’t the comparision I’m really making. Should we splash on TJ we won’t get Crabtree, and vice versa.

by djafrot on Feb 25, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

You play to win the game!

Who says we wont challenge next year?

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 25, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks for sharing, Sperm Edwards.

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

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

but seriously

we’re playin to win. if Housh helps us win now and doesn’t hurt us win later, then we gotta go for him. I’m sure that the other WRs will get their reps when Branch and Burly are banged up, and in garbage time.

by cro-mag! on Feb 26, 2009 7:28 AM PST up reply actions

That would be the point

the logic behind the proposition “Don’t sign Houshmandzadeh because he’d keep a younger WR from developing” rests on the assumption that there won’t be significant injuries. I don’t think we can buy the assumption, so I don’t think we should buy the logic.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 26, 2009 7:50 AM PST up reply actions

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for winning now.

I adamantly believe this season was mostly due to injury and in retrospect it was good thing because it highlighted our weaknesses, mainly Brian Russell, WR, and depth along the o-line, that we might not have addressed had we had another winning season.

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

by Fearless Frog on Feb 26, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions

Im just saying, you guys sound defeated already.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Feb 26, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions

No, we sound like people who are actually attempting to understand the entire situation.

Which is that as likely as it is for us to contend for the division next season, it’s equally as likely that we could have a season similar to 2008 as well.

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

by Fearless Frog on Feb 26, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions

I'm torn on TJ

I agree with djafrot. I love TJ and would be excited to see him play, but then how would we get under the cap far enough to sign LeBron in 2010?

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 26, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions

I realize that was pretty contradictory to the post I just made

I’ve only heard little things here and there but it’s been persistent and it’s the only thing Hawk related that I’ve heard. Add in that I haven’t ruled out that John is actually Tim Ruskell and I may have made an intuitive leap.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2009 5:47 PM PST up reply actions

I warming to the idea of signing Curry

My two FA signing rules are…

1. Get talent

I’m less inclined to go get a guy to fill the “veteran savvy”™ role unless he’s really cheap. All things equal teams should develop “leadership” in house where it’s more credible. If you’re going to pay market rates for talent, get talent. Anything else you get is gravy.

2. Make sure talent outweighs the likely transition costs

Remove a player from one context and the performance will almost undoubtedly change. Teams, to their credit, have really improved their understanding of context.

This is why I’m torn about signing Housh. I love him as a player, but few would argue that he is a context-transcending talent. WRs almost inevitably lose some of what they bring to the table in the transition to a new QB, a new system, and other WRs on the field. For an established guy at his peak like Housh, I think a team will be super lucky to get career average per play production for even two seasons out of Housh—maybe not even one. Unless he comes super cheap, I have a tough time signing him to be a bridge player to the next legit run Seattle has in them.

If Seattle wants a veteran WR I’d be more interested in Curry (assuming the price is right). His familiarity with Knapp obviously removes one obstacle to a smooth transition immediately. We’re probably more likely to see something closer to career average production from him, but he could also pleasantly surprise with a change in context. (In fairness, he does have trouble staying healthy.)

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 26, 2009 8:29 AM PST reply actions