The Tape: Colin Cole Makes Me Want to get Hammered, Part 3

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 2:03 PM PST in Analysis Comment 48 comments

Colin Cole saw nine snaps in the second half. It was more of the same. Cole was competent against single blocks and completely overmatched against double blocks. On this play

1-10-GB 48 (9:58) 33-M.Turner right tackle to GB 39 for 9 yards (74-A.Kampman, 79-R.Pickett).

Cole was pushed three yards off the line.

And that's a conservative estimate.

3329447494_ddba6d4c4c_o_medium

Cole is competent against single blocks, but he is by no means effective. Cole may tussle with the blocker, get under his pads, contort him right and left and eventually shed the blocker, but he has no follow up. He's far too slow to rush the passer (and getting slower). He'll rarely shed fast enough to redirect a run. And he doesn't make a ton of productive tackles himself. Of his 126 career tackles, just ten are for a loss. Brandon Mebane has nine in 68 tackles. Rocky Bernard has 44 in 281.

Cole wasn't signed to dance with single blockers. He was signed to stand up to the double team and keep blockers out of the second level. I see no evidence that he will. The best Seattle can hope for is that Mebane becomes such a beast at the three that teams must regularly double him. In this scenario, Mebane keeps Cole looking good, Cole shows something facing single blocks he's never shown facing double blocks, Tim Ruskell looks smart and Cole looks the late bloomer. It's possible.

I have serious doubts. Mebane made a great one tech. For him to be a great three tech, he's going to need someone to keep blockers off him. Because if he's regularly doubled at three, and that's a rare phenomenon, even then talent is squandered. A beastly Mebane deserves a partner that can keep the heat off him. A Pat Williams to his Kevin Williams. I see no reason to think that's Cole, and I see no reason to think this signing was anything but a mistake. Teams will run at Cole and Mebane can't stop that. Making Cole either liability or handicap. Without seeing him take a single snap in Blue, I'd accept dead money to shed this dead weight.

0 recs | Comment 48 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Guess that means...

Morgan wants BJ Raji

I Bleed Blue and Green

by DSAhawker on Mar 4, 2009 2:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I want a do over on that signing

and maybe Ziggy Hood.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 2:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We can still get Hood though right?

I mean we only have 3 tackles: Mebane, Cole, Terrill.

by LantermanC on Mar 4, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well there's red bryant

he might be our only decent option opposite mebane, but I dont know enough to predict how well he will do.

by d.alexander on Mar 4, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Red "Foxx" Bryant too

That makes four and the chances of drafting one slim, I would think. Unless we cut someone-Terril or Green, I’m looking at you- it looks like we will be stuck with this DT rotation for the rest of the year

"I call the big one Bitey."-Homer J. Simpson

by Willie Mays Haze on Mar 4, 2009 2:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Green is a Free Agent

by Built2Spill on Mar 4, 2009 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Was this just a bad game?

Or is this really the train wreck we signed?

by Wilder. on Mar 4, 2009 2:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Good question.

A one-game sample size against a good O-line isn’t enough to write this guy off. That screen grab is not encouraging, though.

by sev79 on Mar 4, 2009 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably not one bad game.

It fits his career profile. His stop rate has been bad his entire career. He’s a career backup. Atlanta’s line really isn’t that dominant. he wasn’t injured. The opposing center was. I think Tim Ruskell overvalued football intelligence, team leadership and character just as he did when he signed Brian Russell.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

John, given your low opinion of Ruskell's ability to evaluate DT talent...

…you may want to reconsider your stance that he really won’t reach for BJ Raji.

by sev79 on Mar 4, 2009 2:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Given Ruskell's emphasis on character and academics

and several years of production, I’d say Raji is out of the picture.

by LantermanC on Mar 4, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think John has a low opinion on Ruskell's ability to evaluate DT's

This is really the 1st bad move he’s made at that position.

by MFAN on Mar 4, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ruskell identified Mebane and Bryant,

one of which is an absolute steal and a moster and the other who very well could be.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 4, 2009 8:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

bummer, this is the one free agent seattle really went after

now i wonder why. is it possible he just had a bad game? doesn’t really make sense though, he wasn’t a starter, comes in with fresh legs, i don’t believe he was injured. there must be something the coaches saw in him, but what? too confusing, because seattle really went after this guy.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 4, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The one free agent Seattle really went after?

They didn’t really go after Houshmandzadeh? He was in town the day after the free agency period began. Mora kept the dude’s diamond-studded watch as collateral for chrissakes.

by lemonverbena on Mar 4, 2009 2:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well if you watched the whole TJ interview

i’m paraphrasing here because i don’t have a transcript, Cole was the guy they really went after and expected to get. TJ they did go after, obviously, but realistically they didn’t expect to sign him

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 4, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to ask about 'Bane commanding double teams at the 3-tech in the other thread

But you answered it here. And basically echoed my unwritten thoughts that the 3-tech, unless monstrously dominant, rarely commands a double team. And that the one tech’s job is to be beastly and hold down two blockers to free up the 3 tech. So i guess my question is this, Is there any chance that ’Bane remains at the 1 breaking defenders backs and that they have cole at the 3? Or is cole too slow to ever hope to be a good 3 tech?

"I call the big one Bitey."-Homer J. Simpson

by Willie Mays Haze on Mar 4, 2009 2:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Mebane could stick at one

But I don’t foresee it. Cole doesn’t make sense at three unless the team is willing to forfeit interior pass rush.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yup, according the Ruskell in the TJ interview

Cole will play the 1-tech and Mebane will play the 3-tech

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 4, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Can Bryant play 3-tech?

by Ezzra on Mar 5, 2009 1:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's kind of what I figured

I was just hoping that there was some way to make some lemonade out of this terrible lemon of a trade. It’s frustrating too because a lot of casual fans I talk to are enamored with his size and say things like “Well the midget D-Line wasn’t doing anything for us.”. This is incredibly frustrating because a) size =/= being stout against the run and 2) our D-Line wasn’t small last year, we are not the Colts (yes I know I used a letter and a number in my points, it’s a little shout out to Peter King)

"I call the big one Bitey."-Homer J. Simpson

by Willie Mays Haze on Mar 4, 2009 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Once again

and this isn’t an “appeal to authority” because I’m not saying you’re wrong, the evidence is pretty clear that Cole (as of so far) isn’t the answer…

…WHY did we sign him? I don’t get it.

by djafrot on Mar 4, 2009 2:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Mora was very impressed when Cole said he'd become part of the community.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It can't just boil down to that.

Granted, Rocky had been suspended for domestic violence so he didn’t fit the Seahawk way. But they watched the same tape you’re breaking down. They must have built a scouting report that rose beyond what we’re seeing… right?

by lemonverbena on Mar 4, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, seriously.

by djafrot on Mar 4, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the depressing part to me

Is that this is is supposedly a staff that relies on collaboration. So it’s not just Ruskell and his interviewing fetish. It means that Ruskell, Webster, Will Lewis, Mora, Bradley and Quinn all looked at tape of the guy and not one of them noticed or was forceful enough to say, “he can’t hold vs. doubles”

I take it you’re not bullish on Mebane at the 1 … but could this be a case where the staff really is convinced of that and they think that just a cost-effective rotation of 3-techs next to him is enough (kind like how Sapp spent his career playing next to the likes of Brad Culpepper)?

by jteckmann on Mar 4, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

what i keep hearing about Cole

is he’s a high energy guy, plays with a lot of enthusiasm. which sure, if fun to have on your team, but if they’re loosing the battle regardless all the time, big whoop.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 4, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Spectacular enthusiastic failure is marginally more interesting than hopeless pathetic failure.

by abender20 on Mar 4, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe they thought all this time

they’d been scouting Cullen Jenkins, not Colin Cole. They mixed up the names. Whoops.

I wonder if it has something to do with Dan Quinn. Like he sees a replacement player with potential that can flourish immediately, if coached correctly.

by jacobstevens on Mar 4, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And this is why I'm scouting only one game

Maybe Seattle’s coaching staff does do something with him to fundamentally change his play. Simply getting off the line faster would do wonders. I think it’s arrogant to sign a failed player for more than the market demands because you think you can turn him into something he’s never been, but final judgment on this deal comes after Cole is “coached up”. Probability wise, it’s a damn stupid move.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just went through my Pro Football Prospectus

books from FO, 2006 through 2008, just to pile on more data against Cole. In 2008 he wasn’t listed, he had a limited 2007 season, but in the prior two he was ranked in the 50s & 60s among all defensive tackles, for run defense stats (stop % and avg. yardage allowed per stop).

He ranked about the same as all the Packer linemen, for total number of stops (stopping one play), in proportion to the number of snaps he took, but he was woefully, disproportionally lean for defeats (stops that effectively end a drive).

For perspective, on average Craig Terrill was a couple ticks better all around.

by jacobstevens on Mar 4, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The sad thing about this is that it's much harder to gif failure on the line of scrimmage than it is to capture it in the secondary.

by BrianL on Mar 4, 2009 3:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe they saw something else

Maybe the brain trust, being defensive minded people, saw something in the way he played that made them believe they could get more out of him than Green Bay was.

by germpod on Mar 4, 2009 3:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm wondering that too

but it seems pretty arrogant. GB had run defense problems last year, but they’ve been coached decently well for a while.

by jacobstevens on Mar 4, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I view the Cole signing as a short-term stop-gap only

Only $5M guaranteed money. I’d read into it that they didn’t want to re-sign Bernard for some reason, didn’t want to go into 2009 with only Mebane, Bryant, Terril and a rookie (Ziggy?), but also didn’t want to make a long-term commitment to Cole. I’d be shocked if we didn’t draft another DT of the future to combine with Mebane and Bryant in 2010 and beyond. I think Green and Terril’s days are numbered. Due to above discussed issues with Raji and the price-tag at #4, I don’t believe they’ll go that way. So if Ziggy is there at 37, I think he’s our guy, but they could try to duplicate the success of Mebane by looking in the 3rd round. Frankly, I’d love to have Robiskie or Unger at 37. If we can trade down in the 1st round and pick up another 2nd or 3rd round pick, it helps immensely.

by diehard82 on Mar 4, 2009 4:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Ziggy may not be available at 37

He is moving up draft boards. The DT class seems to be pretty thin, so we might be looking in the 4th round vs. 3rd round. 3-4 round options include Fili Moala-USC, Sen’Derrick Marks-Auburn, Alex Magee-Purdue and Dorrell Scott-Clemson. Magee is interesting in that he played DE his senior year. “Had Magee remained at defensive tackle as a senior instead of unselfishly moving to defensive end to give the Boilermakers help rushing the passer, he might be considered a first day lock. His versatility and strong performance at the Senior Bowl could land him there anyway.” – Rob Rang, NFLDraftScout.com

by diehard82 on Mar 4, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Marks makes a lot of sense in the third.

by John Morgan on Mar 4, 2009 4:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm all for it.

Though he may not last that long, I suspect. Heck, I don’t know. I just know I like him.

by Misfit74 on Mar 4, 2009 4:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm still holding out hope for a Ziggy & Chung combo in the 2nd & 3rd

I know it’s unlikely. But then again, Red Bryant was almost universally pegged as a 2nd round last year and lasted to the middle of the 4th. And Safeties always seem to be undervalued (especially one’s that don’t appear “toolsy” like Chung)

So I’m going to keep my optimism going, just so that I can have my soul crushed on draft day.

by jteckmann on Mar 4, 2009 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My head would explode

From the awesomeness of getting Chung/Hood with the 2nd and 3rd picks.

by kearly on Mar 4, 2009 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My mouth was agape the next morning when I found out we drafted Bryant.

I liked moving up for Carlson because there were rumors of the Saints flirting with him, but I wanted Bryant and was disappointed that we probably wouldn’t get him if he potentially fell because we no longer had a 3rd. And then that happened.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 4, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And to think the Titans got Haye for 4 years, 16million

by Nate Dogg on Mar 4, 2009 5:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's really depressing reading this write-up

but I LOL’d at the colorful thread title.

by kearly on Mar 4, 2009 6:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I perceive this deal

to be more about organizational depth. Bryant is supposed to win the job, and Cole will be splitting time situationally with Terrill. Plus we might draft somebody.

by michaelfox99 on Mar 5, 2009 3:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that you shouldn't give replacement level depth a huge contract.

by BrianL on Mar 5, 2009 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Tennessee got Jovan Haye for less!

by jacobstevens on Mar 5, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is another way of looking at it that I find encouraging.

I think most of us are excited about Bryant’s future. I hope for his health and development.

by Misfit74 on Mar 5, 2009 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Huge contract is a relative term

$5M signing bonus is actually a two year contract type of bonus, to a starter level player. If he sucks after two years, they cut him. By then we’ll know for sure on Bryant and will have another DT in the fold. Besides, Haye is a 3 technique, not a 1.

John, your analysis is thorough, and it is adament that Cole is not a good fit for this defense. I hope you are proven wrong. But I would like to know from the other side why they believe this is a good signing.

by Section 128 on Mar 5, 2009 9:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs