Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Raiders' GM Begins The Purge

Off Season Plan: 2007

With $21.9 million in cap room and a number of high profile free agents that need to be retained on the roster, Seattle must be creative this off season. For 2007 the cap has been expanded to $109 million, and of the top ten teams in cap space only the New York Jets at 10 made the playoffs. In other words, expect a wild and woolly free agent market with more than a few players getting Washington $$$ who don't deserve it. Of particular interest are the Hawks' three main rivals: San Francisco, Arizona and St. Louis rank 1st, 3rd and 6th respectively in cap room.

Hawks that should be re-signed

The most notable of Seattle's free agents has to be the man with the golden toe, Josh Brown. His four game winning field goals were not only entertaining football, but likely allowed a banged up and underachieving Seattle team to slide into the playoffs. The temptation for your average fan would be to throw money at him--that is, keep him at all costs. But should we be paying him for a performance we can't expect him to repeat? Brown's real value comes not from his clutch performance last year, but his excellent distance on kickoffs. Brown is accurate and has excellent leg strength and Seattle shouldn't let him leave, but if some team blows his doors off with an outlandish contract (i.e. Dallas) the Hawks should simply franchise him. Hawk cost: 2.08 million. Next year he should be more affordable, and then they can look into signing him long-term.

The second big name Seattle should make every effort to retain is Ken Hamlin. Hamlin is young (26), a hard hitter and has improved his cover skills. He also has a knack for big plays. The guy is going to be heavily pursued during the off season, as recent standout performances from Super Bowl Champs Bob Sanders, Troy Polamalu, Rodney Harrison and Ed Reed have increased the market for safeties dramatically, but Hams is a player Seattle should commit to keeping. The Hawks built some goodwill when they paid his contract in 2005 even though he suffered a non-football related injury. Though it's dumb to ever assume loyalty in pro sports, maybe that gesture will pay off this year. A four year 8 million dollar deal will pay him like Troy Polamalu without breaking the bank.

Seneca Wallace should be retained. The scrambling Qb fad has faded, so he shouldn't cost Seattle and arm and a leg. Seneca seems truly committed to learning Holmgren's system and made a decent showing filling in for Hasselbeck last year. I like the kid and think his best years will come late in his career a la Warren Moon. Holmgren has really connected with Wallace and I highly doubt Wallace would want to move to another franchise and have to learn a whole new playbook.

RFA

Hackett stays. The Hawks should look into locking him up long term before the word gets out how good Hacks really is. I'd like to see him start next year as the Hawks #2, with Burleson playing out of the slot. Some team might offer a first round tender to get D.J., but I can't imagine Seattle cutting ties after his two excellent showings while starting late in the season.

I'm not a big Sean Locklear fan, but the Hawks gain nothing by letting him leave. As a restricted free agent, Seattle can tender a one year deal and see if his sacks allowed continues to grow before deciding if he's a long term solution at right tackle. Unlike left tackle, right tackle is not a premium position and the Hawks have a decent in-house replacement with Tom Ashworth. If some team decides to offer a quality second round or even a first round pick, I'd say sayonara to Sean.

Craig Terrill is a good fit in our defensive tackle rotation. He's the speedy sort John Marshall likes to see. Not really a force against the rush or the pass, but well rounded. He gets decent pressure, and recorded a team best 90% stop rate against the run in 2005. Sign `em.

Jordan Babineaux. An excellent and versatile role player, Babs is never likely to hold down a full-time starting spot on an NFL roster, but gives Seattle much needed secondary depth at safety and corner.

Who I would like to keep, but is likely gone.

Bobby Engram has long been an undervalued receiver for the Hawks, and someone, ideally, I would love for the Hawks to keep. At 33, and coming off a year mostly lost to ailment, I doubt his price tag will be too high, but a couple key factors will likely land him somewhere else. The first is that another team like Houston or San Diego can offer him a starting role. In Seattle he faces a tough battle for playing time as the Hawks have no lack of talent/pricey contracts at WR. The second is simply that with an extended cap and a few prominent first round busts at WR--I'm looking at you Detroit--teams might be inclined to climb over each other to get that elusive "sure thing". Engram was a perfect fit for Holmgren's offense, a player Football Outsiders fondly referred to as "first down machine" for his intelligent rout running in crucial situations, that will be missed by informed Hawk fans. If we can move D-Jack, we might be able to retain him and also give him enough touches, but I doubt it.

Goodbye.

Floyd "Pork Chop" Womack. I've made my feelings clear about the rotund one, at the very least Porky needs another coaching staff to see if they can inspire a work ethic.

Chris Gray. At 35, Gray likely will retire. He's been a solid RG for the Hawks for 9 years, and while he has been healthy most of his career, the very real chance that he breaks down or gets hurt makes it unwise for Seattle to tender Gray anything but the minimum contract if he does choose to return.

Kelly Herndon--goodbye from starting that is. Herndon shows the sort of big play ability and toughness against the run to be a strong option at nickel, but his days of starting should be over. The guy is a liability in coverage, name your big opponent passing play and you'll see Herndon in the frame five steps behind. Let him jump routs against the slot receiver and let Kelly Jennings take over the starting spot his postseason play earned.

Jerramy Stevens. I don't really care how good a locker room presence Stevens is. I don't care if he deserved to be kneed in the nards by Tyler Brayton. What I care about is that Stevens will be too expensive for a player who has never lived up to his promise. In 2005 Stevens was Seattle's second most valuable receiver (16.4 DPAR) behind Joe Jurevicius (20.6 DPAR). In 2006, what do we get? A big steaming pile of horse plop topped with a 46% catching percentage. Given his attitude, reputation and late season/wild-card round surge, I fully expect Stevens to get his signing bonus and then take the summer off. If another coach can beat some discipline into Stevens, good, more power to him, but I think it's safe to say the Holmgren has failed to do so and it's time he move on.

Darrell Jackson. With a whole off season for Branch and Burleson to digest the playbook, now would be a good time to shop Jackson and his chronic knee problems. It's not that I don't like Jackson, but Seattle simply has too much talent and moreover money committed to one position. Oakland is asking for a number three pick for Moss, I think that's a reasonable expectation for Jackson, too.

Additions

Derrick Dockery. Dockery is the current left guard for the Washington Redskins. He's a behemoth of a man, someone Steve Spurrier (I know, I know) considered a 1st round talent when he was drafted, that has shown flashes of brilliance in his short career. Washington's success running up the middle and behind left tackle supports his reputation as a guard on the verge of greatness. Dockery is a power blocker with agile enough feet to pull and force blocks into the second level. Fortunately for the Hawks, the Skins are currently in cap hell. Plus, Dockery has a bit of a bad reputation, and is considered a less valuable free agent than overrated project player Eric Steinbach. Let San Francisco shell out for the former Bengal, while the Hawks pick up the maligned mauler. The added benefit, of course, is that Rob Sims could then move over to right guard where he would excel. The net result would be a super-young, talented middle three (G-C-G) for the Hawks to build around. Dockery is a potential superstar that won't likely command superstar money; a steal that a smart team with some cajones takes a risk on.

I've already made my case for David Martin at TE. Signing someone like Martin enables the Hawks to put more money towards Dockery and Hamlin, while avoiding potential pit-falls in Daniel Graham and Eric Johnson.

The Hawks could use some depth at running back and a special teams captain to replace the pointlessly cut Isaiah Kacyvenski. Who could fill both roles and maybe turn into the steal of the off season? Why none other than Chicago Bear Adrian Peterson. Peterson was the most valuable rusher in the league per rush in 2005. Add to that decent receiving ability--a fact that would instantly make him the best receiver out of the backfield the Hawks have--a militant attitude towards opposing special teams, plus legs with only 133 professional caries and you have not only an excellent short yardage and third down back, but perhaps Alexander's long term replacement. I fully support Seattle throwing cash at the goofy looking man from Georgia Southern; the problem is that Peterson seems like the kind of organizational loyalist that will resign with the Bears el cheapo.

But what about DT?

In 2005 Seattle had the 3rd best rush defense in the NFL. They did it with mostly the same players on the defensive line as they had in 2006 when their run D slipped to 23rd. The difference? Injuries. It's a knee jerk reaction to think Seattle must sign a big ugly like Oakland's Terdell Sands, but one that it would be prudent to ignore. Seattle is one of ten teams in the NFL who saw their rushing defense change 10 or more places from 2005 to 2006. The reason for this high variability is twofold: defensive players are more susceptible to injuries and defensive performance is highly reliant on turnovers. Good defenses do force more turnovers, but fumbles & interceptions are also the product of luck. With Boulware hopefully regaining a full-time starting spot and improved health from Marcus Tubbs and Rocky Bernard, Seattle could easily field another top ten rushing defense with the players they have. Instead of signing someone through FA, Seattle would be better suited simply adding depth through the draft. Depth and not superstars is the key to success in the NFL.

Summary

In the NFL franchises can be built two ways: tall or wide. A tall team commits its money to big name players and when things break right, like they did for the Colts, those big names overcome whatever weaknesses the team has and lead you to a championship. A wide team lacks an abundance of big names, but has tremendous depth. This team is less weakened by injury, it has few holes and gets above average performances from many positions. New England is the prototypical wide team. The 2005 Seahawks were wide. The offense featured superstars in Jones, Hutchinson and Alexander, but the defense was a largely faceless unit. Instead every position was manned by an above average player. The net result was a near championship caliber defense. The wide receiving corps was--ahem--wide, when nominal #1 Darrell Jackson went down, long time journeyman Joe Jurevicius stepped in for the best season of his career.

Free agency is a time for superstars to cash out, but every year some team signs a John Abraham type only to see him lost for the season. All that money locked into one player left Atlanta foundering at DE without him. Abraham was just a year removed from his second straight injury plagued year with the Jets when the Falcons signed him. Not only was he a poor fit for a team that needed a run stopping tackle much more than a pass rushing defensive end, but his onerous 6 year $45 million dollar contract left Atlanta starting rookie free agent Paul Carrington in his absence. Carrington did a decent job rushing the passer in limited action, but Atlanta ranked a dismal 28th on rushes around left end.

My off season plan might seem like a lot of resigns, Dockery, plus a couple role players, but that's the beauty of it. It features two potential superstars still early in their careers (Dockery, Hamlin), depth at both lines, secondary and running back; but most importantly 0 huge potentially burdensome contracts. It nets the Hawks an extra pick to grab help for the secondary and a tight end of the future, while ensuring Hackett a starting spot. It makes Seattle younger, deeper and potentially--if Dockery continues to fulfill his potential in the first year with Seattle--championship ready. Now if only Tim Ruskell were reading.

Comment 43 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Wow.
Excellent piece, John.

And I know it's a bit of pedantry here, but I commend you on using the word "foundering" when describing Atlanta's DE situation. These days in writing I see authors using the word "floundering" when they really mean "foundering". It's one of my pet peeves.

That's a right kerfuffle!

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Feb 8, 2007 8:37 AM PST reply actions  

Yea
He's pretty much your only FA worth re-signing...or franchising.

by WABronco on Feb 8, 2007 10:19 AM PST up reply actions  

If I were Dockery...
I would leave that whole mess. They are starting this off season already over the cap--for next year! Washington was a talented squad that has been horrendously mismanaged in almost every way possible.

by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2007 12:27 PM PST up reply actions  

excellent stuff John
I still wouldnt mind signing one more DT or Safety, but nothing big...like a Marquand Manuel type signing, someone that could come cheap and add depth.

With some added depth I have no problem with Hamlin and Boulware at safety again in 2007.  I would predict Boulware to have a bounce back year in 2007.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Feb 8, 2007 9:58 AM PST reply actions  

Nice Work John
I don't need to do a offseason plan now because I agree with most of what you say (Which is good because I can't write for shit)

But just a couple things. I believe Seneca is signed through the 2007 season isn't he?

Also there isn't much more to bring up on Jackson that we haven't already discussed. I would keep him because I don't think the money is to big of a issue but we have already discussed this. Plus there is still a possibility for a uncapped year by 2010

As for Stevens I would still offer his a "fair" contract based on his performance so far (not potential) and if he doesn't take it then good riddance to him.

Players you didn't mention (probably because you didn't have time) but I will because I love Special Teams.

Josh Scobey (UFA) - Josh got a lot of crap from me and everyone else in 2005 because he was a terriable returner. The first game of the year in Detroit on a punt Josh ran down the sideline and completely killed the returner before the ball even got there causing a fumble. This play got my attention and as I watched Scobey all year all he did was make plays on both sides of the ball especially being the personal escort for Nate Burleson. I also believe that Scobey should get some work in as a blocking FB during the our two back shotgun formation.  

Lofa got owned on this one on one drill and he wasn't the only one. Peterson, Hill and Lewis couldn't get around Scobey.

D.D. Lewis (UFA) - D.D. help get us to the SB in 2005 as a starter and with the signing of Peterson was sent to the bench. To me D.D. should be the starter for what there asking Hill to do. Either Hill and Peterson have to switch positions or DD needs to come in on passing downs. Hill is a pass rushing LB that struggles in coverage but since we have Peterson, Hill is forced to play coverage. We saw it more toward the end of the year that Bentley was getting more work at LB during coverage downs. I believe that DD would of been getting those snaps if it weren't for his injury.

Will Heller (UFA) - Heller is a excellent backup TE and can even fill in a FB if needed. He should be resigned and I believe he will.

Oliver Celestin (RFA) - Celestin is a good Special Teams guys who offers good depth at safety. Probably won't be hard to resign especially because of him being a RFA.

Leonard Weaver (ERFA) - This guy will get playing time next year either as a short yardage back or a FB. I just envision that 3rd and 10 draw audible call working with him in the backfield instead of Strong because of his ability as a runner.

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 10:25 AM PST reply actions  

Thanks, Scruffy.
You're right about Seneca. I found a couple site's that hadn't been updated recently that said he was a UFA, so I threw him on there sort of last minute. I guess you can apply what I said to next year, I'm pretty sure Seneca is a Seahawks for life.

Thanks for covering some of the other valuable no-name guys on the roster, and, again, you're right--the article was bulging past 2,000 words so I just couldn't cover everyone, but agree some are excellent role players.

WRT Hill, I agree he was pretty rough in pass coverage last year, but he's excellent against the run. I wouldn't be opposed to a third down coverage LB, my only problem with Lewis is he's not very versatile and I think other teams could basically sit on him playing coverage. Coverage is the hardest thing for a defender to learn in the NFL, bringing in a late round pick to play third downs wouldn't be a bad idea, but I wouldn't give up on Hill.

by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2007 12:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I would like to see the Hawks
mix up more blitzes for Hill to play to his strengths. Maybe Bentley is the answer for the coverage woes because he does become the coverage LB in the Nickel package I want to say.

Like you I don't want to give up on Hill because I do believe he could be very good all around LB I just want to play to his strengths.  

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 12:36 PM PST up reply actions  

the problem I see with our DT's
I thought the problem was primarily due to the loss of Marcus Tubbs, who has missed significant time to injury 2 of 3 years he's been in the pro's.  I think it would behoove the front office to at least obtain a similar type of player in playing style.  Not a primier beast of a DT per se, but a guy that is quite large, and can plug holes, if only adequately, that would help alleviate the problems our defensive line faces when that sort of guy isn't in there and to let the speedster DT's (I thought it was funny to say that) do their thing

by gumbostu on Feb 8, 2007 10:45 AM PST reply actions  

Can we bring
Gilbert Brown out of retirement?

That's a right kerfuffle!

by Phil Hatzenbuehler on Feb 8, 2007 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

Well I think thats what John implied
when he said add depth through the draft. Is some big body that could fill the lanes.

I would like to see different DT pairings for different down situations. Like Tubbs and Bernard on 1st and 10 and maybe Darby and Terril on 2 and 7. Tubbs and Darby on 3rd and 2.

Stuff like that

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

I think this is the common fan in me speaking...
But with your analysis of Marcus Trufant in the playoffs explaining how he is a below average cornerback, I'd like to see the Seahawks trade him fora first round pick or something.  Trufant should still have value.  I'd like to see us maybe trade Trufant and Jackson to someone with a 1-10 spot in the first round of the draft, and then spend the money we've saved on those two players on Asante Samuel or an elite CB.  

We'd still have the extra cap room of having two players off the books, and a starting CB situation of Samuel/Jennings would be good for the defense, I think.  But I don't know much about Samuel other than all his pretty highlight reel plays, and as a fan with only a medium amount of football knowledge, my idea is probably stupid.

by BrettJMiller on Feb 8, 2007 2:58 PM PST reply actions  

I think you're undervaluing a top 10 pick
...Considering that Randy Moss is only being floated for a 3rd rounder, if we give D-Jack that value then toss in Trufant, I see a potential draft pick only being somewhere in the second round. And not to pile on, but "Trufant is a below-average cornerback so we should trade for a first round pick" is sort of faulty logic. Try "Peyton Manning for a first round pick".

Anyways, I think Trufant is a manageable problem. We almost made it to the NFC championship with street FAs in the secondary, so having grade-A quality isn't as important there as it is at, say,  QB. The Hawks don't need a superstar like Asante Samuel to reach Super Bowl XLII, they just need a collection of average to above average players, and while Trufant won't be the next Champ Bailey, he can be an important piece to that puzzle.

I don't have much to add about Linebackers, only that finding playing time for too many quality ones is a nice problem to have.

by Captain Morgan on Feb 8, 2007 4:40 PM PST up reply actions  

I posted this in Johns writeup
about Trufant. The numbers he provided are kind of a small sample , 4-5 more passes knocked down and its a swing from the bottom 10 close to the top 10. And I can guarntee that Marcus had good position on at least 4 balls that just got through his fingers.
I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 5:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Basically I am saying
Marcus is a good cover guy that is getting year by year. He is never going to be a big INT guy but thats ok because I would rather have my corner be in position to knock a ball down than take the gamble and give up the big play.
I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

getting better year by year
dam no edit
I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

I think Trufant is safe
Corner is already a position we are sorta iffy at so I don't think they will make any trades with him involved.

I agree with what Scruffy said about Stevens, I'd offer him a fair deal.  If he takes it..good, if not then let him walk.

I actually think Engram will come back, unless one of those teams (Houston, San Diego) really blows us out of the water I think Bobby will come back to us.  Holmgren loves him, Matt loves him and he knows the system better than any of our recievers.

Plus does B-Easy want to go to another team this late in his career?

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Feb 8, 2007 5:09 PM PST reply actions  

We better not let
D-Jack go. Branch and Burleson might not as great as everybody thinks next year. If Hasslebeck was healthy I'd say sure let him go, but since Matt won't be back until training camp in July we need either him or Engram to be a comfort spot for Matt if Deion or Nate don't work out. Besides for a long time he was second in the NFL and led the NFC in touchdown receptions. I say keep him.

by Coach Owens on Feb 8, 2007 6:20 PM PST reply actions  

This whole D-Jack chemistry thing befuddles me...
Last year Jurevicius was our most productive receiver in his first and only season with the Hawks. This year Branch was traded to the team midseason and was productive. I think this is one of those weird football truisms that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2007 6:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Not really
there is certain throws you can make to a certain recievers because he know exactly when to turn around. But for the most part basic of offenses you can throw to anyone
I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 8:24 PM PST up reply actions  

I was just reading USSMariner...
and the thing I think that still separates Field Gulls from the big boys is that we don't fill our threads w/ endless flame wars.

So here's the thing, Scruffy you call me an a-hole in chat friendly terms, and I'll site stats and sources while acting superior and self-satisfied.

Deal?

by John Morgan on Feb 8, 2007 8:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Your Love making is insufficient
and you can take your fancy DVOA stat and shove it in your Pee hole >:0

How was that?

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 8, 2007 9:04 PM PST up reply actions  

Another Guy I wanted to bring up
that seems to be lost in all this is Ben Obomanu. Even though I am on the keep Jackson side of things Ben is another guy that makes Jackson even more expendable and thats even if Bobby doesn't come back.

The coaching staff is rather high on the kid and he spent the entire season till the end on the practice squad, which means he got plenty of reps in our system. Hes a bigger guy at 6'1 205 lbs and doesn't have great speed so his probably destined for the slot.  

This is another guy come Training camp you will have to keep your eye on.  

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 9, 2007 8:53 AM PST reply actions  

As much as I like the Branch signing...
I really can't see it making sense unless we move one of our WRs--that really has to be Jackson. He's the oldest and most commonly injured of our wide receivers, and excepting Branch and maybe Hackett likely has the best trade value. Don't get me wrong, I like Jackson and think he's a valuable receiver, I also like having depth at wide receiver, but he's unhappy with his contract and likely wants to sign somewhere he can get starter money. For the Hawks he's entering the most expensive years of his contract and, really, didn't we all use to hate this guy for all his drops? The one thing you can't do in a Walsh offense is drop the ball.

by John Morgan on Feb 9, 2007 2:19 PM PST reply actions  

You're not
including Engram are you? Why would you want him. He's older and more injury prone than Jackson.

by Coach Owens on Feb 9, 2007 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

in terms of potential
Yes..Jackson is better, and Engram has been injury prone.  However Engram is probably the best route runner we have and he's got solid hands (outside of the 2004 playoff game).  Everyone on the team loves him, Holmgren loves him, he probably knows the system better than any receiver we have.  Engram would be great with Branch and Burleson as they try to learn the system.

If im starting a team from scratch and you asked me which one I'd rather have for the long term, I'd probably take D-Jacks, but in the Hawks case I would rather have Engram.

Engram is a perfect slot reciever for our system.

Josh Brown is better than you.

by MFAN on Feb 9, 2007 4:26 PM PST up reply actions  

Hamlin et al
Excellent analysis, and I agree with most of it. I do have a couple issues, however.

  • Hamlin. In no way, shape or form should we offer him anything close to Polamalu money (unless you're talking about his rookie contract). Hamlin can't hold Polamalu's jock. That guy is a rare breed, all over the field making plays and causing lots of problems for the offense. Hamlin's never done anything like that.

Here's the problem I have with Hamlin: everyone talks about the fact that he's a "hard hitter," and I agree, he is -- but how often does he actually lay a bone-jarring hit? To me, the guy misses more tackles than he makes because he has very poor fundamentals; he doesn't wrap, he just thinks he can bring guys down with a good shot. He's also not any sort of exceptional pass defender either.

If he's cool with signing for average money for the safety position, I'm all for keeping him, but if he wants any sort of top-tier cash to stay, we should let him walk.

  • D-line. I'm not willing to place all the blame on our decreased ranking against the run on injuries. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I think that part of our good 2005 defensive ranking came from the fact that we were playing with a lead most of the time, as well as with an offense that kept the defense off the field a lot. 2006, we didn't have many leads, we had to honor both the pass and the run, and we suffered for it.

As far as the D-line goes, we're continually called "undersized" by announcers and writers, and I think it's true. Right now, we basically have four journeymen-level starting up front. A good defensive line makes the entire rest of the defense better automatically; I think we need to try to sign at least one "impact" starter (if anyone like that exists on the FA market) at either DE or DT.

Most of the other stuff I agree with, including letting Stevens walk and trying to move D-Jack for some sort of value, assuming it's no worse than a third-round pick. Hell, we gave up a first for Branch, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to get at least a mid-to-late second for Jackson.

by dinosco on Feb 9, 2007 7:37 PM PST reply actions  

In short:
The Polamalu deal was a steal for Pittsburg. The salary cap has increased. You don't pay Hamlin Polamalu money because he plays like Polamalu, but because that's what it will take to sign him. With that said, Hamlin had 20 more tackles, one more sack, the same number of interceptions and one more pass defended than Polamalu. In 2005 Hamlin had the second best pass stop ranking in all of football. Polamalu--40th. So I think you might be overemphasizing the discrepancy between the two just a little. Hamlin's a young, talented player that can not be easily replaced. Do what it takes to sign him.

Football Outsiders' defensive stats adjusts for game situation, so your theory about playing ahead doesn't apply.

In 2005, Seattle had a top three defensive front seven. I would rate every starter (that is, non-injury plagued version) minus Grant Wistrom (who will start my season recap on Monday) as well above average. Add to that, Seattle has great depth on the D-Line. I know there is this perception that Seattle got run all over last year, but, in fact, Seattle had the 10th best run stopping and 11th best pass rushing defensive line last year. Remember, the Hawks faced LT2, Larry Johnson, Tiki Barber, Frank Gore--twice, Steven Jackson--twice, Ahman Green, Thomas Jones and Michael Turner--a veritable murderers row of the best running backs in football.

Jackson has chronic knee problems. He has missed 13 games the last two seasons; it's highly unlikely a team is going to give us better than a third round pick for him. If someone does, great, but I just don't think it's realistic.

 

by John Morgan on Feb 10, 2007 12:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Football Outsiders and such
Hey, I love the Football Outsiders stuff and I get the Prospectus (I used to write for the group that did the older version of the Prospectus), but I think it behooves us to keep in mind that their stats are not the be-all end-all.  They're good, but the individual defensive stats, especially, don't -- and can't -- articulate any individual's effectiveness with a very high degree of accuracy.  Football is simply far too context-dependent and team-dependent for any statistics to ever tell the entire story, especially when it comes to defense.

As far as Polamalu v. Hamlin, they're not even really close.  This year's stats are skewed because Polamalu was basically playing with a dead arm for the last month-plus and it severely hurt his effectiveness.  He missed three games and was a shadow of himself the final two in which he played.  All things equal, there's not a coach in the league that would want Hamlin over Polamalu and I doubt many coaches would mention them in the same breath.

Regarding pass stop ratings for '05, Hamlin was hurt over half the year so I dunno if he would have graded as high (i.e., maintained the same level of play) had he played all season, but regardless, that stat is context-dependent as well.  Hamlin's a free safety and is usually not tasked with single coverage; Polamalu is a strong safety and will often be responsible for going one-on-one with a tight end or even a receiver.  That's going to hurt that pass stop rating, so I can't put too much stock in it.

Really, to me, it comes down to: is Hamlin replaceable?  Not easily, but at the same time, it's not nearly impossible.  Look at last year -- he went down in the middle of the season, Marquand Manuel came in, and a lot of people felt that not only did the defense not miss a beat, but it actually improved.  I don't know if the stats back that up or not, but it looks like the defensive DVOA actually got better, on average, when Hamlin was out versus when he was in.

Stats aside, observationally, I just don't think he's that great.  He hits hard and we love that about him, but we also tend to overemphasize that trait.  I'd rather have a player that tackles really well, and Hamlin doesn't.  He doesn't wrap and he has poor form, and really got exposed with it quite often this year.  So all things considered, I'm definitely NOT in the "do whatever it takes to sign him" camp.  I'm in the "if it's reasonable, by all means" camp; that means if he's sniffing for top-10 safety money, I'd probably let him walk.  Sure, the Polamalus and Ed Reeds are a rare breed, but I don't even think Hamlin is in the tier right below that.

Re: the defensive line -- again, I don't think the stats show quite the entire story.  "Murderer's Row" of opposing RBs or not, we got ran over quite a bit this last year.  I wouldn't characterize Fisher or Bernard as "well above average" by any stretch.  And any stat that says our DL was better than average in pass rushing definitely needs to be adjusted.  Again, observationally, our front four got very little push this year most of the time.  Opposing QBs often had all day to throw, to the point of embarrassment.  We didn't touch Leinart in the road loss to AZ, we didn't touch Smith the week after, if I recall correctly.  

We might have had a nifty final sack total, but we grabbed nine against the Raiders (the worst offensive line this entire decade) and anyone watching the games (which I'm sure you were) should have been able to see that we just don't have any sort of pass-rushing threat on the line.  The way I see the DL is, aside from Tubbs, who can be quite good when he chooses to be, we just have a lot of similar, smaller, hard-working guys that really aren't any better than average.  I don't know if there's anyone on the market that can upgrade the line for us this year, but we should at least be looking.

by dinosco on Feb 10, 2007 1:05 AM PST up reply actions  

I know defensive stats are not perfect...
but what you see on TV can be much, much more misleading. When it comes to the secondary you're only likely to see a player when he's actively involved in a play. If a player simply plays good coverage the quarterback avoids him. Polamalu is targeted more often than Hamlin, and, yes, he does make some awesome plays, but he also allows a lot of long completions and first downs. It's easy to watch Polamalu with his handful of big plays each year, Super Bowl pedigree and iconic black curls and assume that he's always playing well, but that's exactly how someone gets overrated. To your argument that no coach in the league would take Hamlin over Polamalu, I think we can both agree you are essentially begging the question there.

I'm not saying we sign Hamlin at all costs, just that if we offered him a contract in line w/ Polamalu's that it would be reasonable and a good investment. This is not Ken Hamlin vs. Troy Polamalu, it's "is Ken Hamlin worth 4 years, 8 million?" That's far from elite safety money. Roy Williams is getting 4 years, 25 million; Ed Reed, 6 years, 40 million.  

Neither my eyes, nor the stats support your conjecture that Marquand Manuel was an improvement over Hamlin. More than half the passes targeted to the receiver he was covering ended up being successful in 2005--he's roster filler soon to be without a roster.  

Simply saying that we got run over a lot last year doesn't really say anything. Seattle faced a very strong group of rushers last year, but, for instance, played very strongly against LT2--who, by my quick count, recorded a failure on 15 of his 22 carries. Not understanding the importance of opponent adjustment is perhaps the biggest mistake fans make when evaluating a team's performance. Seattle, when healthy, is a very deep, very good run defense that doesn't need a free agent signing.

Bryce Fisher is an excellent combination of a player that gets a good pass rush while strongly defending against the run. Since joining Seattle in 2005, the Hawks have ranked in the top ten in both defending runs behind left tackle and around left end. That to me presents a player who is well above average. Rocky Bernard is one of the best pass rushers from the tackle position in all of football, and is key to Marshall's beloved 3 man pass rush. What weaknesses he has in run stopping are basically moot, because he rarely plays running downs.

And, again, cherry-picking two bad games to represent the Hawks overall performance is a logical fallacy. The Ravens got zero sack yards against the Broncos. The second best pass rush in football, San Diego, got exactly one sack against Arizona. Seattle had no trouble during the conference championship against the fifth ranked offensive line in preventing sacks, Chicago, recording 3 sacks for 31 lost yards and a forced fumble.

Yes, I watch the games--implying that I don't is exactly what scouts used to do to defend their moronic assertions about a player's "bubble" or "good face" in the MLB. That I happen to couple facts with my opinions hardly weakens my argument.

Oh, and no offense, man, but there is essentially only a nominal connection between Pro Football Prospectus 2005 and 2006 and any Pro Football Prospectus that preceded them.

by John Morgan on Feb 10, 2007 4:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Towards the end of the season
our DT including Benard were doing a better job eating up blocks, which was allowing Lofa and the LB's to make tackles. Just all around they seemed to be playing more disciplined football, which is probably a credit to the Coaching staff.  

Our D-Line is good line when all players are healthy. We need to add more depth to the position but don't need to do anything drastic.

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 10, 2007 9:26 AM PST up reply actions  

First things first
I didn't imply that you don't watch the games; sorry you took it that way.  I'm saying that watching the games is very important in evaluating teams and players, and stats will never tell the entire story in football.

So observationally, you can see that Seattle doesn't have a great pass rush from the front four.  I'm not cherry-picking two games, I was giving prime examples.  The Seahawks may do well in getting sacks, but that's not the same as providing consistent pressure; they have nothing resembling a consistent pass rush (to be fair, not every team does either), nor do they have a defensive end that's a good edge-rusher.  Their best rusher is probably Peterson, which is nice to have, but they need a better push on the line.

After the zero-sack games against Arizona and SF, the Seahawks had one sack each in their final two games, against San Diego and Tampa Bay.  That's two sacks over four games and it's hardly "cherry-picking," because that's 1/4 of the season right there.  I'll stand by my statement; "adjusted sack rate" or no, Seattle's pass rush from its defensive line is not very good.  

As far as the stats go, "pass rush" is difficult to measure anyway, because a team could get three sacks in one game, and maybe pressure the QB two-three other times, and the sack stats show that it's an above-average performance; but if the QB has four-five seconds to throw on his other 25 attempts such that he can easily complete 18 of those throws, then the pass rush is not doing a very good job, plain and simple.  This is my main gripe with the Seahawks' pass rush -- the sack totals always grade out pretty well, but when you watch the games, the QB far too often simply has too much time to throw on too many plays.

Regarding cherry-picking, citing the game in which we stopped Tomlinson pretty much is doing exactly that.  Gore absolutely gouged us in both games we played against the Niners (though, to be fair, we held him in check for most of the second game until Alex Smith started proving he could throw the ball; once he completed a few passes, it was over).  Edge went for his season-high (to that point) against us.  Larry Johnson piled up a healthy 155 yards and three scores.  Chester "Who?" Taylor ripped off 169 including that big run.

I'm not sure what "opponent adjustment" has to do with what I'm saying, but I do know that our 2006 DVOA ranking against the run was 23rd out of 32, which is not very good -- and they adjust for opponent, right?

So this brings up the question: how did we fall so far from 2005 to 2006 in rush defense?  Is the injury to Tubbs 90% to blame?  Can we expect to jump right back up to the top of the heap when he comes back?  I don't know the answer to that, but I am a little skeptical that one player alone -- Tubbs, specifically -- holds the key to our entire defense.  I don't think it's at all a sure thing that a healthy defensive line will jump back up into the top ranks of run-stuffers, but I guess we'll see.

As for Hamlin, maybe we're crossing signals.  I have no problem with 4 years 8 million, but that's not really "Polamalu money" in hyperbolistic terms, because that's probably his rookie contract, or an early undervalued extension.  He'll get FAR more when he signs his next deal.  Maybe we should say he shouldn't get anything close to Ed Reed money, I dunno.  

I also think you're doing Polamalu a complete disservice with the insinuation that he makes a "handful" of big plays; coaches watch a ton of film and don't tend to alter offensive game plans to try to avoid players that have only made a "handful" of big plays, but if you listen to coaches, that's often what they do with Polamalu.  He ranked in the top-10 in the NFL in 2005 in the percentage of his team's defensive plays he was involved in; Hamlin only played in six games so you can't really compare, but trying to extrapolate his results to 16 games still doesn't put him close to Polamalu in that stat.  But this really isn't about Polamalu, it's about Hamlin, whom you've decided is very good and whom I don't think all that highly of.  Fine, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Finally, a note about stats.  I like that you're using them; I use them all the time myself and I think they serve a great purpose.  I guess what I don't like as much is the way it looks like, to me at least, you are using them as gospel.  There are really two issues at hand:

a) as I said before, football is so team-dependent and context-dependent that statistics will never fully accurately articulate someone's actual value, nor will it necessarily come all that close;
b) while I have great respect for the Outsiders guys, their system isn't fullproof in the slightest.  They've done a lot of work to try to come up with a comprehensive, situation-dependent formula like DVOA, which is great, but it still depends on certain arbitrary definitions on what counts as a "success" in their eyes.  Once you start entering arbitrary definitions and assigning point values for certain outcomes, you're already into "not completely reliable" territory.

There has never been, and I doubt there will be, any sort of all-encompassing football statistic that can't possibly be skewed in some way.  I can say "Chester Taylor ran for 169 against us so we were terrible," and you could counter with "yeah but he got 95 on one run and otherwise, we did pretty well against him."  You could say "the Seahawks have a good pass rush because we're among the league leaders in sacks" and I could counter with "yeah, but when we're not sacking the quarterback, we're getting very little pressure."

To me, stats are a great tool, but in football they need to be taken as what they are -- deficient in quite a few areas.  My biggest gripe has always been with the Passer Rating system, which people often tend to overuse when evaluating QBs, but this sort of misplaced logical extension ("he's got a good passer rating so he must be a good quarterback") extends to other areas ("a good sack rate means we have a good pass rush").  You can say "Seattle had the 11th-best adjusted sack rate last year," but you can't extend it to "Seattle had the 11th-best pass-rushing defensive line" because they aren't the same thing.

So when all is said and done, I appreciate the injection of statistics to fuel the argument, but this isn't baseball, where stats really do tell most of the story.  Observational analysis is just as important, and one stat that said Ken Hamlin did pretty well defending passes in his 6 games in 2005 while Troy Polamalu wasn't as good cannot and will not override the observational analysis that Hamlin simply isn't as good a player as Polamalu.  Nor will the sack stats override what I saw in the 18 Seahawks games that I watched, which was that overall, Seattle's front four did not provide a real good amount of pressure on the opposing QB.

So while I appreciate your arguments and agree with many of them, we'll just have to agree to disagree in other cases, because a couple nice-looking defensive statistics are never going to convince me that Ken Hamlin is anything but a somewhat above-average player, if that.

Screed over.

by dinosco on Feb 10, 2007 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

I would like to say I appreciate that you've...
stayed respectful in your commenting.

I'm exhausted. You might notice my last post was entered pretty late, after that I took my girlfriend to the hospital and pretty much stayed up all night. (She's fine) With that said, I lack the willpower to continue this heated back and forth much longer, but would like to add:

I already said this, but Football Outsiders stats take context into account.

You're right, what I said about our performance against LT2 could be thought of as cherry-picking. But I broke down that specific example not because it was exceptional, but because it's a good example of traditional stats vs. advanced stats. I guess my point was that though yardage totals can make it look like a RB stomped all over us, that's often not very accurate. Chester Taylor is another good example, while our defensive line was responsible for letting Taylor get into our backfield; it was hardly responsible for the additional 85 yards that followed. In that game Taylor had 15 of 26 runs for 3 yards or less and the Vikings converted only 3 rushing first downs. 169 yards might look impressive, but, overall, our defensive line did a very good job stopping him.

On that subject: There is no ambiguity to what Football Outsiders records as a success. It's a purely objective formula that has been statistically proven. Also, saying Football Outsiders' stats are bad because Qb Rating is bad is a textbook hasty generalization fallacy. One really has nothing to do with the other.

If you agree that four years, eight million is a good deal for Hamlin, then, good, we agree. It really doesn't matter what Polamalu should be paid, I was only talking about how he is getting paid. Basically, anything else is a straw man argument. I think Polamalu is overrated, and kind of wonder how you as, I presume, a Seattle resident see much more of him than I do. Saying he's good because he's respected around the league is, sorry to harp on this, an appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm not trying to be a pendent, or make you feel unwelcome to disagree with me (by all means, go ahead) but most of your arguments are rooted in some sort of fallacious reasoning. It's sort of pointless for me to keep arguing what you say, because instead of having some sort of intelligent dialectical process where we can move towards some better answer, I'm simply debunking your proof.

I'm done for the weekend. dinosco, feel free to reply to anything I've said, but I'm too tired to continue this. Monday, I'll start my player retros with Grant Wistrom.

by John Morgan on Feb 10, 2007 1:51 PM PST up reply actions  

A few things
  • I'm well aware that Outsiders takes context into account. That's not the point. I understand how DVOA works, so you don't need to keep hammering that in.

What you're missing, or choose not to recognize, is that their system isn't infallible. It may be "statistically proven" to some extent, but it isn't gospel, it isn't the final word, and at the end of the day, it has its problems.

You say that DVOA is a "purely objective" formula, yet I note in their methodology that they consider Red Zone plays to be worth 20% more, and they give bonuses for touchdowns and big plays. What's "objective" about deciding that Red Zone plays are 20% more important than plays at midfield? Given that they ran regression analysis, is crediting the offensive line with 120% of the adjusted rushing yards value for any rushing loss an actual accurate, legitimate value? How does one decide that the line was 120% responsible for a running play that lost yards?

In short, how can someone accurately ascribe value for the success or failure of a play to an individual or a unit? The short answer is, you can't. When Albert Pujols hits a homer run, it's pretty clear who accomplished the feat; when Shaun Alexander rushes for five yards, it's not at all clear by looking only at the stats who was responsible for that, and to what extent.

Taken directly from their page: "The biggest advantage of DVOA is the ability to break teams and players down to find strengths and weaknesses in a variety of situations. In the aggregate, DVOA may not be quite as accurate as some of the other, similar 'power ratings' formulas based on comparing drives rather than individual plays..." In other words, not only is DVOA not a completely accurate view of the big picture, it's not even the most accurate view that exists, depending on what you want to look at.

Ergo, DVOA serves its purpose as a piece of a bigger solution, but it's not the entire solution itself. So while you continually pound on your points that you think are iron-clad because the Outsiders say it's so, I'm going to continue to disagree on the basis of the fact that the formulaic data is not necessarily completely indicative of everything that happens on the field.

  • If you re-read what I said earlier, I didn't say "Football Outsiders is bad because Passer Rating is bad," I'm saying "Passer Rating is to overall QB effectiveness as Adjusted Sack Rating is to overall pass-rushing effectiveness" -- which is to say, there's not necessarily a correlation. Therefore, the Hasty Pudding fallacy doesn't apply to what I'm actually saying. If you want to address what I actually said and disagree with it on the basis of what you see as strong statistical correlation instead of citing an irrelevant fallacy, please do.
  • Regarding Polamalu, I actually live in the San Francisco Bay Area and seeing as the Steelers were televised here every other/third week or so (hell, they were on national TV at least five times anyway), I got to see a good amount of him -- at least four or five games this year.

But whether I saw him once or 16 times, the fact remains that he's considered around the league -- by coaches and players -- to be one of the top safeties in the game, a difference-maker on defense, and someone that needs to be considered by opponents when they come up with their offensive game plans against the Steelers.

If we had any sort of highly-accurate statistics that could definitively ascribe value and performance to individual players, then it's quite possible that those statistics might refute all the coaches and players. Unfortunately, we don't have that; we have some numbers that Outsiders have put together (which, at least as far as 2005 goes, actually support the claim that Polamalu is a good player, because almost all of his rankings have him in the top-20 of all defensive backs in the league), but unless you consider those numbers to be a 100% accurate picture of how good a player is, then you're left wanting as far as that goes.

So, you may consider this an "appeal to authority" fallacy of some sort, but again, this isn't baseball. A baseball manager could tell you that a .230 hitter is "really good" and he'd obviously be full of crap, because baseball statistics very accurately measure a player's offensive performance and value. Football's different, and since there are no stats that can do that, those in positions of authority -- especially if there is consensus, which there appears to be on Polamalu -- carry a bit more weight when it comes to evaluating players.

Since Belichick, Mora, and other coaches have talked about game-planning specifically for Polamalu, then that is a factual piece of the puzzle that needs to be taken into account. Their word isn't final by any stretch, but since there is an consensus of opinion by people that are authorities in this matter, then as your cited Wikipedia entry says, "there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof." Or like I said, just a piece of the puzzle.

Look, like you, I don't have the desire to continue this any more, but rather than throw out Wikipedia links that supposedly "disprove" my positions with a bunch of fallacies that don't particularly even apply in some cases, and then claim some sort of victory because of that, I would suggest (request?) you either a) agree to disagree, b) make a stand that the Football Outsiders are the absolute final word on any player's value, which you seem to be doing without actually saying it outright, or c) if you're so inclined, refute what I'm actually saying rather than "debunking my proof" with logical fallacies.

I respect what you have to say, but I also think that you're assuming some sort of absolute foolproof nature of advanced football statistics, and you're standing behind that with an air that is now, in fact, developing a condescending tone. And while I've certainly been guilty of that in the past in other forums, in this case I'm just not seeing any sort of 100% logical backing as to why your positions are correct and mine aren't. One final time: football isn't baseball, football statistics aren't nearly as accurate or enlightening as baseball statistics, and along with studying the numbers, the game also has to be watched to gain a full understanding of what's going on. Without both pieces of the puzzle -- as well as accurate authoritative information (which we don't always get) from those in the know, like coaches -- my opinion is that it's impossible to ascribe any sort of accurate value to a team, a unit or even a player and do it with the complete level of certainty that you appear to have been doing in this thread.

So, I'm perfectly fine with leaving it at "agree to disagree," although I'm sure if you make more authoritative posts that place the final word on a player's value based solely on what Football Outsiders have to say about it, I'll probably jump back into the fray at some point, just because I usually can't help myself... :)

by dinosco on Feb 10, 2007 4:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I wish I had time to blog like this....
sigh...sucks to work soooo much.
I think you are getting a little chainsaw happy! - Scruffy Lefty

by Christian on Feb 10, 2007 7:51 AM PST reply actions  

Draft related question....
What would you guys think about adding Brian Leonard through the draft, most likely using the 55th pick?

Holmgren would finally get a true WCO-back who can be used in a variety of ways and is a true receiving threat.

To me it's either DL or BPA at the first pick.  I fully expect OG to be addressed through FA...

What's the consensus around here about how the first pick should be "spent"?

by WABronco on Feb 11, 2007 8:43 PM PST reply actions  

Will draft a o-linemen we always do
but your right the actual RG spot will probably be filled through FA.

Its hard to say what the Hawks will do with the 55th pick. NFL teams always draft the best player available over needs sometimes because depth is so important.

But I would say they would go after some type of Defensive linemen.

I about gave Christian a heart attack

by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 12, 2007 9:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows

Recent FanPosts

Photo_on_2011-10-14_at_23
Jim Harbaugh Vs. Pete Carroll
Small
Nation Wide Mock Draft
Small
Could Dre Kirkpatrick be the key to our 2012 draft?
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
Seahawks QB Situation: Not a Defense for Tarvaris Jackson
Small
Team Needs - The National Perception of Seattle
Small
2012 Mock Draft, Version 1.0
Walshrun_small
Super Bowl XLVI Reaction: New England Patriots
Small
My Friend has a Friend who works for Nike...
208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB
Bodypaint_small
Delocated ad

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Easleystreet2_small ChadDavis45

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill