Seahawks in re-build (Part One): Learning lessons from visions of the past
Many people like to engage in the timeless debate on how to truly build a championship team. You'll often hear spurious references to 'building in the trenches' or suggestions of losing now in order to win for the future by getting a high draft pick.
In reality, there's no definite blue print to creating a team capable of competing year after year. The easiest way is to find a young franchise quarterback, but they don't exactly grow on trees. The least you can have is a vision and that's certainly something the Seahawks haven't been lacking over the last few years.
Whether the latest vision under Pete Carroll and John Schneider provides long and sustained success remains to be seen. The road to success is being paved, nonetheless. It'll take time though, because they arrived at a franchise in need of some major re-tooling.
In writing Seahawks Draft Blog for the last three years, one thing I've noticed among fans in general (this isn't limited to Seattle) is the strong desire to fill every need during an off-season.
First, we pick our favorites from the free agency group - and they tend to be the same handful that every team's fans select. Then the draft provides a second opportunity to sift through the prospects available and find a way - unrealistically - to enter a season with close to a faultless roster.
There was some evidence of that thinking in the approach taken by former GM Tim Ruskell. Although there were strict policies on which players were deemed worthy of being drafted, essentially there was a lot of band-aiding. Free agency was treated almost like a coupe de grace - an opportunity to blow away existing needs and shape focus during the draft.
Areas of need would have a cheque book thrust in their direction. Secondary struggling? Throw money at Deon Grant and Brian Russell. Problems at receiver? Let's get a former Super Bowl MVP and spend a first round pick in the process. Mike Holmgren needs a tight end? We'll spend two valuable picks trading up to draft John Carlson.
Seemingly those days are in the past under Carroll and Schneider. They've been patient in all cases, which is somewhat surprising given their aggressive pursuit of Charlie Whitehurst which was, lest we forget, one of their first acts.
Free agent splashes appear to be a thing of the past and despite owning three first round picks the last two years, they've all been invested without any headlines. Solid, not spectacular - which you feel is what they wanted. Needs filled, but not reached for and at no extra cost.
Given the opportunity to spend some stock in a big name like Brandon Marshall or Vincent Jackson, they flirted with the prospect, but also stepped back because the price wasn't right.
The early signs of acknowledgement perhaps that this is a rebuild? I'm not convinced Ruskell ever saw it as such, when maybe an eye to the future was needed with so many key pieces of the equation approaching the end of their careers?
I'm not one who doesn't appreciate the good work Ruskell did - it was not all bad. Certainly his policies had a lasting impact on pushing the Seahawks to the Super Bowl. When the time came to rebuild, however, Ruskell was intent on re-stocking. While players such as Matt Hasselbeck and Walter Jones aged, replacements were not forthcoming when they should've been a priority.
Holes were created unnecessarily and inadequately replaced. I don't want to dwell on the Steve Hutchinson saga, but the handling of the situation was made all the more confusing to me when Seattle strongly courted Kris Dielman at a similar cost a year after Hutchinson's departure.
Likewise the trading of Julian Peterson just to create room to draft Aaron Curry was a move difficult to advocate. The linebacker position received specialist treatment when the team had a gaping void at both quarterback and left tackle for the long term, while Patrick Kerney was approaching retirement and the team lacked playmakers on offense.
Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman (who visited Seattle), a plethora of offensive lineman, Brian Orakpo and Michael Crabtree were all bypassed for Curry - a player deemed by many to be a safe, can't miss pick. Others cringed at the prospect of a $60m linebacker, especially one whose NFL stats the past two years (5.5 sacks, 134 tackles, 2 forced fumbles, seven passes deflected) are eerily similar to the man he replaced (Peterson's stat line for 2009/10 - 5.5 sacks, 159 tackles, 5 forced fumbles, nine passes deflected).
Aspects of Ruskell's vision - the emphasis on character and production in particular - were nothing but sound at least on paper. To some degree, they were also too restrictive. The draft room toasted the college career of Lawrence Jackson at USC, enough to make him a surprise first round pick. He fit the bill in every way.
They liked Jackson so much, they were prepared to wait on John Carlson and initiate the bold trade including 2nd and 3rd round picks to get the Notre Dame tight end early in round two.
Looking back, it's painful to think that the 3rd round pick was eventually turned into Ray Rice by Baltimore. Perhaps more galling is the knowledge that DeSean Jackson (who was available with both of Seattle's first two picks as it turns out) would never have passed the Ruskell test as an underclassman with attitude concerns.
Jackson has since made two Pro-Bowls, has 3124 receiving yards in three seasons and 24 total touchdowns. Not to mention, he's clearly one of the most dynamic playmakers in the NFL.
All the while his namesake in Seattle was last year traded by his former college coach for a late round pick.
When the Seahawks parted ways with Ruskell and appointed Pete Carroll to his current position, they invested in a brand new vision. If anything, this game plan would be more complex. Alongside GM John Schneider, Carroll hasn't just sought out a particular character in his players or tried to fit pieces into the necessary scheme. This is a broad canvas.
It includes a mental approach to the profession, an attitude replicated between coaches, players, staff and even the fans. It's reliant on people buying into the system and becoming part of the family, all the while knowing that the latest batch of cuts is probably just around the corner.
As seen with Jeremy Bates, that's not restricted to the players either.
From a personnel point of view it's equally unorthodox. Carroll and Schneider played the role of Billy Beane better than Brad Pitt had any hope of matching when they fit unwanted pieces such as Chris Clemons, Mike Williams, Leon Washington and Red Bryant into a system and found a degree of production.
And while a division title and playoff victory should be deemed a success in year one, it'll quickly be forgotten if it's followed by a regression from what was, in reality, still a losing 7-9 season in a weak NFC West.
In part two I'll look at the way Carroll and Schneider have approached recruitment and why their policy to date of letting the draft come to them and not striving to fill every need should be applauded - for now.
28 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
nicely put
They have let the draft come to them, and at the points where they “reached” it was in areas that could have big upside. If they find a way to snag a dynamic quarterback this team could be pretty good. It’s a bit soon to say they will not reach during free agency though – this year we’ll find out.
I like the team Carroll is building win or lose.
He’s bringing in young strong fast guys. Maulers on the O-line big press corners 6’ 5’’ receivers . Hell ya kick some butt baby!
Leon was traded for a pittance
and Red was a former 4th-round pick with one career start that only participated in 10 games over 2 seasons.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jun 12, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
That means Red was unwanted? No.
I’ll accept that the Jets no longer “wanted” Washington due to injury concerns over his leg and a crowded backfield and dumped him for a 5th and 7th. But how that paragraph is worded, reads as though they were simply afterthoughts. Castoffs. And to that I say, bollocks.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
They didn't dump him for a 5th and a 7th
They had to give up a 7th and Leon Washington for our 5th. We moved down 97 spots for Leon Washington. Picked Dexter Davis with that pick IIRC. Jets got John Conner.
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 12, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Correction; Washington and a 7th for the 'Hawks 5th.
Point still stands.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Correct me if i'm wrong
but if i remember correctly, Peterson was traded to Detroit for Cory Redding. At the time i thought Ruskell was trying to secure a badass linebacking core with Tats, Curry and resigning Leroy Hill while at the same time filling a need a DE with Redding. Didn’t work out so well but at the time i thought it was a good move.
BTW really excited about Legree
I still believe he was creating space and took what he could from Detroit.
Either way, it created a hole that didn’t need to be filled by a top-five pick. Especially with much greater longer term needs at QB, OT, WR, DE and players very capable of filling those positions were available.
In retrospect, jettisoning Peterson at the point in his carreer was actually a pretty shrewd move.
It was penciling in Curry with the fourth pick as a replacement that was a mistake.
by Nate Dogg on Jun 12, 2011 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
And maybe only in retrospect
While Curry doesn’t play an impact position, he was touted as some kind of NFL-ready phenom in the weeks leading up to the draft.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jun 12, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
There was talk of him going first overall.
Doug Farrar was gaga over him. Whats so weird looking back on his predraft stuff is that he was most praised for his coverage and instincts, even drew a Derrick Brooks comp from Farrar.
This was my beliefe also at the time
We were giving up one of our better players for DE that seemed to me rather mediocre and forcing the Curry pick. This could have back fired if he wold have been picked by the Browns before us but who know ’s, maybe then we would have settled on Clay Mathews as an alternative. Too bad
yea dude
Been a while, but.....
I thought it had more to do with JP refusing a salary cut than wanting Redding in particular.
He did
The development, first reported by Seattle radio station KJR-AM 950, comes after the team allocated $8.3 million for linebacker Leroy Hill in naming him their franchise player. The team has $20.7 million in 2009 salary-cap space allotted for Peterson, Hill and fellow linebacker Lofa Tatupu.
Peterson’s contract, a seven-year deal running through the 2012 season, calls for $6.5 million in salary for 2009. Counting bonus money already paid, the contract counts $8.8 million against the salary cap if Peterson remains on the roster and $4.6 million if the team releases him.
Curry signed a 6 year $60 million with $34 million guaranteed.
This was my other complaint at the time, but I was thinking he would need $49 – $50 million with $24 mill Guaranteed.
Peterson still has better #’ers
yea dude
Curry wasn't a guarantee at that point.
Peterson was traded before the Seahawks drafted Curry.
by Carl Shinyama on Jun 12, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
His point stands though
The deal “opened the way” for a Curry selection should Curry have been available. The position was an utter logjam prior to that deal.
Nothing against the JP trade, which was really solid, but something people forget is that even after dealing JP the Seahawks still had 4 starter capable LBs on a 4-3 defense. (Tatupu, Hill, Hawthorne, Herring). So even after dealing JP and before drafting Curry, out LB corps were pretty crowded.
by Kip Earlywine on Jun 22, 2011 5:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe 3 and a half starters would be more accurate
Herring is best as a situational LB, though he has proven surprisingly capable in spot starts.
by Kip Earlywine on Jun 22, 2011 5:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I saw some film on Redding that made me think we hit a home run .At the time.
But he never turned into that guy. Maybe Ruskell saw the same film. Peterson had 5 sacks in 08. He was great inside as was Rocky Bernard . Both lost that year .
This is an interesting look back and Ruskell definitely gave more than a few examples of pitfalls to avoid.
My problem with this post is at the very end. Your quick summary of the Q/PM gameplan seems contradictory.
Alongside GM John Schneider, Carroll hasn’t just sought out a particular character in his players or tried to fit pieces into the necessary scheme. This is a broad canvas.
Emphasis mine. This quote seems to be in pretty direct opposition of this very next one:
It includes a mental approach to the profession, an attitude replicated between coaches, players, staff and even the fans. It’s reliant on people buying into the system and becoming part of the family, all the while knowing that the latest batch of cuts is probably just around the corner.
Like you say, Jeremy Bates was fired for not having the right attitude or philosophical outlook. LoJack was also likely shipped out for similar reasons, he didn’t buy in. It’s not the same choir boy character restriction that Ruskell had, but it’s a restriction none the less.
This next quote seems to contradict the first as well:
Carroll and Schneider played the role of Billy Beane better than Brad Pitt had any hope of matching when they fit unwanted pieces such as Chris Clemons, Mike Williams, Leon Washington and Red Bryant into a system and found a degree of production.
The jury is still out on how strictly the Hawks will keep to their defensive scheme, but Clemons, Bryant, Wilson, Chancellor, Milloy, Brock, Davis and Mebane’s uncertain future all seem to point to them keeping fairly true to this leo 4-3 under. They’ve also demonstrated a pretty clear personality they’re trying to build of offense with placing an emphasis on guys like Moffit, Lynch and Cable but again it’s early on that.
So it seems to me that Carroll isn’t painting with a particularly broad canvas. That might not necessarily be a bad thing and it’s definitely not a unique thing, every coach has their guys and their scheme. It’s too early to say that it won’t become a problem though, and it’s definitely to early to praise them for it.
Agreed.
Seems like Carroll/Schneider are drafting for Scheme while Character is something they’ve emphasized with free agents.
It’s not the same or as predictable as Ruskell’s philosophy, but it’s similar.
I’m interested to see what part two brings.
Every team ships people out because of scheme reasons
What Ruskell did went far beyond that, and isn’t really analogous in my opinion.
Ruskell didn’t just avoid character risks, he avoided players from small schools or even non BCS schools. He also strongly preferred seniors.
By contrast, John Schneider has kicked a ridiculous amount of tires and gone every direction imaginable in obtaining talent. Tim Ruskell may not have been the very most selective GM in the NFL, but he was in the discussion. Whereas John Schneider is probably in the discussion right now for being the least picky (scheme aside).
by Kip Earlywine on Jun 22, 2011 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Nice work, Rob.
I look forward to more and am more a regular of your blog than here, anymore. Probably just how my interests have changed, though.
Hasseldone.
I, for one, would rather have Curry than Mark Sanchez.
Sanchez is garbage and while Curry hasn’t been dominant either, at least he could be if he got his head straight. Looking back now I would obviously take Freeman if we were to do it again, but I would never take Sanchez.
Sanchez and Crabtree have done a good job
Of making the Curry selection sting less. I actually hated that pick even more than FF did. I just went apeshit at a different site.
by Kip Earlywine on Jun 22, 2011 5:22 AM PDT up reply actions

by 


































