Marshawn Lynch and the Seattle Seahawks

You wrote “than” instead of “then” a couple times.

and contributing. Odds taper off fairly quickly somewhere around round 5 I’d guess of a player “making it”. Might make the team, but unlikely to last past the 3 year average.

But I’m just guessing here.

Adding young, talented players is how one rebuilds. The FO is clearly banking on resigning him but yes, he has a fairly short ongoing contract, which is why we got him relatively cheap to begin with.

He’s not a game-changer or franchise-maker but those are expensive in trades (see, Cutler trade), not something I’d be happy to see our FO do.

Are you not painting the worst-case scenario here? The FO is banking on being able to resign/extend him and I see no immediate reason what that would be impossible. I agree that if he’s gone in two years this looks like a bad, win-now move, but if he’s extended, then isn’t this a perfectly fine rebuilding move?

Under further scrutiny, this trade seems alarmingly “win now” and maybe even more frighteningly, this trade seems to indicate that Carroll and Schneider do not recognize what it will actually take to win now.

Unless I’m missing something this seems to be a restatement of the old, “If we don’t have a franchise quarterback then why bother tinkering with the other parts of the offense” argument. Obviously most if not all of us would like to see a change at QB. But to say that improving the personnel around him is pointless is like saying that the team may as well not bother suiting up while Hasselbeck is the starter. Carroll and Bates may still be holding onto hope that Matt can get it done this year but I don’t see why that precludes improving other areas. Especially when that area is our pathetic running game.

My apologies and a retraction If this implies something else.

I did freak out when this initially happened as well, but as the dust settled I’m looking at it from a broader perspective…

Marshawn Lynch is a guy that if given enough reps, will give your team a strong running game. As we sit right now, the biggest factor on offense that has hindered us is our ground game. When Matt has time, every WR on the roster can make the catch. However, once teams realize we won’t do any damage on the ground, they run successful blitz packages and cover schemes, that leave most options covered.

Throw a talented back like Marshawn into the mix, and it levels the playing field. Teams have no choice but to account for him when he’s on the field. The “decline” in his game has a lot to do with his damaged relationships in Buffalo, and the amount of talent at the position. He’s still 24 gentlemen, and as we all know RB’s mainly start hitting their peak after 25..

Right now, having Lynch and Forsett in the backfield is the best I’ve felt about that position since Alexander in 2005. Obviously, we haven’t sen anything yet from Marshawn, but Julius Jones didn’t get me remotely excited when we initially picked him up..

Are directly affected by who the QB is. I’d contend an average to an above-average QB (let’s say Matt Ryan) would make this offense suck less and possibly have Seattle at 3-1 or better and not 2-2.

I like the Lynch trade, but this is only going to work out if we have a B-grade QB under center who can run a functioning offense and can stretch the field.

Oh, and I got your book today! YES!

John, I don’t know what draft value chart you are using…the eighth pick in the fourth round- assuming the hawks finish 8th which I think is reasonable and 75% of the value of the 8th pick in the fifth round equates to: the very last pick in the 3rd round- Not the middle of the 2nd. I think this a pretty big miss- please share which draft value chart you are using… I don’t believe a team could trade up from the fourth into the 2nd round by giving up a fifth next year…I could see a team moving up 8 slots by giving up a fifth next year.

We still don’t know exactly how much a running attack sets up play action, and maybe Lynch is the kind of back that will free up something in the passing game. He’s big enough to demand safety attention, and maybe Hasselbeck or whoever will benefit from that.

I will also say, I expect Lynch to perform better in Seattle than he did in Buffalo. Not necessarily because the Bills have an inferior line, though I think they do, but because Lynch is better matched for Bates offense than Gailey’s.

or believing Whitehurst can Krieg Matt and hit the ground running. I’m not so sure he can’t.

I accept that we can’t be sure that Hasselbeck is not suffering the rest of the offense, that maybe Matt is the right situation/right surrounding talent away from turning a corner in his career, and that even if not, we can’t be sure what Whitehurst is capable of. And I also accept that Seattle should improve its talent and not assume they’re screwed and tank the season, but with the information available, none of the above seem probable or worth building a strategy around. Sometimes you fold, not before you’re handed your cards, and not before it costs you, but definitely before you start throwing good money after bad.

What I mean is that a 4th and 5th/6th is different than the point value combination, in this case a 2nd or 3rd. They should be treated as separate scenarios. Is drafting a single 2nd or 3rd rounder giving us the same chance to draft the young, cheap, high upside player than a player in the 4th and another player in the 5th/6th? Does history show us anything about the success rates of these different 2 scenarios? Are 2 players drafted later really equal to a player drafted earlier from a much deeper talent pool?

John, you said:

My thinking is like this: When a team is rebuilding, the emphasis should be on young, cheap and potentially high upside players. Wilson fit that mold to me, and though the fourth or fifth Seattle could receive in return could become a young, cheap and high upside player, most fourth or fifth round picks do not. So, Seattle traded away any chance of retaining Wilson for a fourth or fifth round pick, and I think that’s a loss

Doesn’t this statement in some ways undermine a part of what you’re saying regarding the actual value of the picks we gave up?

Combining the value of the picks assumes that the probability of drafting similar contributing players is the same in each scenario. I honestly don’t know what history tells us, but your statement that a 4th/ 5th has a small chance of panning out doesn’t seem to support the argument for counting the value for 2 lower round pick as a single pick in a higher round…

This doesn’t seems apples to apples.

… to speculate the value of a running back trade by simply comparing his old offense.

Buffalo’s run blocking scheme is just weird – it reminds me of the 60’s and 70’s era Lombardi-esque crap – and I think that is much of the problem. I’m not sure they know how to maximize someone with a unique running style like Lynch.

I’m hoping Bates might have a little better of an idea of how to scheme with him and Forsett.

The market value of pick is far from settled fact.

I don’t think NE counts anymore.

I certainly don’t think I am infallible or my opinion is infallible. I just try to keep the argument supported and within the realm of logic, understanding that no one ever knows exactly how any decision will turn out, and knowing that try as I might, I do not have all the information I need to evaluate this trade.

What of the saying “pick x this year is worth pick y in the following year’s draft?”. For example, we traded our 2nd in 2009 for Denver’s 1st in 2010. The belief was that a 2nd in this draft is equal to a 1st in the next draft.

Now that we’re past draft-time 2010, I can see that the first pick – a 2011 4th rounder is probably worth about that. However, the conditional future pick (in theory) in 2012 drops a round in ‘value’ because it’s so far out. So, couldn’t it be said that the 5th in 2012 (if Lynch performs to whatever level) is actually weighted in the mind of a GM more like a 6th? And, a 6th more like a 7th because of being ‘future picks’?

I know I probably left a lot to be desired in my explanation, but the matter is that a 4th in 2011 is more like a 4 1/2 and the 2012 is more like a 6th or 7th if it’s weighted according to said ‘rule of thumb’. The points shouldn’t be looked at at face-value, should they?

No Seattle QB has played with Lynch in the backfield. We only know how Fitzpatrick performed with Lynch. How Trent Edwards performed with Lynch. In my opinion, those QBs are replacement level at best.

How will Hasselbeck (or Whitehurst) perform with Lynch in the backfield? We do not know.

Will Hasselbeck benefit from the addition of a versatile, above-average running back that can play every down across most all situations? More than likely.

It should help the passing game, pass-protection, short-yardage, and improve balance for the offense. Yes, Hasselbeck is still the weak link, I agree with that. But, If Hasselbeck and Fitzpatrick are ‘equal’ we still don’t know if Lynch’s influence on Seattle’s offense makes Seattle’s offense and/or Hasselbeck’s game improve more than what it did for Fitzpatrick Buffalo’s offense. Our offense is not their offense. Our QB is not their QB. Our skill players are not their skill players. Our line is not their line. I can see some of the parallels, but there are far too many variables to equate Fitz+Lynch = Hass+Lynch or Buffalo+Lynch = Seattle+Lynch. We don’t know how Lynch will be used in Seattle. We don’t know a lot of things.

What did Michael Turner do to Atlanta’s offense with a rookie QB?

There are good possibilities.

And, while I kind of wish we were doing more toward rebuilding than ‘win now’, I think adding Lynch was a move toward ‘winning now’. One more shot with Hasselbeck (Ugh) and further transition next season and in the process ruining our draft position, which kind of sucks. At the same time: winning is fun.

I’d like to see them flip spots and see what happens. Barber is exactly the comparable for Lynch in my eyes. I always thought they looked moved and ran in a very similar style. Both are 5’11" 215 or so, both run hard and “shimmy” a lot, and their numbers aren’t lifetimes apart overall.

I’m afraid you may be focusing too much on the QB situation.

I’m not saying this because I’m defending Matt; after much internal debate I’ve (very reluctantly) come around to team Whitehurst. Perhaps I’m only noticing because I’ve been too busy lately to read everything you post. Perhaps it’s not as omnipresent as I think. Perhaps this is my subconscious knee-jerk reaction to your comparison of Matt to a crappy QB like Fitzpatrick. Perhaps (and I actually believe this to be the case) you realize that you’ve made your argument for replacing Matt as well as you can and you’re ready to drop it. In any case, I feel compelled to bring it up.

So by that Lynch probable will not put up the best numbers over the next 1 3/4 years. So when his contract expires it is likely that his value will be reduced and we might be able to sign him for less money. If our offense might be starting to jel at the end of 2011 he might be more likely to stay on a team that is just starting its years of playoff runs.

On the other hand if he comes in and revives our offense and it no longer sucks, we can start our playoff run this year.

I’m not sure to what end, either.

We got a good player, at a fair price, for at least two seasons.

John – are you in favor of a full tear-down and rebuild?

This whole argument reeks of incomparable variables and intangible “what-ifs”. I agree most with what Vasili has said. It seems as
if John is saying that an improvement to the offense is a bad thing because it isn’t an improvement to the passing offense, and I strongly disagree. Lynch cost a mid and a late round pick, and is a good young talent. The math can say whatever it wants about a 4th and 6th being comparable to a 2nd but they are simply not that. How many times do 6th rounders never turn out? Most of the time. That doesn’t mean they never do, but I think it is wrong to try to equate the usual 4th rounder and the usual 6th rounder to an average early 2nd rounder. In the 6th you can get a Brady or a Teel, you never know. The theory equating 4+6 into a 2 seems overly optimistic in evaluation of late round talent. I will take a proven asset who is 24 and immediately upgrades our run game (and can continue to do so in the future) over two unknown quantities that may or may not pan out.

will help both Hass in the short term and Charlie/QBoftheFuture in the long term. An effective run game relieves pressure on the passing game.

The cost of a 4th and a future 5th/6th will be very cheap if Lynch remains effective and re-signs with the team.

That article kinda depressed me. I was pretty excited when Lynch came on board, and JJ was shown the door. Now I think I’m just gonna go drink myself silly (ier).

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81b3e564/article/with-wallace-delhomme-hurt-browns-might-eye-veteran-qbs?module=HP_headlines