Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Clippers Need To Realize That Spurs Are The Anti-Grizzlies

Why Brian Robiskie Makes Sense

First of all, I wanted to take this opportunity to send a few kudos Mr. Morgan's way for the Stafford scouting report. It echoed many of my own concerns and illustrated a few new ones. Bravo, good sir.

Second, I recently interviewed Ohio State's Brian Robiskie for the Washington Post, and came away as impressed as I expected to be. A coach's son, he's the progeny of former Raiders and Dolphins running back Terry, who's been coaching in the NFL since 1982. And like his dad, Robiskie is a cerebral football guy who loves the game. That's what happens when you grow up with first-person role models like Tim Brown and Marcus Allen.

Robiskie is projected as a second-round pick (NFLDraftScout.com currently projects him 37th overall, right in that wheelhouse), and while the Housh signing would seem to eliminate the receiver position as a need at that point, it will be interesting to see what happens if he's there and the BPA.

I think there has always been a bias against receivers who are smart, and run routes correctly, when it comes to pure on-field quickness. I think that Robiskie is painted with a ceiling that's lower than he may actually have. One quote in particular stood out from my interview with him:

Star-divide

Specifically, the Buckeyes would outdo opposing defenses with a double-post. "It's a two-receiver set, lining up the two receivers together. I'm normally the outside guy, and we have a slot receiver. He would normally take off and try to contain the inside shoulder of the safety, and that would leave me one-on-one with the corner. Like I said, if it's off coverage or press coverage, I can do whatever I need to do. If its press, if I can beat him outside with a fade, then I'll take that. If it's soft, then I can run him out with a nine route or post route, then I'll run that. I think that we ran a lot of those last year, and we ran some this year, and I think we were successful on a lot of them."

Put simply, if you've got a guy with the real speed to get separation on a mid-distance post route, or a 15-yard stick throw, providing more freedom for the slot guy running routes underneath (like, oh, I don't know, the guy who just signed a $40 million contract), you're going a long way toward eliminating some of the reasons for Seattle's anemic offense last year. There is no receiver in this draft who understands routes and responsibilities better than this kid -- he may already understand that part of the game better than some of the guys he'll be suiting up with at the next level.

On the surface, receiver isn't a need. But what if the Seahawks don't have the Branch/Housh/Burleson combo at its best from start to finish? What if Branch spends half the year recovering from various paper cuts, Burleson continues to combine dynamic downfield plays with nebulous route-running, and Housh gets overwhelmed as the #1 receiver he really isn't?

Few GMs understand the value of the ready-made player than Tim Ruskell (one could say that he overvalues the trait if one is so inclined), and few players in this draft are more ready-made than Robiskie. It seems like a strange second-round pick for a team that just signed a receiver to a big contract and expects to run more this season, but looking beyond the surface brings up some holes I think Robiskie could fill better than most.

(Plus, he actually likes to block. Not a bad thing for a run-balanced offense, and something that Housh also does very well...)

Comment 47 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

A 2nd round pick might be a bit much

for a guy who would conceivably be our 4th or 5th guy behind Housh, TJ, Burleson, and Koren.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 31, 2009 7:46 AM PDT reply actions  

Koren is not on our team

And most likely won’t be. He did admirably in his role of life support but I do not seem him getting signed by us.

by Built2Spill on Mar 31, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

You don't make a draft pick based on one year of contributions

I can site examples, but just think about the role a Robiskie would play in a year or two. Sure, first year he’d be pretty deep on the depth chart likely, but in 2010 there is a chance that both Branch and Burleson be gone. I think the best draft choices are made when there is already depth at a position. Truly best player available.

by Section 128 on Mar 31, 2009 8:12 AM PDT reply actions  

I think you meant Branch and Housh, and

I still don’t see how he’s BPA at that point. Especially considering the o-line and safety talent sure to be there.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

If Seattle has him anywhere near the 37th best player in the draft...

I don’t think there is any way the Hawks would draft him. By the time the 2nd half of the first round is done, there will be a lot of guys in Ruskell’s “first rounders” that slipped through. I will bet a dollar that Ruskell says that the guy he picks int he 2nd round was something like the 25th on his board. For all I know, Robiskie could be that guy… but there is no way that the Hawk’s will get the 36th guy on their list with the 36th pick.

by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 31, 2009 8:19 AM PDT reply actions  

Robiskie is a Football player...

his football IQ is rare at WR. I just question if he would want to play in Seattle. Ruskell and Mora might not be the most popular people in Atlanta, which is were his (Robiskie) father coaches.

Just a side note, Desire to play in Seattle is my #1 deciding factor on wether or not to draft someone.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 31, 2009 8:21 AM PDT reply actions  

If I must. It is an easy to understand philosophy.

If someone is happy to be at there job, they will be a lot more productive.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 31, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

What if a player is indifferent?

Like I know personally I’d love to play for the Seahawks if I were a pro player. But if I grew up in Wyoming or something, not really rooting for a pro team, and I’d be willing to move my family wherever, my three concerns would be money, playing time, and coaching. I agree, if a player loves playing for a certain team the risk of them slacking off or holding out is low, but it seems hard to expect loyalty when a guy like Derrick Brooks was just cut from Tampa.

by LantermanC on Mar 31, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

true.

I think you just have to be enthused about were the team is heading i.e. coaching staff, free agent moves, stuff like that. Having knowledge of the history of the team is almost as important.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Apr 1, 2009 5:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

"Desire to play in Seattle is my #1 deciding factor on wether or not to draft someone."
  1. deciding factor? dude, you have no idea how much I want to play for the hawks. definitely more than anybody in this draft class! draft me!

by cro-mag! on Mar 31, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I love Robiskie as a 2nd round pick

but as many mocks as I’ve done (Drafttek is good for this) I just can’t rathionalize taking him with #37 when there will possibly be other options where we have greater need, such as Unger, McCoy, Brown, English, Delmas, Sean Smith, to name a few. If we are lucky enough to trade down and grab another 2nd or 3rd round pick, then maybe. It pains me to say it, because I really like Robiskie and think he could thrive here long-term. This year will be pivotal for Branch. If he doesn’t stay healthy and have his best year, he’ll be gone by years end. While Nicks would be a better choice as a long-term replacement for Branch, there’s no way he drops out of the 1st round.

by diehard82 on Mar 31, 2009 9:12 AM PDT reply actions  

I've really come around on Robiskie

Him and Robinson are the two guys I really want with our second pick.

As much as Robiskie seems like a Ruskell guy he also seems to be right in Polians wheelhouse. With the Colts and a couple other teams right at the bottom of the first round having reciever needs I don’t think Robiskie gets to the Hawks.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 31, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions  

Robiskie in the first round?

Meh, it could happen, but I’d only see the Colts picking him.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Giants?

 I could be talking out the back door as it were, but the Giants new two or three things (WR,LB,RB) if I’m not mistaken. Considering they have an extra second round pick I would think that opens trade possiblities. They also are one of the biggest names in the most marketable divisions in the league. If Crabtree or Curry are there at four couldn’t they be an option? If not wouldn’t Robiskie fit the system and the Plaxico mold?

by hawkfanjp on Mar 31, 2009 1:10 PM PDT reply actions  

If we can reason taking Robiskie with a #2, we can reason taking Crabtree too.

They key being what the team thinks of Burly and Branch’s futures with the team.

by djafrot on Mar 31, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions  

OK but...

… Robiskie in the second would be alot less expensive, he’s bigger, I believe faster, and from the comments I’ve seen around “seems” to have a more mature approach (or at least interviews better).

Plus if they could get Robiskie and another pick for trading back that just makes it all the better right?

by hawkfanjp on Mar 31, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Crabtree and Robiskie

I don’t see Crabtree as viable in 1st because of who the Seahawks would leave on the board to get him … namely Curry, Monroe or Smith. I see Robiskie as possible 2nd rounder especially if Chueng is gone.

by MoonHawk on Mar 31, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions  

You can argue that Crabtree is better than all those talents.

But Robiskie would be underwhelming with talent like Duke Robinson, Alex Mack, Patrick Chung, or Max Unger are gone. In addition, you have other talents like Larry English who might be around there.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

and by "are gone" I meant are still on the board.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Robiskie

is like the John Carlson of WR prospects

tall, hands, routes, smarts, mature, big program, better jr season than sr season due to qb play, underrated speed and athletic ability

Carlson flew under the radar of supposed “better athletes” like Keller, Davis, Bennett and Finley and then put together the best rookie season by a TE since Jeremy Shockey.

Robiskie is flying under the radar of supposed “better athletes” like Harvin, DHB, Nicks and Britt.

by puerto on Mar 31, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions  

These kinds of comparisons are usually pretty empty

but the Carlson-Robiskie one seems awfully accurate.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 31, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

True, but

within the context of our team it’s not the same. Carlson was not only the beneficiary of a decimated WR corps, he was also a huge upgrade over the empty space otherwise occupying the starting TE roster spot. Robiskie wouldn’t be a sole quality rookie WR where the cupboard is empty going into next season. I agree the type of perception about Robiskie and Carlson. Robiskie would not, and wouldn’t be expected to, contribute or deliver the way Carlson was and did. Robiskie would be one piece of several in the WR puzzle. Carlson was the only piece of the TE puzzle.

by Misfit74 on Mar 31, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe, maybe not.....

 assuming defenses will key Housh and Carlson alot because of the threat they pose across the middle. That will hold the safetys in tight and open up the edges to one on one matchups, right ? So deeper routes will be more open with less help over top. Now, concidering that Branch will be hurt in say week 2 and Burleson isn’t the most precise route runner. Robiskie could very well be a preferred open target thereby leading to stats seen last year by Carlson. Am I onto something or just wearing rosy shades?

by hawkfanjp on Mar 31, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think wide receiver is much more tools intensive

and tools freaks with not a lick of any kind of smarts like Moss, Ochocinco, Owens and Harrison are much more common. Wide receiver is definitely one position where I wouldn’t put too much stake into how a player interviews. He can either run routes and get separation or he can’t, and he doesn’t have to explain it to me.

I do think Robiskie is a solid prospect, and a team looking for a read-made wide receiver to contribute out of the gates will be pleased, but I understand concerns about his upside. It’s hard to see him as more than a good, possession style receiver.

by John Morgan on Mar 31, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I should add

I think Robiskie has rare downside and I think it makes a ton of sense for Seattle to draft him. The team still lacks depth at wide receiver, and having someone who could fill in for a game or a few games could really protect this offense.

by John Morgan on Mar 31, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

in round two, I'd hope we get a guy that does more than "fill in".

after all, we could have Koren back if we want him, and it wouldn’t cost us a starting safety, guard or running back we could get in round 2.

by djafrot on Apr 1, 2009 2:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Robiskie sounds great, but...can't we draft a big dumb guy?

I’m not knocking the Tim Ruskell philosophy of acquiring smart, football-literate players, but sometimes it’d be nice to have a few guys that can overpower the opposing team, even if it means that they’re dicks off the field. I’m not saying Ruskell should draft someone like Mongo or Andre Smith, but I’m willing to overlook a low Wonderlic score if the guy kicks ass on the field, from time to time.I’m not knocking the system, just that, you know, this system did produce Brian Russell, that’s all.

Yeah, yeah, I also remember a big dumb guy the Seahawks drafted not too long ago, named Jerramy Stevens. Maybe I should just leave well enough alone.

by J.L. White on Mar 31, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions  

Yea kinda passive-aggressive.

Ruskell plays it safe.

Cogito Ergo Sum

by censor1979 on Mar 31, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Robiskie is 6'3, 205lb

Whats wrong with understanding the game?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 31, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mongo would rock!

Only if we had a black deputy sheriff… oh wait, hey its Seneca. Matt has some Gene Wilder. Hmm I think I am bored and on to something here…

by Built2Spill on Mar 31, 2009 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

You mean like Brandon Mebane?

His wonderlic scores were horrible and Ruskell drafted him.

Weez the juice!!

by Carl Shinyama on Mar 31, 2009 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, Exactly!

I was not aware he was dumb, but now I’m a little happy to hear that he is. And look how well that turned out! Something to think about.

by J.L. White on Apr 1, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wonder what

Robiskie would have put up numbers wise in Texas Tech’s system.

He’s a legit 6’3, over 200 lbs, has sub 4.5 speed, runs great routes, and is smart.

Gosh, I like him better than Crabtree.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Mar 31, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Same. I know it's blasphemy,

but if you showed me some tape and gave me their combine times and said one played in an inflated yardage system and one played with a QB who couldn’t throw, and didn’t tell me what everyone else though, I think I’d go with Robiskie I have an irrational love for him already. Damn JM for making me like all these players before they’re even Seahawks. I feel like I’m just setting myself up for disappointment when Duke is a Steeler, Robiskie is a Patriot, and Chung is a Cowboy.

by LantermanC on Mar 31, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh my God.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 31, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

"I DECLARE... BANKRUPTCY"

“I just wanted you to know, that you can’t just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen.”

“I didn’t say it, I declared it.”

by LantermanC on Mar 31, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL!

I was just watching this and the SECOND he goes “NO” for the first time the guy (the Dream) in the mp3 I was listening to went “NOOO”.

by djafrot on Apr 1, 2009 2:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

Damn

that was funny! Much thanks!

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Mar 31, 2009 6:39 PM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
A Fan's Reflection: Things I've Learned from a Casual 12th
Small
Seahawks Sacks: Statistical Analysis

Recent FanPosts

Marty_small
You should want Flynn to be our starter this year
Small
Fountain of Eternal Youth: Predicting the Week 1 Seahawks Roster
Horsey_small
Why Russell Wilson will be the starting QB for the Seattle Seahawks
Small
Golden Tate not at (voluntary) practice, big deal or not?
Small
Is it just me or does Mike Williams look fat?
Small
2012 Seahawks Draft Hopes vs. Expectations
Hawkface_small
Seahawk Greatness
Horsey_small
The Young Seahawks

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies