More on Teel

by abender20 on May 13, 2009 8:39 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

While some of the information in the latest Seattle Times piece on Mike Teel is nothing new, the article brings up a few interseting points.

Had I seen anyTeel interviews before the draft, it would have been clear how well Teel fit with what the Seahawks want in their players.

"I just tried to keep being myself," he said. "I pushed myself harder than anyone else pushed himself, and when the players saw me in the film room and getting with the coaches, doing extra work, when the older guys do that, it kind of rubs off on the younger guys. If you want to get better, you have to go out and get better. That's how basic it is."

Teel also felt the need to shoulder the responsibility for his team's failure early in the season, a move that shows the sort of leadership that the Hawks front office loves. At the very least, he looks well-grounded and bright.

Right now, Teel sits somewhere around 3rd on the depth chart. With Hasselbeck and Seneca Wallace locked in at 1 and 2, Teel and Jeff Rowe will have to battle for the third spot. He hasn't looked great so far in camp according to this dude, but it's early and I wouldn't put much stock in those opinions.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

This may be counterintuitive,

but wouldn’t the guy who spends all the extra time in weight room, practicing, and watching film kind of be a bit of a red flag as well? It goes both ways it seems; if a guy does all the things right and still wasn’t great, it seems a bit like he got the most out of his talent. If he did no extra work and was fairly ok, you’d think he would have some upside if he just worked harder. Of course if he doesn’t work hard in college, he probably won’t work much harder in the pros.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 13, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions

It the player in question works their tail off and gets nowhere, sure, that's probably a red flag.

If given a choice between two players of equal production, I’d rather have the player that proved a willingness to work at his craft. Natural ability is great, but a capacity and willingness to learn is extremely important. That will be the ultimate test of Vince Young. Wonderlic aside, he proved at Texas to be one of the more physically gifted players in recent memory (along with Reggie Bush). Neither has proven up to this point that they can grow.

by abender20 on May 13, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, but for every guy with a ton of potential that didn't make it,

there is another guy who did a lot of extra work and just didn’t have what it took physically to make it.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 13, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions

The key is having both.

With both, you get someone like Peyton Manning.

Or on a lesser level, Trent Dilfer in his prime. Didn’t have all the physical tools, but he had enough. And he was smart enough to know it and to know what he could do with those tools. He had enough of both to have moderate success in football.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions

"The key is having both."

Gee, you don’t say. Easier said than done.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 13, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions

You mock

and yet every year we are bombarded with news about how athletic a guy is and why they should be a top 10 pick. And yet a lot of them bust because we find out four years later that they don’t use their brain or are a terrible fit for the team that took them.

And then we hear about the cerebral guys who just don’t have the tools. Players rarely combine both skill sets.

People keep making the same mistakes year after year, falling in love with players because they are so damn athletic or so damn smart. Even if a player is only moderately good physically (relative to NFL players), if they have football knowledge and know how to adapt and how to play (like have good technique, or can figure out the tricks of the trade) they can succeed in the NFL. Even without mind boggling athleticism.

That’s what I meant.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Maybe it's because I despite workout warriors,

but I saw Vernon Davis busting from a mile away.

But while I know what you mean, it’s still incredibly hard to find a prospect that combines both traits, and the ones that for surely do possess them are usually taken within the top 10, if not top 5. IE: Aaron Curry.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 13, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Matt Hasselbeck wasn't great in college, either.

One of the reasons that he wasn’t great, was because of his supporting cast. It wasn’t until midpoint last year that his receivers stopped dropping the ball, otherwise, his numbers would have been much better.

Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.

by Carl Shinyama on May 13, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions

How good was Teel's o-line, anyone know?

Because it seems like Teel had a decent supporting cast. Ray Rice was good and Kenny Britt was 1st round pick worthy. Actually, I think a Rutgers tackle is projected to go in the first next year.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 13, 2009 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions

"Kenny Britt was 1st round pick worthy."

I disagree!

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

by Fearless Frog on May 13, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Teel, the next Brady/Hasselbeck?

From what I have read it seems that Teel has the most important aspect of becoming an NFL starting QB, strong mental & emotional makeup. There have been many rookie QB’s to enter the league with amazing physical skills, yet they bust! Why? I believe it’s because they lack that certain something that it’s difficult to analyze let alone describe. You could call it the IT FACTOR. It’s a mental and emotional and leadership thing that enables them to become succesful at the NFL level. I for one hope Teel shows the coaching staff he has IT. We could then concentrate our first round draft picks next year on other needs.

by walruz on May 13, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions

There are plenty of perfectly intelligent and emotionally mature people in the world with no ability to quarterback an NFL team.

While maturity and intelligence are probably requisite, there are a ton of other factors that matter as well. Sure, Teel could theoretically be the next Brady/Hasselbeck. It’s possible, but it’s beyond a long shot.

by abender20 on May 13, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Eh, I'd say Hasselbeck is a longshot

and Brady is beyond a long shot. The difference in level of play between those two is pretty large, no matter how much we love the Hass.

I can realistically see Teel turning into another Hasselbeck, although I think it’s pretty unlikely. Another Brady? Snowball’s chance in hell. And I hope he proves me wrong.

And you’re right. There’s lots of guys with the IT factor that will never play a down because they have no physical skills. Hell, Brian Russel has a lot of the intangibles, he just fails on a stupendous level.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions

I am not disagreeing

My comment was based on the assumption that Teel has the physical skills necessary. So did Ryan Leaf! I’m just saying that Teel looks to have those intangible mental aspects necessary to become successful. We will probably know in a few months.

by walruz on May 13, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

No post is complete without a Russel sighting!

by blackvanilla on May 13, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

What evidence do you have that Teel could never be Brady?

I’m not saying that he will, after all, the odds are against him. But it would be nice if you could tell us how you knew in advance the former BACKUP at Michigan would turn into one of the NFL’s top two quarterbacks.

Sorry, that was a little cheeky!

by djafrot on May 13, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions

That's two different questions.

No one knew in advance that Tom Brady would become Tom Brady. But under that same line of reasoning, how do we not know that Charlie Frye won’t become the next Tom Brady? He just needs a real chance! Same with Alex Smith and Tarvaris Jackson!

All we can go on is what he’s showed us so far, and he hasn’t showed us what Tom Brady became. I never said he won’t become Brady, I just think it’s an extreme long shot. He’s far more likely to become the next David Greene (a washout in a couple of years). I’m just talking about odds here.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions

The good thing is

he probably won’t be any worse than David Greene.

by m_b on May 13, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions

There's a major difference

between the seasons that Frye, Smith, and Jackson have had and the one minicamp that Teel’s had. Apples and oranges. I’m not expecting much out of Teel, either — put me in the camp of folks who expect them to draft a big-time QB prospect next season, with Teel maybe sticking around to provide depth when Seneca goes — but to say “All we can go on is what he’s showed us so far, and he hasn’t showed us what Tom Brady became” is more than a little ludicrous at this point.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 13, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

You're right.

I’m just pointing out the odds. I was thinking about putting in a point about how each of those guys have failed for completely different reasons, and I actually chose those ones specifically because they have all failed for different reasons. It was more to point out that a QB can fail in so many ways, don’t expect too much until they show us something.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions

I think, in general, it's a good idea to take a late round flier on a QB every draft.

Hey, there’s a low chance they can pan out to something decent like a good backup or even a serviceable starter for your team, and even if you’re set you can trade them to other QB hungry teams. Whoever ran GB during that time period drafting Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell, and that other QB and flipped them to other teams for draft picks.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 13, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I tend to agree.

If you play the odds, eventually you should get a NFL worthy QB or two doing that. And you can flip them higher picks or keep one and be set at the position for a while. But then again, I also have a very low opinion of 5th and later round picks and don’t consider them worth much.

But you also can’t really do that if you need a QB now. You get forced to choose the high QB because that’s the one most likely to succeed, just because if you skip the high QB you leave your team screwed (I.E. the Vikings). It’s a crappy position to be in, and we might find ourselves in it next year.

by Fear on May 13, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other.

We can’t “do that”? Do what? I don’t think the team is relying on Teel, it was a flyer pick if anything.

Sure they want a future franchise QB. But there wasn’t one available outside of Sanchez where we picked, and clearly the team didn’t think he was worth it.

Teel could fill one of three needs. One, by some miracle, he could develop into a future starter. Two, he could be that developmental QB who sits at #3 and is your last-chance backup/practice squad guy. Three, he could end up being a future #2 when Wallace leaves this year (probably).

by djafrot on May 13, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I actually agree as well.

You figure you have a 10% shot with a late round pick, and the cost is really just the opportunity cost of not drafting another player because who cares about 300k per year.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 13, 2009 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork.

More recently, Randy Moss and Wes Welker.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 13, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed, I don't think Frye's problem is his emotional response to

throwing an interception or getting sacked, but his below average footwork, his inability to make quick decision while being chased by large fast men, his inability to make a consistently good throw, and his inability to know where his second and third options are on the field when his first is being covered. Not that there is any shame in this at all, since he is obviously better than 99.9999% of the world at this.

McCoy McCoy 2010, also acceptable, Russell Okung, Ndamukong Suh, Dez Bryant, Ciron Black, Eric Berry, and Bryan Bulaga.

by LantermanC on May 13, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

It just blows my mind

that I can cringe so intensely when I see Frye and his ineptitude step onto the field for another ill-guided throw worth $1,755,160, yet if we all played a pick up game with him at QB we would be dominated.

He sounds like a prime UFL/CFL candidate.

by PRIDEin253 on May 13, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions

CFL guys need good pocket presence...

…there’s a lot of constant pressure.

by djafrot on May 13, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions

just how different are CFL offenses?

I’m curious, because I haven’t had the opportunity to watch many games. But with the common belief that “game experience” helps mold a QB, it seems like the CFL would be a good training ground and pipeline for serviceable NFL QBs – yet few seem to make the transition. And it looks like the trend goes both ways – there are very few guys who can’t cut the NFL and then go to Canada instead.

The CFL has produced Moon, Flutie and Garcia. And those are guys who (in their younger days) were very mobile and strong-armed. And I can think of a few American college QB’s – guys like Michael Bishop & Reggie Slack that came from option O’s and were able to make a go of it in the CFL.

Is the CFL sorta like the spread offense? i.e., more wide open and demands a quality athlete, but at the same time it’s less complex and doesn’t require the huge amounts of reads and decision making that starts to trip guys up in the NFL?

by jteckmann on May 13, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions

My opinion.

The CFL is definitely all about the spread offense. The field is 5 yards wider on each side and I think 10 in the endzone. Most teams use 5 OL, QB, a RB or two, and five to six WR’s. Add in three downs and you get a lot of passing.

Yes, the CFL brought us Moon, Flutie and Garcia, but I don’t think they succeeded because of what they learned in the CFL. I think, wierdly enough, that these guys were all demoted to “lesser” ranks by the time they got to the NFL and never really got a shot. Moon was black, Garcia and Flutie “mobile” qb’s with size issues. Moon and Garcia’s success in the CFL got them shots and the NFL and it worked out because they were good enough.

Many QB’s from U.S. college teams are successful up here because they are mobile and have a strong enough arm to make all the CFL throws. They learn the nuances of the game after a while. That said, there are many, many very good CFL QB’s over the years that aren’t particularly mobile… Anthony Calvillo, for one.

I’m sure there could be another developmental league for the NFL out there, but the CFL isn’t really good for it. It’s just there at the right time, for lack of a better option.

by djafrot on May 13, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions