Ruskell as Robin Hood, Karl Marx

by abender20 on Mar 16, 2009 8:57 AM PDT in Daily Links Comment 15 comments

Robin Hood famously (and likely fictitiously) stole from the rich in order to aid the poor. He and Marx both held the same underlying belief that the world was better off with everyone closer to the mean, drawing the outliers toward the middle. In trading Julian Peterson to the Lions, Tim Ruskell put on his feathered cap and went to work stealing from the linebacking corps to aid the proletariat defensive line.

You may think I'm off my rocker, but at least I didn't compare Peterson/Hill/Tatupu to Bell Biv DeVoe. Jerry Brewer of the Times did, but he also made some interesting points:

The Seahawks didn't make this move to save money or improve their overall talent level. They did it to redistribute their defense in a more even manner, hoping that better D-line play will stabilize the unit.

And they still have Tatupu and Hill around to ensure the linebackers remain one of this team's primary strengths.

Brewer even started to make the case that linebackers are somewhat fungible:

If the Seahawks had a top-10 defense, you could've made a case for them to keep Peterson, Tatupu and Hill together. But as the league's third-worst defense last season, it's an unnecessary luxury to pay top dollar for three linebackers, perhaps the most easily replaceable position in football, when the rest of the D needs a jolt.

Does it make sense play Robin Hood amongst a team's units? While I suspect the answer is "Yes", we at least have another question to ponder for 2009.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What I've been lamenting all along

We’re all going to miss Peterson; he was a fixture on the Seahawks. There’s no doubt about it.

But there’s no doubt about the fact that, assuming Redding actually performs at the level we all expect him to, our defense is now much more balanced and arguably more effective.

A strong(er) D-line is going to benefit a 4-3 defense more than a stronger LB core. Simple as that.

I applaud Ruskell’s willingness to make bold moves this off season. If the draft goes well, I think Ruskell will have redeemed himself in my eyes (at least mostly redeemed himself).

by Nick Andron on Mar 16, 2009 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This reminds me of something I said earlier.

Which is better, three elite linebackers or one elite d-lineman, one elite linebacker, and one elite defensive back?
At first I looked at this like defense in baseball, which is a mistake, because I don’t think there is much correlation between a SS’s defense and a CF’s defense. Perhaps a cutoff throw here and there? Though Dave Cameron wrote about Utley’s defensive postioning with regards to Howard as a defensive liability.

I think LBers perhaps is the least important of the three though. I’m pretty sure DL is the most important, because if we don’t have a good DL, then the opposing team will run a lot, or have a lot of time in the pocket, and one makes it tough on the LB, and the other makes it tough on the DBs.

by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 9:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's an interesting idea

but I think it’s different for every position. For CB’s, having one elite CB and one terrible CB isn’t that helpful, because the opposing team will just unload on the bad CB forever. A great LB can help cover his teammates mistakes, but I wonder how effective the results are the more great LB’s you get. That is, I suspect you might get diminishing returns on LB’s. You need at least one good one, two really helps, 3…I just have to wonder. Although I also view the LBers job as being to primarily help out the other positions (help the DL stop the run and get a pass rush, or help the secondary bat the ball). And then a D-Lineman, one great DLineman forces double/triple teams (and can still break them sometimes) but he makes all the other DLineman a lot better because of this.

So, having one great CB is good, but I think two above average/average CB’s might be more useful. One great LB helps a lot, and same with one DL. But I think you get diminishing returns on getting more great LBers, while DL I think the more great ones you have the better. So I would agree with you that DL is most important. Now if I just had numbers to back my impressions up…

by Fear on Mar 16, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was just assuming that all the other positions were average.

It’s kind of subjective though obviously. The Steelers had one of the best defenses last year. One could argue that Polamalu, Harrison, Hampton were all elite, but then it depends on how much above average guys like Farrior, Woodley, McFadden, etc. were?

I guess instead of picking a actual team, which would be better, a team with say, young Ray Lewis, Haynesworth, and Polamalu? Or a team with young Ray Lewis, Peterson, and Derrick Brooks (when he was younger), assuming everyone else is a Rocky Bernard, Marquand Manuel-type talent?

by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then I would say Lewis, Haynesworth, and Polamalu.

I just think that allows your stars to shine. Lewis, Peterson, and Brooks would only have so many things they need to do as LBers. I don’t think having those 3 LBers would give you as much total benefit. Look at it this way, you want your best player doing whatever you need done the most. A great corner covers your opponents best WR, a great DL occupies half the other team’s line. But 3 LBers? One goes for the sack, one covers a dangerous slot reciver/TE. What’s the other one do? Most likely, a lot of the time he’s being used to occupy a blocker or covering someone that doesn’t require his caliber of player to cover. I just think it’s overkill. But if you split the talent between the three positions, all the star players are allowed to shine.

by Fear on Mar 16, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rob from Peter to pay Paul.

And I agree. Balancing the talent more toward the D-line is not something I’m going to complain about. I watched a bit of Redding last night on NFLN (GB vs. Det.) and Redding showed some destruction. Very quick off the ball and ripping into the backfield. I only watched a short bit, but I look forward to John’s (surely forthcoming) ‘The Tape’ segments on Redding. I’d have to think he did something to make a team, even the Lions, want to pay him as a top DT in football. I saw glimpses last night and am excited about him. We could really have something special in the middle.

Some of the greatest linebacking corps in history didn’t stay together and teams still had success defensively following key LB departures. Teams like Dallas and Baltimore consistently let quality linebackers go and they ended up proving replaceable. Dallas: Darrin Smith, Ken Norton, etc., in the 90’s. Baltimore: Peter Boulware, Jamie Sharper, and Adalius Thomas this past decade. Losing a key piece when we have two others in the same unit softens the blow and I think Leroy’s going to be very fun to watch.

The cap figure for JP is being downplayed (Farnesworth), but Peterson has a HUGE cap figure over the next few seasons, particularly in 2010, I believe. He would have been forced to restrucure or cut next season at the pending cap number, in all likelihood. The pick is a bonus. I’m leaning toward Redding being quite the piece to our defensive puzzle.

by Misfit74 on Mar 16, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't give Matt Millen the benefit of the doubt that he justly payed Redding.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently when he was signed

there was a mini-uproar because it made him the highest paid DT in the NFL at the time. And while everyone thought he was good, no one thought he was THAT good. There’s the Millen mistake that you knew was lurking.

by Fear on Mar 16, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True, but

my point was the Redding is far from a scrub, and although that big of a contract may not be totally justified (Det FO factor), he showed something special to warrant such a financial commitment, regardless of who ultimately gave it to him, I believe. I’m not trying to justify Millen’s moves, just point out that I think Redding is a fine addition to our team.

by Misfit74 on Mar 16, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And by the way, no need to pile on.

My statement of his contract means he must be good is retarded, if I do say so myself. Regardless, I think he’s good, but have a long way to go before I actually ‘know’ that. One look at Javon Walker’s contract, maybe Tommie Kelly’s, etc. and case made. I really should drink more coffee before spewing my thoughts like that…

by Misfit74 on Mar 16, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay, just making sure.

Because another example of a ridiculously overpaid person that Millen liked is their starting LT Jeff Backus, who gave up nearly 10 sacks or something last season.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Team Play

I think ‘robbing the rich to help the poor’, in this case, is as smart as it gets given the disparity of the LB and DL. One issue I have with the entire discussion the past few days is the black and whiteness of the issue – its not just LB vs. DL. Yeah, losing Peterson sucks, but if Redding’s network effect on the DL makes the line better (as OL’s focus more on him), then the linebackers play better as a unit, improving both. The other effect is that of the 5th round pick – I think its being neglected. Getting another young player to rotate in is important. Not earthshakingly so, but 5th round picks don’t tend to be earthshaking anyway.

To cherry-pick a statistic: The Seahawks D was 8 for 13 on 4th down plays last year – as in they gave up 8 first downs in 13 tries – a 62 percent fail rate. Thats pretty high, and for situations that tend to be very short yardage – cut that down, and suddenly the D is not on the field for over 1,000 plays.

by Jerikantilles on Mar 16, 2009 11:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting stat

How many were passes and how many were rushes?

by Nick Andron on Mar 16, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't one of those a trick special teams play against Buffalo?

That sample size is extremely small. It’d be hard to judge a pitcher’s command on just 13 pitches, a QB’s accuracy on 13 throws.

by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Balance is good, usually.

Balance is good for the most part. But if a team is going to make one position extra strong in order to create a mismatch, I think DE is the place to do it. LB, how much does having a mismatch in that position create an impact compared to some other positions?

by germpod on Mar 16, 2009 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs