Sando Says Levi Jones a No Go

by John Morgan on May 7, 2009 3:20 PM PDT

Mike Sando says it isn't happening, so I'm putting this poorly researched boilerplate into the great void of deletion.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

A cheap signing to help avoid the Kyle Williams Potential?

Make this happen, Tim.

by BrianL on May 7, 2009 3:25 PM PDT reply actions

Apparently Levi Brown is not even visiting Seattle (according to ESPN NFC West Blog)

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcwest/0-9-43/Seahawks-like-their-offensive-tackles.html

by Bellevue on May 7, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions

That really is frustrating if true.

It really is a no-brainer signing if it happens. Walt can’t be counted on to stay healthy or even productive at this age. Locklear and Willis aren’t sure things as the starting tackles by any means. I don’t understand how Sando can say the Seahawks are comfortable with the tackle situation. All Ruskell said was that the eventual plan was for Locklear to become left tackle and Willis to become right tackle. Who’s the depth behind them? Kyle Williams? Na’Shan Goddard?

At best, L. Jones can beast like he did during the ’05 season with the Bengals. At worst, he makes terrific depth, all for a pittance of cost.

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

by Fearless Frog on May 7, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions

A separate report I just saw (can't find it again now)

said the trip to Seattle was cancelled because Jones first wants to explore other feelers he’s received from other teams. Meaning it may not be a dead issue yet.

by diehard82 on May 7, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Ah ok, well good to know thanks.

I dont feel like its a pressing need, especially with our two #1 picks next year. We could pick up a top tackle in the draft with one of those picks. My only concern with having two picks, is if we would be able to afford signing both.

by Bellevue on May 7, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions

If they can trade down and get back the 3rd we lost, maybe another 2nd or 3rd, I'm sure they'll try

for the $ reason you state. Tough to afford both unless we’re releasing a couple expensive guys like Branch or Kerney.

by diehard82 on May 7, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions

My math is a bit rusty

Let’s say there’s a one in three chance that any one of Jones, Locklear and Willis are injured or ineffective. That means there’s about an 11% chance two out of three occur. I’ll call that the Kyle Williams Potential.

For there to be a chance of one guy getting injured out of 3 to be 33%, the chance of one guy on his own needing to be injured would be 15.4% roughly.
So the chances of all 3 injured would be .3%
The chances of two guys getting injured would be 6%
And the chances of one guy getting injured would be 33%
No injuries 60%.

Unless you mean that the chance of any one guy getting injured is 33%, then yes the chance of two injuries is 22% and the chance of one injury to one of the three guys is 44%. (no injuries 30% all three injured 4%)

Of course we’re leaving out the fact that more playing time increases chance of injury, and there are only two spots available, unless Willis plays RG, but that would be too complicated.

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

by LantermanC on May 7, 2009 4:04 PM PDT reply actions

You're right

I ran it like each incidence of injury or ineffectiveness had a 1 in 3 chance of independently occurring, but that doesn’t make sense.

by John Morgan on May 7, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions

None of these are correct....?

As injury is a stochastic variable. The variables involved with human interaction are almost infinitesimal, thus calculating each would be impossible.

Although..

Your calculations relative to each variable happening are in correct ratio.

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on May 7, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions

did I say that right?

I meant your calculations relative to each additional variable happening are in correct ratio.

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on May 7, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree

I think Walt will be ok this coming season, but beyond that is anyone’s guess. Locklear isn the LT of the future and niether is Willis. And its the most important positon on the offensive line. Good LT’s are hard to find, good ones rarely hit FA and will last 10 years. They didnt draft one, and no are letting a potential FA go. I have faith that the Front Office knows what they are doing but I dont really see what their plan is beyond this year.

by Bellevue on May 7, 2009 4:05 PM PDT reply actions

^^^ This post was meant to be a reply to "Fearless Frog" comments

by Bellevue on May 7, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions

My guess...

Which means nothing really, would be the F.O. plans are to draft a LT next season with our options available next draft with two first rounders and being able to move around in the draft if needed. Plus it is a much better/depth draft than this last one anyways.

Walt is my all time favorite player, but he has this one good season left. And next year they can use him to start a bit/help develop a LT we draft.

I'm glad the Hawks get no media attention/NFL fan love. Makes it so much more fun when we win.

by apuskwikemart on May 9, 2009 4:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Questions...

What about Unger….didn’t he play tackle in college his 1st couple years? And they’ve moved Williams to guard right?

by any1418 on May 7, 2009 4:35 PM PDT reply actions

Correct

Unger played tackle before Oregon switched him to center. He actually has the prototypical tackle build and the footwork to handle the position. I assume he would be the fall back position if the above scenarios happened.

by walruz on May 7, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions

that's why Unger was such a great draft choice

He can play anywhere on the line, which is invaluable when someone gets injured. Of course, being a rookie, the only question that remains is can he play any position well?

by B.B.Finnegan on May 7, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions

And another question...

So you want to sign someone who probably has a GREATER chance of landing on IR?? In th last 3 seasons, how many games has he missed??

Per ESPN, it reads:

“The Cincinnati Bengals terminated the contract of oft-injured left tackle Levi Jones, the team announced Wednesday” . I say pass.

by any1418 on May 7, 2009 5:38 PM PDT reply actions

There no real negative impact of him signing and then getting hurt

but theres always the chance that he stays healthy and is able to help the team if needed. He wouldn’t outright replace Jones, he’d just factor into back up plans if Jones misses time again.

by Nate Dogg on May 7, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions

The fact that we are talking about him...

in a backup capacity is exactly why he isn’t visiting. The guy wants a starting job, and a starting tackle salary.

If, and only if, that falls through, we may just hear from him again, as we do have an ideal situation for a backup who hopes to gain a starting job as opposed to an already prepped starting job just sitting there…

Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!

by Tyler Jorgensen on May 7, 2009 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Confirmation?

Jones cancels visit to Seattle

by Misfit74 on May 7, 2009 10:01 PM PDT reply actions

yea it's pretty much confirmed, it's even written on the Seahawks official website

http://www.seahawks.com/team/articles/article-1/camp-progress/a449b7b4-5919-460b-af9b-24a6a8cbae52

“HAWK TALK: Contrary to reports that the Seahawks are planning to bring Levi Jones in for a visit, the club has no plans to talk with the offensive tackle who was released this week by the Cincinnati Bengals.”

by Bellevue on May 7, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Stinchcomb'd

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

by Fearless Frog on May 8, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions

For depth concerns...

it’s also worth noting that once you’re in a situation where you’re starting Lock and Willis Seattle probably has better depth than most teams. If for some reason Lock or Willis went down, we’re up the creek without a paddle by definition. Given this, Williams and Goddard are better than most 4th string options—and that’s without really considering Sims’ and Unger’s potential to play outside in a dire emergency.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on May 8, 2009 5:40 AM PDT reply actions