2009 Season Retrospective: Mike Teel
by John Morgan on May 21, 2010 1:48 PM PDT
Email
PrintXFINITY from Comcast is a proud supporter of Field Gulls. You’ll get your Seahawks games as a part of over 120 NFL games XFINITY provides in HD, as well as On Demand game recaps from every NFL game every week, faster Internet speeds, and stunning HD. With XFINITY and NFL RedZone, you get every touchdown from every game every Sunday afternoon! Call 1-800-XFINITY or visit http://www.xfinity.com.
Mike Teel
Highlights
Lowlights
Outlook: If Sam Bradford busts, it will set back the Rams. If Sam Bradford busts, but Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen or Colt McCoy succeeds, it will be a disaster. The former is very possible, inherent even. The path to a franchise quarterback is a minefield. The latter is much less likely. Rarely does a class produce a bad top quarterback prospect but good talent among the also-rans. If the first quarterback taken is David Carr, you expect Joey Harrington and Patrick Ramsey to follow. JaMarcus Russell was a poor selection, but the Raiders needed a quarterback, and for all his failure, Russell has proven no worse than Brady Quinn. Kevin Kolb, we shall see.
Kyle Boller was selected 19th overall in the 2003 NFL Draft. He was selected after Carson Palmer and Byron Leftwich and before Rex Grossman. The Ravens were two seasons removed from a Super Bowl victory and desperately missed the "worst quarterback to ever win a Super Bowl" Trent Dilfer. They burned through journeymen and didn't founder, but it was clear to everyone inside and outside the organization, the Ravens were a quarterback away from contending again. He didn't have to be great, but competent or better would be a major boon.
The Ravens wanted Boller enough to trade up for him. Baltimore traded their 2004 first-round pick to acquire Boller. That pick became Vince Wilfork. Steep. Boller, of course, turned out to be bust. A pretty big bust, actually, because instead of being obviously incompetent like Dan McGwire, Boller started 42 games for Baltimore, maintaining his quarterback of the future status until 2007. That hurts.
Boller could not consistently throw an accurate pass. He didn't lack for arm strength, motivation, intelligence or athleticism, but he was wild. Brian Billick thought that could change and it probably cost Billick his job. Could Boller have changed? Can that quality change?
And why this lengthy exposition about Boller in an article nominally about Mike Teel?
His strengths are obvious and otherwise. Teel has a very strong arm. He throws a nice deep pass, can bullet it into tight windows and can make all the throws. Even the one-handed behind the back from the roof throw Seneca bet he couldn't. Teel has a clean drop-step, and plants and looks down field without delay. He can be accurate. His read and understanding of the playbook showed enough growth from week one of the preseason to week four of the preseason to be considered a strength and a promising sign.
Mike Teel cannot consistently make his passes. Sometimes he steps back, sees his man, cocks, plants and beans the cheerleader. It's not about sailing it or throwing it behind the man, it's about his accurate-to-whiff ratio, and it isn't good. He can zing one to Ben Obomanu in stride and then power a wobbler that bucks and bends like a knuckleball.
Consistency, often lampooned (ie "yeah, consistently bad"), is a fundamental part of all sports. Regularity might even be a better word, but there's that Metamucil connotation. Be it a golfer's swing, a pitcher's motion or small forward's hook shot, practice makes machine. The body can become so skilled in a motion that elite quarterbacks pass like I press "a". The outcome is assumed.
Teel doesn't have that. It's little wonder he seemed so streaky in college. He needs to develop consistency of control. He needs to make every throw and know every throw he's making.
Teel could master his talent and become a great quarterback, but it seems unlikely. Dropping him for John Paul Losman, serial sack taker, seems fickle and unwise. I don't think it will bite Seattle in the ass. Teel was always a long shot, whatever his arm strength-dictated upside. Unfortunately, though Teel might be broken and though Teel may never overcome his scattershot accuracy, an inability to read coverage, make quick decisions and anticipate pressure are just as deadly and just as seemingly unfixable. Losman has not only exhibited those failings, he has for six seasons. He has been sacked so often for so long it seems more likely that he's ruined than on the verge of recovery.
Big picture: J.P. Losman joins Charlie Whitehurst as athletic, strong-armed quarterbacks that don't exhibit good decision making. It's only two, but two is a trend and as with everything in the NFL, we're never going to get a sample size large enough to satisfy the rigors of science. Quarterback is the definitive position of an NFL franchise. Mostly, teams get lucky. The decision is made for them. Need aligns with fortune and the obvious pick is made and the obvious pick becomes the right pick. However, an eye for what makes a successful NFL quarterback is a wonderful cheat. Athletic, strong-armed, those are optional. Decisive, aware, consistent, that is the new prototype.
Good luck Mike Teel. I do not have a lot of confidence that you will develop, but more confidence than I have in either of your replacements. And good luck Jeremy Bates, I hope you know what you're doing.
XFINITY from Comcast is a proud supporter of Field Gulls. You’ll get your Seahawks games as a part of over 120 NFL games XFINITY provides in HD, as well as On Demand game recaps from every NFL game every week, faster Internet speeds, and stunning HD. With XFINITY and NFL RedZone, you get every touchdown from every game every Sunday afternoon! Call 1-800-XFINITY or visit http://www.xfinity.com.
89 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If it came down to it, who would you rather QB for the Hawks:
JP Losman or Mike Teel? That’s a no-brainer, right?
Moreso than most other teams in the league, the Seahawks very well may start their third string QB in the 2010 season.
That’s why I think Losman was brought in. Not because they so much see him as a potential long-term solution, or competition for Whitehurst, but as an effective (as effective as a 3rd string QB will likely be) stop-gap for a problem that very well come to a head in 2010.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Losman has oodles of NFL experience
and could probably run an offense more effectively than Teel, whether or not it heavily relied on the passing game.
Losman may not be good, but I’d bet he’d make a whole lot less mistakes than Teel.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
JaMarcus Russell has oodles of NFL experience.
Years of failure is not a positive quality.
by John Morgan on May 21, 2010 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Losman is no Jamarcus Russell.
But I take your point.
With that said, I’d still MUCH prefer Losman over Teel, in a game time situation, if it came down to it.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
If it gets to that point, that Hass is done and Whitehurst benched, we're already sunk,
so why cling to a veteran who’s already below replacement level, than try out your longshot and see if a Brady/Warner/Hasselbeck surfaces? You find out what you have and find out what you need for the next year.
I think your scenario would be more fitting for a team like Minnesota.
by jacobstevens on May 21, 2010 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Brady/Warner/Hasselbeck all did enough in practice and preseason to force they would eventually start for into keeping them.
Teel did not. That makes him more than a longshot.
Hasselbeck, perhaps.
Brady and Warner, no. They both got the starting job through injuries to the starting quarterback, and performed so well in the games as a replacement that they etched themselves in as starters.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on May 22, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
He was already a designated starter before he lost his job to Dilfer.
When Hasselbeck was acquired in 2001, he was the designated starter, and was benched in favor of Dilfer. So, technically, he began his run as a designated franchise QB, not after Difler’s injury.
Sure, when Dilfer went down, Hasselbeck started again, but if it weren’t for his strong finish that year in the last 4 games (he pretty much sucked for the majority of the season), it’s a strong possibility that he would not have retained the starting job in 2003.
The point? Hasselbeck was the designated starter from the get-go, so comparing him to the Warner/Brady situations where they got their shots through injury instead of what they did in practice is rather faulty.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on May 23, 2010 4:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok... and?
That doesn’t mean that they would have eventually become full-time starters. Going with that logic, you’d think that because the Seahawks kept Seneca Wallace on their roster and the way that he practiced and played in preseason games, he’d be their eventual starter.
Neither Warner and Brady were brought in to be the eventual full-time starters. They got their shot to grab that mantle through injuries to the full-time starters, not because of the way that they practiced and played in the preseason.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on May 23, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
You said that Hasselbeck was different from Warner and Brady because they earned the starting spot through injuries to previous starters
but above you said that Hasselbeck earned his starting job by playing well after the Dilfer injury, that if he hadn’t he would have gone back to the bench.
Did you not read the earlier part of the post?
I said that Hasselbeck was already the designated starter when he was acquired — that wasn’t the case for Brady and Warner. Hasselbeck had already gotten his break to start before Dilfer ever got hurt. Hasselbeck was named the starter and later LOST his job to Dilfer in 2001. That was due to bad play. Hasselbeck sucked for the majority of the 2002 season, unlike Warner and Brady when they took over as replacements.
Hasselbeck did improve, and that allowed him a benefit of having a shot to hold on to the starting job at least until the following season, so perhaps there’s an argument that after that point, the Hasselbeck/Warner/Brady comparison holds water, but given Hasselbeck’s prior history and his entire body of work during the entire 2002 season, their situations and their route to a starting job were and are not the same — it certainly was not because of practice and their play in the preseason that made them eventual starters.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on May 23, 2010 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Hasselbeck was very good in '02 after he took over for Dilfer in week 7.
He’s not exactly like Warner and Brady but he did take over after an injury and surprise people with his good play which lead to him becoming the full time starter.
What I'm saying is they were able to demonstrate enough value to convince their teams that they should keep them on the roster.
Brady wasn’t drafted as the #2 QB on the depth chart. He earned enough respect and proved himself enough that he eventually earned that spot.
If he wasn’t Bledsoe’s backup, then he wouldn’t have taken over when Bledsoe was injured. If he wasn’t on the roster, then he would’ve never gotten the chance to prove what he could do for the Patriots.
Therefore, since Teel was not able to demonstrate enough value to convince his team not to cut him, the odds are overwhelmingly that he was not the same type of player that has overcome extremely low draft positions/being undrafted to become a quality starter for their team.
There is a flaw with your argument.
The fact that neither the Rams or the Patriots had much of an option at the time, and neither team were stocking up at the QB position in the name of increasing competition, meaning that it wasn’t necessarily because of their ability to demonstrate value that they were the #2 quarterback on the roster, so much as it was because of who was on the roster.
To say that Teel was cut because he didn’t demonstrate enough value for the Seahawks to keep him is to be presumptive, and it just doesn’t necessarily compute. In this case, there are factors to consider, like the fact that the Seahawks had added 3 other quarterbacks to the roster, and cutting another, before cutting Teel. This move could have been a little more political; given Losman’s experience, Teel could have been bumped in favor of a quarterback with a lot more game experience.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on May 24, 2010 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
That is not a bad basis for a decision for a 3rd string QB
If we some how lose Matt AND Charlie we need someone with some game experience. Perhaps it was political in the sense that the guys in the huddle need to know someone has been there and can make something happen.
Losman had a good season when he started the full 16 games in 2006.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Saying the Rams and Patriots didn't have any other options at QB is also being presumptive.
This is starting to get ridiculous.
Nice sub-thread, but my point was just, try him out.
As opposed to bringing in a veteran who will be a more capable replacement. Figure out what you have with the undeveloped project QB.
I tried to describe the prospects of one working out, as a long-shot to work out at all, but you may as well at least try him out if you’re that sunk to see if a decent long-term starter (if not “franchise”) emerges.
by jacobstevens on May 24, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
JaMarcus?
He has at least shown the ability to complete 50% of his passes
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Losman did only have one good year
But it was on an offense with next to no talent, with the exception of Lee Evans.
I watched quite a bit of the Bills that year, and Losman looked pretty good at times. The only reason he didn’t start the next year was the drafting of Trent Edwards, who ended up starting after Losman suffered an injury.
Losman performed almost exactly well as David Carr in 2006.
And the Bills had Jason Peters, Mike Gandy, Willis McGahee, Lee Evans, Robert Royal, Josh Reed, Roscoe Parish and Peerless Price. That’s not a fantasy football league, but it’s talent. That left side is especially strong, and you can’t blame the receivers for catching passes from Losman.
And, Teel's a Pat.
http://twitter.com/MikeReiss/status/14452094448
Foolish, but doesn’t the Patriots signing a guy always seem to change the outlook of his working out? Shouldn’t, but it does.
Well, glad he's gone then.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
by PerryCollective on May 21, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
That was my initial reaction as well.
But as Sando pointed out on his blog, the Patriots just dumped Jeff Rowe who they picked up after we cut him last year. So that makes me feel better.
by Mind of no mind on May 21, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Big picture: J.P. Losman joins Charlie Whitehurst as big, athletic, strong-armed quarterbacks that don't exhibit good decision making.
Doesn’t Teel fit that profile as well?
Has a pretty good track record
For all of the talk about Carroll being a defensive whiz, you gotta be impressed with the QBs at USC. He didn’t recruit Palmer or Cassel, but they both played/practiced primarily with him. Add Leinart and Sanchez, and you have 4 starting QBs. Booty is still clinging to an NFL roster, and it probably wouldn’t be a shocker if Mustain followed Cassel and made an NFL roster as well, even if he doesn’t play his senior year. Barkley may even be the best of them. Corp seems – so far – to be the only bust in their entire program since he’s been there.
Of course, USC gets their pick of recruits, but that’s still a pretty ridiculous list. And while we can’t attribute it all – or even most to Carroll, I think we can say that he’s probably got a decent idea of what makes a successful quarterback, not just in college, but guys that have done well in the NFL.
I’m not sold on Losman, but like others have said, it’s pretty hard to judge any QB that’s played for the Bills lately. I do remember having Lee Evans get me a lot of TDs in FF while Losman was the QB. :)
by PerryCollective on May 21, 2010 2:30 PM PDT reply actions
Interesting point
I’d ask who from the Carroll regime has ever been a good NFL QB. Perhaps Carson Palmer. Two playoff games (two losses) do not a great QB make.
I actually think the opposite. Carroll won at USC with great RB and defense. His NFL product QB’s are average at best.
It is what it is...
They also usually go to bad teams and are expected to save them
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't know how successful any QB could have been in Buffalo.
Of course, I haven’t seen a whole lot of Bills games, from what I have seen they’ve lacked any real weapons outside of RB’s, and have had problems protecting their quarterbacks.
A whole load of QB’s have been behind center for them since… uh… Jim Kelly? And none have succeeded for more than a brief moment. Considering Losman cost us nothing other than a developmental QB who hadn’t really shown much, I’d say he’s worth the risk.
It sure is a weird tack the FO is taking here, though. At times they don’t interested at all in developing a young guy, but then they talk about potentially drafting Clausen.
the FO and the weather don't exactly allow for a lot of success
they are also a consistent bottom feeder team the last 15 years.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm guessing
They looked at the idea of Hass backed up by two QBs, neither of whom had thrown a pass in a league game, and got scared.
Makes me think they would have been better off keeping Seneca Wallace.
Seahawks Fans Cannot Be Cured
I've been thinking about this for the last few days,
Big picture: J.P. Losman joins Charlie Whitehurst as athletic, strong-armed quarterbacks that don’t exhibit good decision making.
I was looking at the Broncos offenses over the years, and it seems like they’ve gotten by okay with those kinds of QBs. Look at the 2005 Broncos that went 13-3 and reached the AFC championship game.
QB Jake Plummer
RB Mike Anderson/Tatum Bell
WR Rod Smith (age 35)
WR Ashley Lelie
TE Jeb Putzier
Then consider the difference between Jay Cutler in Denver vs Jay Cutler in Chicago. Couldn’t Jake Plummer and Jay Cutler both be considered “strong-armed quarterbacks that don’t exhibit good decision making”?
I’m not sure if it’s relevent to my point because I don’t remember what kind of QB he was, but Brian Griese became a Pro Bowl QB under this scheme as well.
You hear all the time about successful college QBs coming out that they’re “system quarterbacks” and their success won’t transfer to the NFL. Is it possible that what Jeremy Bates is looking for is a “system QB” that fits his system but might not fit on any other team? Maybe Josh McDaniels was foolish to trade Jay Cutler, or maybe he realized it right away that Cutler would be a colossal failure outside of Shanahan’s offense. And then throw in the fact that he took another teams throw away QB in Kyle Orton and made him look pretty solid in his new system.
At least this is what I tell myself so I can sleep at night.
by Mind of no mind on May 21, 2010 3:29 PM PDT reply actions
Oops,
I also ment to point out that that 2005 Denver team had the #5 offense in the NFL that year. If we can find a QB as good as Jake Plumber, I have to believe that we have as much talent if not more at every other skill position on offense.
by Mind of no mind on May 21, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
There is substance to it.
WCO made some QBs better, and broke the backs of many others. The spread can make some QBs formidable when they’d suck elsewhere.
It’s still kind of a left-handed compliment. A QB who performs well in an offense built off play action. The decision making can be mitigated slightly, and supported slightly with the rollouts and simpler reads, but ultimately it’s still a dictating part of successful quarterbacking.
OTOH if it works I’m all for it. And I’m fine with this approach. I like the modern prototype better, but I’m fine with this. And when we get another shot at a (for lack of a better term) “real” QB I still hope we’ll go after him.
by jacobstevens on May 21, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm just a little afraid things could go awry quickly
Case in point: Plummer had 7 interceptions in running the Denver offense in 2005. The previous year he had 20.
But in 05 he also had Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell break up 1935 rushing yards
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
It also all comes back to protection and run support
If you can’t throw the ball and the defense stacks 8 guys in the box every play your QB will be on the ground a lot, when he gets tired of that, he throws it deep and hopes for something to happen.
As good as the Pats offense was in 2007, the Giants made Tom Brady look really bad.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
What bothers me is they didn't have to drop Teel to add Losman.
What happened to competition going into pre-season games?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
God damnit...
Now our QBs jersey numbers are in numerical order. 6,7,and 8.
or on the way to a straight
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
That's just annoying
It’s settling for the proven negative over the unproven unknown. We haven’t even seen Teel throw so much as a preseason pass. I can’t complain about the price we got for Losman, but this is a real case of getting what we’re paying for. It wasn’t so long ago that we filled our 3rd stringer position with another former starting QB, and look how well he did on the Raiders Merry-Go-Round.
If we’re so willing to shell out draft picks and big contracts for other team’s castoffs, why can’t we make our own? It seems like a very knee-jerk reaction when, in another 2-3 years, we could have the Chargers clamoring for a quality backup who’s worked under Matt Hasselbeck wanting to take the reins of their team and be willing to shell out a few draft choices for the privilege.
All things being equal, I’d choose the home-grown talent over another team’s failures anyday.
Not to rain on your parade
but we saw Teel in last year’s preseason.
And in year one, he played slightly better then Whitehurst in year four
Allow riot to ensue. Although preseason’s a tough thing to compare.
Seattle’s definitively looking for QB’s who will fit their system. I guessing it’s not going to depend a lot on reading the defenses.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 21, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
My bad
I was thinking of David Greene, for some reason.
Even worse, now that I remember Teel playing, I remember that he wasn’t all that bad. Threw for something like 9 of 15 and decent yardage, if I remember right.
They have a plan so we just have to let them implement it
I don’t know if Teel ever would have developed. I am still holding out hope that Matt will stay healthy and we can send him off right or at least not broken and battered like the last few years.
Good bye Big Walt.
by Generzal Zod on May 24, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
This description of Teel just has me thinking this:
by SeahawksFanInNY on May 21, 2010 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
One thing of interest, with Bates calling the plays, the Denver gave up a league low 12 sacks in 2008
Giving up just 12 sacks all year is insanely low. I don’t know how much, if any, of that had to do with Bates, but keeping Matt from getting hit all the time could be a huge factor. When he’s hurt, Matt’s production seems to drop significantly (as with any player). Of course this is all moot if Matt keeps doing things like sliding back first into Patrick Willis.
Ryan Clady's mythical rookie season had to help, too.
But the PA & rollouts, with substantial reliance on a zone run game, would figure to inherently reduce your sack numbers. Unless you’re starting Losman, of course.
by jacobstevens on May 21, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
If Matt gets good protection, stays uninjured (because he isn't hit), and his recieving options play well
he could have a revival to his career. Unfortunately, once he gets hit he’ll probably lose his arm strength again and be one of the worst QBs in the NFL. Again. I can actually see us getting “lucky” as Matt has a great year because he never gets hurt. Then we sign him for a two year deal, his luck comes back to earth and he gets hurt, and he becomes terrible again.
Man I’m one hell of a pessimist…
Now with more lemon bars!
I doubt he gets resigned next year
even if he has a great season and leads the team late into the playoffs they’ll probably just franchise him.
Plus he doesn't fit the Carroll QB mold.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Yeah but... strictly speaking, he doesn't lol.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
This move I'm sure was all about experience
This is about sacrificing potential for quality experienced depth at the 3rd QB position. I totally agree with replacing Teel for Losman. It’s a smart move that could prove valuable if Hass goes down and Whitehurst struggles.
I agree.
The current regime had no ties to Teel and apparently no interest in moving forward with him. I can accept that. And, who knows if Losman even stick on the roster?
I like that the team is evaluating a wealth of players at seemingly every position. I hope the activity means they land a few diamonds in the rough.
I agree that an experienced player that could start in a pinch is something I feel more comfortable with. Though it may pan out to be a Charlie Frye type of move, how uncomfortable would I feel if during the season I read ‘Teel to make first NFL start Sunday’? It would signal Seattle’s version of ‘Keith Null time’ and ‘Locker in ’11’ chants.
Red Bryant: surprise us!
The QB situation is temporary
Hass has maybe got 2-3 seasons of decent play left
Jesus was signed to a two year deal
J P Patches is on a one year deal.
I’d be shocked if PC didn’t already have his QB of the future picked out already. Maybe Locker, Luck, Barkley, Montana etc….. He’s at least got em’ all ranked on a wish list board, and based on the wheeling and dealing that they’ve shown to date I have no doubt that they’ll make a move to get his guy.
They’ve shored up the position for a season or two and addressed other needs. They passed on Clausen. They didn’t draft a project QB of their own. I sure they’ve got their eye on somebody.
Wheeling and dealing?
We didn’t trade up a single time during the draft, did we?
by Thomas Beekers on May 23, 2010 6:29 AM PDT up reply actions
John, isn't this the Big Tent Approach that you advocated earlier?
Assuming the front office decided there wasn’t a QB prospect in the draft that could validate his selection, this seems like a decent attempt at such an approach.
I, for one, am hoping this is nothing more than a team wide, one-year tryout for 2011 stop-gap duties and we’ll be looking at Mallett, Luck, or Locker in Hawk Blue next year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
