Know Your Tackles

by abender20 on Mar 19, 2009 8:34 AM PDT in Daily Links Comment 64 comments

It sure is slow on the NFL News front lately. Luckily, that gives us the chance to take some time introducing ourselves to the crop of offensive lineman. For instance, did you know that Duke Robinson is Smokey Robinson's great-nephew? You're intrigued now, right?

On Eugene Monroe:

Monroe battled Chris Long (now with the Rams) every day in practice. He competed alongside Brandon Albert (now with the Chiefs) for two seasons. He patterned his game on D'Brickashaw Ferguson, the Virginia tackle whose college career ended the year Monroe arrived. It's the kind of environment that galvanizes a young man into an NFL-ready left tackle, and Monroe is the most polished of the Big Four prospects.

Two of those three facts don't particularly mean all that much; I patterned my game after Ray Allen and KG still has not shown up to scream obscenities at me. Virginia has produced two fine offensive lineman recently, so at least we can trust the competition and the system.

Another fun fact, this time regarding Antoine Caldwell. Those of you who read the Mock Draft here yesterday will remember his name:

"He's one of the top character guys I have ever come across," Ian Rapoport said. "He's a team player, a dynamic individual." Neal McReady was also impressed. "He's a great leader with a great motor, the kind of guy you can build a team around."

He went on to add, "He's the kind of guy you want to curl up with on a cold wintry day when it's too frosty to ice skate.". Fine, I made the last quote up.

Give the rest of the article a good eye-lashing. You can never know too much about offensive linemen.

On an administrative note, there won't be Daily Links tomorrow, Tuesday, and potentially Monday as I'll be off in Chicago for an interview. Play nice.

0 recs | Comment 64 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

are you taking Antoine Caldwell to Chicago with you?

in case it gets really cold there and starts to snow

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 19, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Going back to Chicago?

That place sucks. I lived there for half a year in 2007, worst half year of my life. Well, one of the two worst half years anyways.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, and good luck with the interview.

Job or grad school?

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grad school.

Chicago is an awesome city to live in. As long as you aren’t put off by icy winters, it’s culturally diverse, has great waterfront, museums and whatnot, a lively downtown, and plenty of other fun neighborhoods (Wrigleyville especially). Also, useful public transpo.

by abender20 on Mar 19, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chicago is the only city I'd consider more awesome than Seattle.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buenos Aires hands down

Lived there on and off for the past couple years. If you have never been, tickets are around 450 dollars now. I would go in a heartbeat if I did not have apps for business school due. Grrr. Best city in the world.

by Built2Spill on Mar 19, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I LOVE New York

Manhattan, more specifically

by Nick Andron on Mar 19, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I lived in Wrigleyville.

Right near the Sheridan Red Line stop. It took me 25 minutes to get downtown unless I had to wait, so I ran to work and back every day (CBOE). Running on the waterfront can be extremely cold and windy sometimes.
Getting laid off probably made the experience less memorable, but that’s happening everywhere.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I worked at 120 S. LaSalle for a while, right near by. Cool area.

by abender20 on Mar 19, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This gives me hope.

When Paul Fanaika walked on at Arizona State, he weighed 370 pounds and was incapable of doing a single pushup.

I’ve been doing this P90X workout to get my little brother in shape, and at first I was embarrassed that he couldn’t do a single pullup, but then I learned that he couldn’t do a pushup either. He was only 212 though, not 3 freaking 70.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

P90X rules

by Nick Andron on Mar 19, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Any results?

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's Day 17, and so far I've only lost 2 pounds.

But I ate a crap ton of ice cream (pint of haagen daaz every day…), so…. we’ll see in a few months I guess. I was exercising about an hour or two every day anyways. Hopefully I’ll lose 10 or so pounds though, since I weigh a good 15 pounds more than my twin brother right now (150 to 135).

I’ve also been working more (can’t tell from the frequency of posts I have here at FG), and am studying a lot after work for an accounting test, so I’m not sure how strict I’ll stay with the plan.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, you're trying to lose weight.

But yeah, diet has a lot to do with it. Although 150 isn’t an unhealthy weight at all.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're trying to LOSE weight at 150?

I’m 145 and would give my left nut for five pounds of muscle. Mind you, I’m 5’11".

Can you do that program at home?

by djafrot on Mar 19, 2009 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, you can do it at home.

Just need some dumbells, situp mat, and pullup bar, a dvd player and tv, and enough space to do 4 lunges either way.
I’m only 5’8".

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm also 5'8'' 150.

And I’m trying to gain.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but I was a cross country runner in college.

And now I’m trying to run a marathon. No point in carrying any mass besides skin and bones, which is why I’m doing these workouts because I keep tearing my calf/soleus running.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

...O_O

That’s pretty hardcore.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

P90x is mostly for getting ripped.

It’s not really for people who are overweight…the exercises are pretty tough.

It's great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Mar 19, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand how one can get gain muscle mass with pull-ups and basic calisthenics exercises, which

seems to be what p90x is about.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

But I kind of thought that getting ripped would mean losing fat. I’m certainly not going to gain any muscle because I’m doing 15 + reps.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cue a flash-forward of you in 90 days

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be psyched for this

by LantermanC on Mar 20, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey guys

I’m representing the Seahawks in Mile High Reports Mock draft and I was wondering if you could give me your opinions on who the Hawks should draft.

I have been lurking on Field Gulls for a few days now and have read manya different opinions. So with that being said, Lets say your on the clock and have 1 minute left to decide on a pick.

Who do you pick, or do you trade down/up?

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Vince Lombardi

by Denver_Native on Mar 19, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That very much depends on who's is available and who's willing to trade.

by abender20 on Mar 19, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, and I know

Use your best judgement to determine who would be available. Would you try and trade up, or try and trade down?

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Vince Lombardi

by Denver_Native on Mar 19, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

trade down if at all possible...

(…but it won’t be.)

so we take stafford if he falls, or one of the top to stackles (j smith or monroe). if by some god-hates-the-seahawks fluke all three of those are taken 1-2-3, AND we cannot trade down we smile and draft aaron curry.

by cro-mag! on Mar 19, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been letting this slip for a bit too long.

This applies to everyone, please try and use it properly.

by BrianL on Mar 19, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I use Caps Lock.

Excuse my fail.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best option is to trade down, though that will almost never happen.

Eugene Monroe, Matt Stafford, Michael Crabtree, very low chance of perhaps drafting Curry.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i will bet you we don't draft crabtree

what kind of odds would you need? 2-1? 3-1?

i’ll bet on anything.

by cro-mag! on Mar 19, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think the odds have increased for us to draft him, believe it or not.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha, we know you want to, but why?

I’m actually pretty high on Crabs (it’s the new drug).

by djafrot on Mar 19, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

right. lets bet!

you tell me the odds you want.

by cro-mag! on Mar 19, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, if I were predicting odds,

I’d predict 35% Monroe
25% Stafford
15% Crabtree
10% Curry
18% Other (Jenkins, Sanchez, maybe even an Orakpo?)
2% trade down?

Does this sound right?

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm hoping the chances of trading down are better than that.

I can see us doing it for pretty cheap, even a 4th.

by djafrot on Mar 19, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would hope the chances were higher than that too.

But we have 1 trade in the past decade out of the top 5, so that’s 1/50 or 2%.

Reasons I put Orakpo in there is because even though we haven’t talked about him, let’s be honest, the two things that Ruskell likes to take early seem to be D-line and secondary.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That adds up to 105%....

by Nate Dogg on Mar 19, 2009 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh boy.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha, dammit, thats why you shouldn't make up a bunch of numbers

then change one at the last second. 13% other.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not a betting man.

Merely expressing what I think.

I just think that with the new zone-blocking scheme, Ruskell is clearly giving o-linemen less value at premium picks (and said obviously there was no Walt in this draft). In either case, the likely two highest rated tackles will almost certainly be gone by our pick. I’d say it’s likely we get a guard, though, or a tackle that can be one.

It would be ludicrous to draft Curry because that just brings up the same issues that we let go when we traded Peterson, though I expect Kansas City to take him. We’ve addressed DT so the little chance of us reaching for Raji has completely vanished.

Orakpo could happen, but I wouldn’t count on it, especially if these reports of Cory Redding sharing snaps at DE are true. We have Kerney, Tapp, Jackson, and Atkins to round out a solid DE rotation.

So I’d wager the pick boils down to Stafford or Crabtree, simply by going BPA. Either position would fit in to our offense and both would be long term solutions at their respective positions.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this.

It seemed like Curry was a possibility with the trading of Peterson, but I think Ruskell realizes that he is a good talent evaluator for the LB position, and that top money would be best spent elsewhere.
Monroe, Stafford, Crabtree, in that order.

by LantermanC on Mar 19, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you guys think an O-lineman would be worth the 4th pick

I just think there is alot of talent in the later rounds to look at.

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Vince Lombardi

by Denver_Native on Mar 19, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I must be missing something

why would you be itnerested in Stafford? What about Hasselback?

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Vince Lombardi

by Denver_Native on Mar 19, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hasselbeck is on the wrong side of 30 and has had a significant injury history.

Compound that with the fact that he’s a free agent in two seasons and it becomes a bit more apparent that QB is a position of need moving forward.

by BrianL on Mar 19, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good info, Thanks

"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

Vince Lombardi

by Denver_Native on Mar 19, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

sit him for a year or two,

and then when Hass isn’t getting it done any longer we have a transition plan in place.

by cro-mag! on Mar 19, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Housh

and others on our team are nearing the latter stages of their glory days, at least in terms of age. that and the fact he signed because of the influence of Hass.

QB is a need, but if Hass is our set starter, which he is, why don’t we use the rare opportunity of drafting in the top 5 to get an impact player, and still address our need for a developmental QB in later rounds?

Let's go.

by J Hens on Mar 20, 2009 4:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hasselbeck is still good but he has an increasing injury history, past 30, and now would be a great time to develop

a young QB prospect, obviously a good one.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess there are two groups on QB

My highly opinionated and often-changing-our-mind group, which includes at least ONE of us, does not want to take a QB at 4 no matter what. Even if the top 6 players are somehow drafted ahead of us. (Unlikely, I know…)

In my opinion, you should take Crabtree if possible; if not then J.Smith or Monroe (in that order), and if all of those are gone, then Curry. If Crabtree is gone, I would take a trade if it’s fair according to (just about) any trade value chart…

by Kryten on Mar 19, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

O-Lineman would definately be worth the 4th pick

but unfortunately for you, Seattle has to be one of the hardest teams to predict going into the Draft. Which is exactly what Ruskell wants. A case can be made for every single one of the top 6 or 7 overall draft picks. And a case can be made against them all too.

by Fear on Mar 19, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frog and Brian

Please explain this to me

As JM has noted, Houshmandzadeh made it clear one of the main reasons he was coming to Seattle was to play with Matt Hasselbeck. We invested 40 mil in a 32 year old receiver who is expecting to play with a franchise QB in 2 years.

How on earth do we as the Seahawks justify building for the future with our number 4 pick exclusively, when we have other pieces on our team that are here for the short term and who don’t have nearly as much time to sit and hope for a QB to develop.

I think there are players at the 4 position who can impact our team for the better immediately, and Stafford isn’t one of them, not saying he can’t be, or that QB isn’t a need, but I don’t see the point of investing millions in a player to sit, when we’ve already invested millions in a player who is hoping to be on a contender, and we have the opportunity to increase the odds with a player who can bring positives to this season as well as future seasons.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Mar 20, 2009 4:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

also

not choosing Stafford doesn’t mean we ignored the need for QB either.

It’s not like there aren’t questions about him anyways, completion percentage, not developing as quickly as some scouts would like in his college career, etc.

To me, we can still address our need for a developmental QB in this draft, but why do it at such a high cost when we have the chance to nab a player like a Monroe if he’s there, that can be plugged in at LG immediately, AND develop under Walt in the mean time. That isn’t the only option, but an example of help for now and later.

We can still draft a QB in the 3rd round and later.

I understand the pressing need for a young QB to develop, but wouldn’t it bother you knowing that alot of the pieces of our team are built for the now, and we would have passed up the opportunity to draft a top 5 talent that could have helped us THIS year as well as in the future?

I just don’t like the idea of going for Stafford guys, I’m not ignoring the fact Hass is aging and has an injury history, but Stafford isn’t going to fix that this year or next.

If for some reason Fearless Frog is right, and Monroe and J.Smith are gone at 4, and Stafford is available, if i’m in the FO I take phone calls for the pick. Someone will want Stafford, and if Seattle is in a position to negotiate him without being committed to him, there’s a chance we could trade down to the middle rounds and get another high pick.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Mar 20, 2009 4:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

The window for Hasselbeck might be closing faster than any of us would like. View his declining numbers and particularly his injury history in recent years. He might not make it through this season, realistically. So, can a late-round developmental QB blossom and be ready to play as soon as next year? The consideration is that we may very well have to prepare for such an event.

It’s not out of the question that Matt may be able to play a few more years, and with decent protection and weapons play at a very high level. We don’t know the true nature of Hass’s health to be sure. I think that’s why we are, as fans, preparing for life after Matt. Maybe it’s a year too early. This year’s draft position warrants a harder look at it. The team may think otherwise, but if Stafford makes it to 1.04, there has to be a good chance he becomes our quarterback of the (not-too-distant) future.

by Misfit74 on Mar 20, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is an obvious risk in not sealing that next QB

But at the same time, it all depends on your perspective on this year and the next. I personally believe with the players we have signed, we are in the position, with improved line play on both ends, to compete not only in our division but to win a game or two in the playoffs.

I have to believe that spotty OL play will be an extra variable that factors into Hasselbeck’s health. Obviously I can sit here and say, ‘’ so drafting an OT would then protect Hass, in turn allowing him to play longer ’’. That’s all what if scenario, surely, but we need better Offensive Line play regardless of it’s to protect him, or to allow him more time, either way, our Line wasn’t a strength last year, and I do believe that goes hand in hand with the success of a QB.

Not only that, we have to think about the situation when Stafford or whoever else does take the reigns from Matt, in terms of what offensive line will HE have to work with?

In 2 years time, Walter Jones will be even less effective, or even retired. So not only are we not building a solid foundation of protection for our QB of the future, we are risking starting him early, with spotty line play, which in the NFL is generally never successful.

If we draft a tackle, by the time Walter is gone, we will have solidified or attempted to solidify our line, which would only help grooming a young QB.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Mar 20, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Declining numbers?

Well, he did have one bad year. A year where he only played part of the season (none of the preseason) and while being chased by very large/fast athletes who wanted to hurt him, he’d look downfield to find fully covered 5th string receivers running some “route”.

Based on my sense that QBs do not tend to get worse in their 10th year (and usually play much longer at a steady level), I don’t think we need to look for a replacement based on one freak year.
I think next year we have a higher chance of finding a better QB to develop, whether it’s a highly rated QB who drops to us in the first, or taking one in a later round.

As I’ve made clear, I don’t want Stafford. Davis later on would be interesting, He sounds like a stronger armed, taller Seneca Wallace. Great for a backup, unsure about as the main guy… Maybe.

by Kryten on Mar 20, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Even if you don't think he's declining and can play well into his late thirties

that doesn’t change the fact that he’s oft-injured and is a free agent in two seasons. Even if it isn’t Matt’s skills that forces a change at QB, there are enough factors present to indicate that now is the time to start grooming a new franchise QB because in two years there’s a very, very good chance that someone else will have to man the position.

It doesn’t have to be Stafford, but the Seahawks should probably be trying to find a new QB this off-season.

by BrianL on Mar 20, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brohm would be my preference

especially if we really could get him more cheaply; but I’m becoming convinced that Stafford could be a great QB for us.

Actually, if I could wave my hand, my preference would be Cutler for Hasselbeck plus a pick or two, but I don’t know if that’s even plausible, let alone a real possibility.

by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 20, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Brady Quinn! <3

NFL Network’s Mike Lombardi is “hearing” that Brady Quinn might not be part of the Browns’ future plans.
“(Quinn’s) support has left the building,” said Lombardi. “We used to call it sponsorship at the Raiders.” By “sponsorship,” Lombardi is hinting that Quinn’s defenders are no longer there. Quinn hasn’t necessarily done anything wrong, but he could go on the trade block if Eric Mangini isn’t sold on him.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 20, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs