Seattle Seahawks Draft Priorities: The Offensive Line Edition
Most of the talk surrounding the Seattle Seahawks' draft strategy, here and elsewhere, has focused on the quarterback position. Most analysts I've read are predicting that the 'Hawks will snag a QB at the 25th position, provided that they don't trade up/out and that at least one of the Gabbert/Newton/Locker/Mallett contingent is available. Some have even gone as far as to predict that Seattle will dip into the Ponder/Dalton/Kaepernick pool in order to fill their hole at signal-caller.
The speculation is warranted; with Matt Hasselbeck in CBA/FA limbo, the 'Hawks are left with Barry Gibb Whitehurst as the presumed starter and equally unproven Nate Davis as the back-up. (oh wait, he's gone too). With no established starting QB, and no highly-touted QB-of-the-future, the Seahawks have jello in a position where most real contenders have concrete. Even if Hasselbeck finds his way back into the Seahawks' fold, he is obviously not the foundation of future success. The need for a quarterback to build around is very real in Seattle, but it is not the only need and, in my opinion, not one worth over-reaching to fill.
These posts are intended to take a look at the rest of the current Seahawks roster and analyze the areas that need strengthening, as well as the areas that could simply use some fortifying. I'm going to focus primarily on potential first and second round options as those are the most likely to provide immediate help in 2011-2012, but certain positions may dictate that Seattle should wait to fill them, and in those cases, I'll examine players more likely to be taken in later rounds.
Today's focus, however, is on the "hogs" in the "trenches," which is not only an insulting combination of football cliches, but a hilarious mental image as well. Imagine all the pig-related hi-jinks in those trenches!
Position: Offensive Line
Current Roster: Russell Okung, Chris Spencer, Tyler Polumbus, Max Unger, Sean Locklear, Stacey Andrews, Chester Pitts, Mike Gibson, Chris White, Lemuel Jeanpierre, Ray Willis, Breno Giacomini, William Robinson, Caz Piurowski, Paul Fanaika.
I've grouped all of the linemen together instead of splitting them into T/G/C because necessity dictated that Seattle do the same last season. The result was a starting offensive line that, from week to week, looked like a really boring game of Mad Libs and the lines between the positions ended up blurrier than Keith Richards' vision. Predictably, the ever-changing group provided the team with incosistant play and little room for error. Some of that can be chalked up to the lack of assignment solidity and familiarity from game to game, but I think more of the responsibility for their below-average performance falls on the overall lack of top-tier talent.
Now, assuming health, we can go ahead and lock Okung, Polumbus, and Unger into starting roles next season. That's not exactly the kind of group that causes opposing linemen to lose sleep, but it has potential to be solid with Okung peppering in hints of occasional domination.
That leaves two starting positions and five-to-six reserve spots open. I don't know who will separate themselves from the pile to snag those positions, but a review of the remaining names on the roster leaves a lot to be desired regardless of who it ends up being. It is my hope that the Seahawks can grab some starter-caliber talent at #25, as long as Tyron Smith, Mike Pouncey, Gabe Carimi, Anthony Castonzo, or Nate Solder is available there. If all five of those guys are taken by the time Goodell puts Seattle on the clock, then it wouldn't bother me if the 'Hawks went elsewhere with that selection, provided they don't pass on offensive line talent later.
As far as second-round possibilities go, I'd love to see Seattle take a look at Villanova's Benjamin Ijalana or Marcus Cannon from TCU, assuming Miami's Orlando Franklin and Mississippi State's Derek Sherrod are off the board. Danny Watkins (Baylor), Rodney Hudson (Florida State), and Clint Boling (Georgia) have also shown some promise that they could step in and contribute significantly as rookies.
If Seattle stays at #25, it's very likely that the beefed-up Smith and the always highly-rated Castonzo will have been snapped up long before the 'Hawks choose. Even so, I believe it wouldn't take long (read: by Opening Day) for Pouncey, Carimi, or Solder's talent/upside to surpass whichever underwhelming cog Seattle would otherwise plug into the starting lineup. If Pouncey or Carimi are available when the Seahawks pick, I think they should be taken even if Locker is available. For whatever reason, perhaps a lack of domination at the college level, I'm less high on Solder, but he's still big enough and talented enough to be considered there.
As far as second-round options go, I would be happy to see how any of the remaining aforementioned prospects would turn out, as their potential outweighs that of most of the non-Okung/Unger/Polumbus guys we currently have. The Seahawks desperately need to add some talent to the group and chances are that any of these guys will be good enough to push for a starting spot in Carroll's "always compete" universe.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is please please please don't let Sean Locklear be a starting OL for the Seahawks ever again ever.
69 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice post, and a good way to start a (hopefully) good discussion.
As I have stated elsewhere, if Mallet is available at 25, that should be the pick, based on what I know now. I wouldn’t draft Locker prior to the 4th – but that’s just me. I am hoping Minnisota or Miami fall in love with him and take him off the board early.
As far as o-lineman go, I would add Sherrod to your list. He is the top rated OT on some boards, and I like him to start at RT.
As far as guards to at 25, I have trouble seeing it, even Pouncey. Both Carimi and Sherrod can kick inside, if necessary. Pouncey can’t kick any more inside than he already is. Plus, Carimi or Sherrod would be good back-ups to Okung, if necessary. So if an o-lineman is taken at 25, I hope it would be one of the tackles.
Concerning Tyron Smith, I find it interesting that the press has him as the top rated tackle with the most upside, and most teams would look at him to play on the left, a position he’s never played. If we was drafted lower, wouldn’t be an issue, but to take a guy that high and play him out of position I consider foolish (so please heed the warning, all you teams considering drafting a tackle prior to 25, and leave him to a team – the Seahawks – that would start him on the right, where he belongs).
I would be HORRIFIED if the Seahawks drafted Gabe Carimi with their 1st round pick.
From all that I’ve heard (which, admittedly, is far from complete) is that he’s a LT prospect without much power; hardly the kind of make-up you want in a right tackle. And if we do draft an OT at #25, he better be a RIGHT TACKLE; none of this “He can play RT pretty well, but his REAL value is being able to play guard and LT” crap. If we draft that position, then he goes over to RT and he STAYS at RT for the rest of his career.
Versatility is a good attribute if you’re drafting someone in the 5th or 6th round. If we draft a guard or a RT at #25, I want to be CERTAIN that that guy will play his position and play it well.
I may have read it wrong, but my understanding is that Carimi is better suited on the right...
…because of his power. For example:
Run blocking: Known as an athletic pass protector, but is a strong blocker for the Badger run game. Has strong upper and lower body builds despite his height. Plays with leverage against stout defensive ends and tackles on the edge, can get under their pads and churn his legs to move them down or off the line. Effective combo blocker, gets a hand on a tackle and still manages to push ends out of the play on strong-side runs. Leans or bends at the waist to latch on at times, will get shed and lose his balance.
Carimi wants to play left tackle, but could be a better fit on the right side. He also said he “handled it better than anybody else” when he was among several tackles asked to take snaps at guard during Senior Bowl week.
this is from http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1117793
But maybe this is wrong. Like you, I believe that if Seattle drafts a tackle to play on the right, that’s where he should play for the next ten years.
Uhhhh.....perhaps I should have done some actual research before posting my last comment.
BUT THERE IS NO TIME FOR FACT-CHECKING ON THE INTERNET! YOU NEED TO HAVE AN OPINION RIGHT AWAY, AND CLUTCH IT AS TIGHT AS YOU CAN NO MATTER HOW BADLY YOU ARE PROVEN WRONG!!!!!
All kidding aside, my target appears to be waaaay off base, but I may be able to salvage my central point: a lot of RTs are graded in the 1st round not necessarily because of their overall ability, but because of the possibility that they could play LT. Now, that’s not a bad talent to have; there are plenty of teams who have question marks at LT, and could use someone who can play right away, but also slide over to that coveted position if needed.
The Seahawks are fortunate not to need an insurance policy at LT; of course, there are plenty of tackles who can play both sides well, and still play RT very well (and be worth us drafting at #25). The question we have to ask ourselves heading into the draft, if we’re going to use a high draft pick on a RT, is can we draft an equal (or close-to-equal) RT prospect at #57, who just doesn’t have the cachet of moving over to LT, which is less valuable to us than other teams? Unless Tyron Smith falls to us at #25, is it worth using our first rounder on any of the other tackles?
"The Seahawks are fortunate not to need an insurance policy at LT"
Okung’s ankle injuries would beg to differ…
Mike Mayock has talked about this several times.
His feeling (for what it’s worth) is that if a team is going to draft a RT in the first, as Carimi projects, he needs to have the versatility to play LT in a pinch (not kick inside necessarily). Reason being is that RTs are far easier to find than quality LTs, so in order to justify a first round investment in a RT, he ought to have the ability to play some LT, should a need arise.
And considering Okung’s injured ankles to start his career, that reasoning makes sense to me. (Not that I’m advocating taking a tackle at 25, mind you.)
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Good points. I have always liked Carimi and this makes me like him more.
Also Ijalana, who I actually like 2nd best of the tackles. I expect him to get drafted sometime between our pick and the end of the 1st round, I don’t think he’s a 2nd rounder. Good power, good balance, great frame. Probably won’t win all the speed edge matchups on the left side.
But he really has a great frame, he wore #71 and the body looked similar to Walt. Power and balance, but mildly lacking in the quickness.
So he could play LT in a pinch but could be an all-pro RT since he’s got the power and he moves as well as Chris Spencer on the 2nd level. Dream ZBS RT.
Most reviews I've heard
Have Carimi listed as someone with plenty of power. He’s big, seems to have a quick first step, and was the best blocker on a line that annihilated just about everyone that lined up across from them. I do agree that he projects better as a RT, however, and I’d love to see him and Okung as out bookends for the next five years.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 3, 2011 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Jacson, you ignorant slut.
Gabe Carimi is a 99-pound weakling who gets tired from trying to lift a Maxi-pad. Any team that drafts him should fire their GM and hang their scouts in front of their stadium as a warning to all others who would advocate drafting such a waste of space. Gabe Carimi is the son of Satan and if drafted in the first round will bring about the Apocalypse; if drafted in the 2nd round or later we should all be fine.
by J.L. White on Apr 3, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
That was a remarkably strange comment
But I greatly appreciate the Dan Akroyd reference in the title.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 3, 2011 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
As far as Sherrod goes
I did include him above as a potential second-round grab, as I’ve yet to hear him listed as a top OT. However, if he was the best OL on the board at 25 and the ‘Hawks don’t love their QB options, he’d at least be worth a consideration.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 3, 2011 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions
My thinking was that Sherrod doesn't make it out of the first, and in a few mocks, not even to 25.
As far as ranking number 1 overall for the position, here is one example (for whatever its worth, but I have seen others, and some commentators who agree):
Great link
Thanks. If anything, this just highlights how variant pro scouting can be.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 4, 2011 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Here is another one. For anyone interested in the o-line prospects this coming draft...
…(and every Seahawk fan should be) check out this article that Eric Williams called out on the insiders page:
Here is another one. For anyone interested in the o-line prospects this coming draft...
…(and every Seahawk fan should be) check out this article that Eric Williams called out on the insiders page:
That link
doesn`t work, or is it so just on my computer…
"The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime."
I probably am holding the Senior Bowl against him too much; Von Miller gave him trouble
and he’s supposed to be more of a pass blocking guy rather than a power blocking guy. Makes me kind of feel like, why not just get James Carpenter at the top of the 4th or something, at least you’d have a guy who excels in one facet or the other.
But it’s pretty critical and I haven’t given Sherrod a fair shake. I’ll see if I can find time to look at him.
i stiil dont get that
What was the point of signing him to a futures contract and then cutting him before he can even report. I get that teams often sign guys to these under the radar future deals but if he wasn’t worth the spot in camp a week or 2 after the deal what the hell was the point? Did he do something stupid we never heard about or did some voice of reason speak up and say that’s not gonna be the guy? I don’t get how he was worth signing and then without ever even seeing the guy he got cut. That’s the one move the new regime made that I really question, even though it was likely totally inconsequential.
by CMoney87 on Apr 3, 2011 8:40 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't think the Seahawks ever took Nate Davis that seriously.
They probably just signed him to bring him in a give him a thorough once-over, and then realized there was almost no scenario where he would be useful. Davis was over-hyped in San Fran, and I see no reason why we should have bought into it, too.
LET. IT. GO.
i never bought into it
I didn’t ever hear he was actually brought into the facility. I was under the impression he was given the futures deal and cut without anyone ever really giving him that “once over”. If you give the guy a contract that would seem to me they believed in him enough to bring him into camp. Just kinda strange if he was worth the contract and a week later he wasn’t even worthy of being camp fodder.
I’m sensing a level of sarcastic hostility from you today J.L., that time of the month?
by CMoney87 on Apr 3, 2011 10:41 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I just saw Super, and it was......interesting, to say the least.
Yes, perhaps I’m trying to figuratively bash these comments in the head with a wrench, as it were. I like to think I’m just being more daring and silly with my comments than normal; please believe me, there is no hostile intent behind them.
that could do it, watching that super...cant...say...it
I sensed the sarcasm there but you were coming mighty strong in all your posts today. If you wanna call it daring and silly then I’ll stop crying and start laughing.
by CMoney87 on Apr 3, 2011 11:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I saw the movie Super, starring Rainn Wilson.
If you’re referring to a certain Super Bowl, well, that just angries up my blood even further. YOU BASTARD!
yeah i kinda caught that after i pressed post
Damn SBNs lack of an edit function!
by CMoney87 on Apr 3, 2011 11:43 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
One of the key guys in the Seahawks FO is former Niners GM Scott McCloughan
We brought in Mike Robinson because of him and likely did the same with Nate Davis. Once Scott became disinterested in Davis, it became a moot point.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 3, 2011 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, my bad
That Davis had been cut totally slipped my mind. Thanks to Danny for the strike-out edit.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 3, 2011 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Partially forgot that Chris Spencer was a FA and that Unger is traditionally a center.
If he is playing Center I retract my statement. (even though I’d rather have Spencer) But as a guard he starts every play 5 yards in the backfield.
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 4, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Even if Carroll put a gun to Cable's head, no way the Seahawks just let Spencer go and hand Unger the center position.
After a beyond-lousy2009 and a missed 2010, the pedigree of being drafted in the 2nd round has worn off of Max Unger; he should earn his way to the starting lineup, rather than letting his predecessor walk as a free agent and give the job to him.
Pete Carroll, please do not Brian Russell-ize the center position.
Could be
but Pete and John are talking up Unger a lot more at this point than Spencer (for whatever reason). It could be they’re just trying to talk up his value before a trade or it could be that they see him as a future starter.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 3, 2011 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe they don't want to screw with their negotiating power?
by Scruffy Lefty on Apr 4, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Could be
It seems like Spencer is a better starting C than Unger is.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 4, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I always thought our O-line needed help
But after reading this, and viewing game tape for a future post (teaser!), holy shit the line is a mess. Besides Okung, the whole line needs a talent overhaul. It crippled our running game, it only helped Matt’s weaknesses instead of hiding them, and in general it dragged the offense down, leading to the defense being on the field more often, leading to more defensive collapses in the 2nd half…
Goddamn it. A competent O-line, guys. That’s all I really ask for.
by Benne on Apr 3, 2011 9:53 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
This is actually why I want the Seahawks to pass on a quarterback this year.
Get the line ready first.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That, and the fact that there is no quarterback this year that I think the Seahawks should pursue.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2011 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Quarterbacks take much longer to develop than offensive linemen.
The whole notion of “getting [something] first” should factor in that you can rarely take a QB and just toss them on the field.
I doubt Polumbus gets handed a starting role
He is a fine backup who can start in a pinch, but by no means should he plan, he is for when the plan goes to hell
by Flamefox111 on Apr 3, 2011 10:45 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It sounds like Petey plans on sticking Stacy in at RT for the year
At least, based on this article. And honestly, I wouldn’t completely mind that. If RT is truly his natural position (and he’s had some decent success there), that could free the ‘Hawks up to focus elsewhere with their picks this year, and to draft another OL next year, especially since this year’s class doesn’t seem all that awe-inspiring.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
It sounds like we want to keep him around to "compete" at RT
Given the size of his contract, that likely means he’ll start, but who knows.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 4, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Question:
I’m being lazy and not just looking it up myself, but did Andrews play much or any RT this year? Or was he purely thrown in at guard?
I never saw him at RT last year.
Which bothered the hell out of me, because Locklear was so awful. Even after Polumbus and Gibson took over the RG spot, I don’t think we saw Andrews on the field at all.
Maybe the coaches felt that, since he didn’t have any practice at RT since coming over from Philly, that it would be better just to keep his as guard depth. Hopefully, with a full training camp, they can move him over to his natural position (or just cut bait).
by J.L. White on Apr 4, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Thanks. And i agree, it would be nice to see him at his best position – he was really good there in Philly before he got hurt. Maybe he’s healthy now and can contribute.
Didn't we trade for him in late training camp?
I think there were reports of trying him very briefly at RT, with injuries & stuff to contend with, but no preseason games.
Here are the key words of the statement:
“That’s a spot that Stacy will compete at,” Carroll said. “That to me is an exciting opportunity. His body type and his mentality and his background, even though he played guard at Philadelphia, he really is a natural tackle. Hard-working guy and all that kind of stuff. We’ll see how that works out.”
Hopefully nobody – Unger or Andrews – simply gets handed the starting gig. Having Andrews to compete for the position doesn’t preclude drafting Carimi or Sherrod (but it makes it less likely I would think). Having Andrews available might make 25 a real question, if a tackle isn’t on the radar. I still think taking any guard that high is a bit much, even if its Pouncey.
But PC has a better idea than we do about the possibility of bringing in Gallery, and how Willis might fit in. Polumbus should be a back-up, not a starter (unless he beats out Andrews). Hell, I wouldn’t care if they bring Locklear into camp, as long as they get a decent starter and some decent backup at the position.
The other part of the equation is that Andrews is due $5.25M in 2011
If he’s not starting, I can’t see us keeping him around as a backup OG/RT at that price. He’s either going to get the starting job or get cut.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 4, 2011 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Possible O-line
With the players listed, this is a possible line and back-ups. Okung, Fanaika, Spencer, Unger, Andrews. Spencer earned his spot last year by being the only full-time starter, it’s his to lose. Fanaika is a big body for the left side, I hope is a good player. Unger has to earn his spot and prove he is NFL caliber. Andrews is the least injury prone of the remain first tier players. I see Polumbus and Gibson as possible back ups with experiance. Drafting a quality G or T in this years draft to start or work into a starting position.
Wasn't Willis decent at RT?
And thus better than Andrews? I feel like everyone’s forgetting about the guy.
Recently engaged! Best. Off-season. Ever.
by Cheddar28 on Apr 4, 2011 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's exactly how I feel.
It might just be an unwarranted impression, but I thought Willis looked strong when he was in there.
I would hate to see another year of a cobbled together o-line that performs barely adequately at best.
Obtaining the talent necessary to put together a very good o-line will do more to increase the effectiveness of the entire team than any other move, outside of obtaining a franchise QB (Mallet, maybe Kolb, potentially Palmer).
And the nice thing about obtaining such players, they tend to last a long time (as opposed to RBs, for instance) and make for good investments.
RT is not worth a 1st round pick
I will always stand by this idea. We have so many holes, and RT is one of the easier positions to fill. I realize that OL is a need and a sizeable one at that, but there’s a reason RTs hardly ever go in round 1. They are basically athletically limited LTs. It’s tantamount to finding a “good” corner who is undersized and slow. There’s not a lot of value in that.
There’s no way I could pass up a possible franchise QB, talented DL, or potential starting CB for a RT because those positions hold so much more value and are much harder to find/address.
I understand the want to form a dominant O-line, but the bottom line is that many of the top OL units in the NFL are not made up of 1st rounders and the ones that are “Browns, Panthers,” doesn’t make a difference because they don’t even have average QB play.
I think Round 2 – 4 is a great place to find good OL talent that doesn’t need to man the blind side (LT). Otherwise, I think you are overspending as well as neglecting other positions.
by MTJ on Apr 4, 2011 7:58 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
So who do you advocate taking at 25?
My own answer would be Mallet, if he is available. No other QB in the draft is worth a 1st round grade, in my opinion.
If not Mallet, then maybe Jimmy Smith at corner. If PC can cope with the guys attitude, great. He might be a super value.
What DE or DT projects to be on the board at 25? And how would such a pick enhance the team more than bolstering the offensive line, the largest talentless pit on the team?
I like the idea of drafting guards in later rounds, but having a top-flight RT is worth far more than a back-up DT or DE.
next years line prediction
Okung, Gallery, Unger, Gibson, Willis
There's a very good shot of that happening.
There’s a good chance that the top half of the first round is focused primarily on defense particularly with DT’s and DE’s, so teams in bottom half of the first round ahead of the Seahawks that would be looking take O-linemen are more likely to take the top tackles that are available, pushing the top interior linemen back further.
I’m actually of the mind that Pouncey SHOULD be available when the Seahawks are on the clock (unless of course, they trade that pick).
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2011 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Pouncey's troubles at center
are now kind of coming to light. I believe I read on Sports Illustrated he had something like 100 messed up snaps at center. He is not his brother and wont garner the same interest his brother did since he wont have the potential impact at the center position like Maurkice did with the Steelers.
If the 'Hawks draft Pouncey
It will assuredly be as a guard.
I've got ridiculous upside.
by Jacson Bevens on Apr 4, 2011 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
That link above mentioned
doesn`t work, or is it so just on my computer…?
"The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime."

by 































