Do we need to get over it with the line and WR's?

[ivotuk]

A few months ago there was an interesting article about Pete's defensive and roster philosophies. Long and short of it; its his belief that to succeed he needs around 15 starters on defense. That means he allots dollars and uses draft capitol to meet that requirement.

So, by default, wont a Pete Carroll team always be slightly "deficient" on offense? Isn't it Pete's sole principle to spend money's on the Williams, McDaniels, Bennett' and Avrils? Use the draft picks to build defensive depth over offensive depth? Pete's built depth in on his defense by drafting Hill, Lane, Simon etc. When it comes to the offensive line, Cable gets one guy a year, and the rest is filled out scraping the barrel. Also, it sure seems like for every OL guy picked, there's at least one DL guy selected and another two DL brought in via FA. Doesn't that tell us something?

More importantly, isn't that working? I mean, the opposite would be GB, right? Does GB scare you away from Lambeau? No, they don't, because they spend their resources on offense.

I'm kind of rambling, but I guess the point is under Pete the offense will always kind of be rookie contract and cast off types. Offense is literally secondary to what he's trying to accomplish overall. So, we're kind of bitching about a mans proven record of winning games and building a program.

But he has allotted picks and money to the offensive line and wide receivers.

Russell Okung #6 overall
(prior to Carroll) Unger 2nd round pick, resigned early by John and Pete for good money
James Carpenter 1st round pick
Justin Britt 2nd round pick
Robert Gallery big money

Zach Miller, huge contract.

Percy Harvin 1st and 3rd and lots of cap space
Sidney Rice, huge contract
Golden Tate, 2nd round pick
Christine Michael, 2nd round pick
Marshawn Lynch, Robbed the Bills blind!
Robert Turbin 4th round pick

Flew Brandon Marshall in to Seattle...

 

[pmedic920]

I just went to the store where I have an ongoing conversation with the mgr. who is a cowboy fan.

We talked about a bunch of things and even after last year he insists we don't have enough offense to win.

I pointed out that we have allowed only 27 points in 4 games, and I said do you think the Cowboys could do that?

Silence....crickets.

If your defense is "good enough", it only takes a safety (2points) to win the game.
Oh and BTW the defense probably scored the safety.
:{)

 

[ShaunPope]

I'm ready to move on from Tom Cable. I'm tired of the turnstile pass pro. Other good teams are able to be adept at both run and pass pro so there's no reason why we can't either with the right linemen and the proper coaching. Tom Cable has been vastly overrated by many Hawks fans. Another thing I'd love to see is John and Pete going strong after Mike Iupati. That guy is a flat out badass.

 

[Largent80]

Yeah, Cable throws some terrible blocks..... :roll:

 

[ShaunPope]

Is he not the one coaching our OL?

 

[DavidSeven]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out after a handful of stars get their second deals (e.g. Wilson, Wagner). I can see them trimming costs at RB and WR in 2016 and beyond. Certainly the O-line, too.

My issue with the negative nellies is that they ignore a lot of the good things these receivers and O-linemen actually do. In regard to O-line play, most big boys earn their Pro Bowl paychecks by what they do in the run game. In that regard, we're not hurting at all and vastly improved over last year. The reality with a fully committed ZBS scheme is that you're going to favor nimble road graders over immobile pass blockers. That's why Sweezy, while still in turnstyle mode, won his job over Moffitt who was actually pretty decent in pass-pro at times. That's also why they took Britt high -- his amateur wrestling background and experience in a spread scheme suggested he was the athlete they wanted.

We kill the O-line when a blitzer gets a free release (which often isn't even on the O-line), and yet we sit on our hands when they're creating creases for Lynch to kill SF through the entire second half. Why is that? Oh, sure, we can replace our athletes on the right side with two big fat guys who can't move but can stand up to a bull-rush. But then how would you feel when our league-best rushing attack takes a dip? That's not Seattle football.

 

[pehawk]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out after a handful of stars get their second deals (e.g. Wilson, Wagner). I can see them trimming costs at RB and WR in 2016 and beyond. Certainly the O-line, too.

My issue with the negative nellies is that they ignore a lot of the good things these receivers and O-linemen actually do. In regard to O-line play, most big boys earn their Pro Bowl paychecks by what they do in the run game. In that regard, we're not hurting at all and vastly improved over last year. The reality with a fully committed ZBS scheme is that you're going to favor nimble road graders over immobile pass blockers. That's why Sweezy, while still in turnstyle mode, won his job over Moffitt who was actually pretty decent in pass-pro at times. That's also why they took Britt high -- his amateur wrestling background and experience in a spread scheme suggested he was the athlete they wanted.

We kill the O-line when a blitzer gets a free release (which often isn't even on the O-line), and yet we sit on our hands when they're creating creases for Lynch to kill SF through the entire second half. Why is that? Oh, sure, we can replace our athletes on the right side with two big fat guys who can't move but can stand up to a bull-rush. But then how would you feel when our league-best rushing attack takes a dip? That's not Seattle football.

Yup.

We had a good pass blocking system under Holmgren. If you want to go back to that mentality, okay, I guess? Cool.

 

[SomersetHawk]

How we deal with KJ, Byron and Avril will be telling. Even resigning two of them will come at a decent expense.

I'm coming round to the idea of trading for Blackmon. Mike Williams will also become available soon. Those two could provide some low-risk high-reward options that might enable us to do more in the draft.

 

[mikeak]

Houston has a great defense and no QB........

Pete Carroll may not be in Seattle without Russell Wilson

I also think this is about what you spend on in the draft and can build, vs sign as FA at reasonable prices. There are always receivers available

 

[ivotuk]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out after a handful of stars get their second deals (e.g. Wilson, Wagner). I can see them trimming costs at RB and WR in 2016 and beyond. Certainly the O-line, too.

My issue with the negative nellies is that they ignore a lot of the good things these receivers and O-linemen actually do. In regard to O-line play, most big boys earn their Pro Bowl paychecks by what they do in the run game. In that regard, we're not hurting at all and vastly improved over last year. The reality with a fully committed ZBS scheme is that you're going to favor nimble road graders over immobile pass blockers. That's why Sweezy, while still in turnstyle mode, won his job over Moffitt who was actually pretty decent in pass-pro at times. That's also why they took Britt high -- his amateur wrestling background and experience in a spread scheme suggested he was the athlete they wanted.

We kill the O-line when a blitzer gets a free release (which often isn't even on the O-line), and yet we sit on our hands when they're creating creases for Lynch to kill SF through the entire second half. Why is that? Oh, sure, we can replace our athletes on the right side with two big fat guys who can't move but can stand up to a bull-rush. But then how would you feel when our league-best rushing attack takes a dip? That's not Seattle football.

The only reason we are league best is because of Marshawn Lynch's power and Russell Wilson's escape ability.

With Lynch, and if we had Matt Hasselbeck behind center, no way would we be "league best."

Like I've said before, there have been 1st place running teams in the past, that doesn't mean they have a good offensive line, or even a good team. With an elite back, and a mobile QB, almost any team can do well at rushing.

Look at OJ Simpson. And that's back when they could grab, hold, and hammer people.

 

[sutz]

I do find some of the whining about position groups to be a bit tiresome at times. The thing is, though, that the defense and the running game travel a lot better and easier than the passing game. That's why, IMHO, many pass-happy teams have trouble winning more than 3-5 games a year on the road. The Seattle way under PC is doing some things that Seahawks teams of the past were hardly ever able to do, that being to win consistantly, no matter where the game is played.

The whole thing with having a "true #1 WR" kind of leaves me flat, too. I think, "Why?" We don't throw that often, so why would they invest mega-bucks on a WR? PH was a stab at that, he's only the last in a long line of trying to get that elusive "#1 WR" in house. Meanwhile, we're still winning. So fine, keep trying to find that guy, but for me it's more of a "nice to have the ability" move than a "can't make the SB without him" move.

I guess I'm saying I'm "over" the whole WR and OL problem. I assume they'll draft some O-line this off-season, they always seem to, though not in Rd 1. Since we drafted two WR last year, and they seem to be working out OK so far, I don't see them going that way early this year.

As far as all that goes, I think the team is the best "BPA" selecting team we've had around here, ever. Oh, and one of our big problems is that we keep winning so much that we miss out on the top players in the first round every year. Since I don't live for the draft, I'm OK with that.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out after a handful of stars get their second deals (e.g. Wilson, Wagner). I can see them trimming costs at RB and WR in 2016 and beyond. Certainly the O-line, too.

My issue with the negative nellies is that they ignore a lot of the good things these receivers and O-linemen actually do. In regard to O-line play, most big boys earn their Pro Bowl paychecks by what they do in the run game. In that regard, we're not hurting at all and vastly improved over last year. The reality with a fully committed ZBS scheme is that you're going to favor nimble road graders over immobile pass blockers. That's why Sweezy, while still in turnstyle mode, won his job over Moffitt who was actually pretty decent in pass-pro at times. That's also why they took Britt high -- his amateur wrestling background and experience in a spread scheme suggested he was the athlete they wanted.

We kill the O-line when a blitzer gets a free release (which often isn't even on the O-line), and yet we sit on our hands when they're creating creases for Lynch to kill SF through the entire second half. Why is that? Oh, sure, we can replace our athletes on the right side with two big fat guys who can't move but can stand up to a bull-rush. But then how would you feel when our league-best rushing attack takes a dip? That's not Seattle football.

Yup.

We had a good pass blocking system under Holmgren. If you want to go back to that mentality, okay, I guess? Cool.

And Alexander ran for 1800 and 31 TDs in '05. You can have both. Not saying it's easy and we're not going to have Walt and Hutch level guys any time soon I'm afraid. But, this team's pass pro is at best below average and it can be improved.

 

[pehawk]

Well, yeah, give me Walt and Hutch I'd rush for 450+ and 6 TD's, minimum.

 

[Hawks46]

Well, yeah, give me Walt and Hutch I'd rush for 450+ and 6 TD's, minimum.

Exactly. You can have it both ways, but it will cost you.

Sure, I bitch about the OL as much as anyone. I don't expect us to be an elite run blocking team (I think we're very good but not elite, a lot of that is on Lynch....how many times does he break tackles in the backfield?) and an elite pass blocking team, but I'd love to see the right side get up to at least league average. Is 16th good enough ? I think so.

 

[Rose City Hawk]

We beat the d up with our run blocking and our beast. This softens the stoutest defenses by the late 3rd or early 4th quarter. It's not just the line either, it's the receivers and fullbacks and te's, granted some of them aren't elite but that's what we do. Teams are whooped by the time we get finished and it's in part due to that physicality I believe. The games we have lost iirc have been predominantly due to us losing time of possession which takes away that element as well as leaving our d out there all game thus wiping them out at the end.

I also think our coaches are smart enough to let this team develop into its own thing. Pete knows not to try shoving a square peg into a round hole and illustrates that with the way he uses our players on both sides where their strengths really shine, an example of that is KJ Wright, on the outside he's one of the best, but in the mike, he's out of his element and is average at best.

I'm not the best analyst so I won't bore you all with much more but I just wanted to step in and say I think we are ok they way we are, yes, I would love for RW to have more time back there, but he has a skillset that allows for us to get away with ignoring upgrades at o-line. I for one am really quite confident with what we do here in Seattle now that Pete and John have come to town. I have seen improvement, and miracles, magic and a Lombardi. Go Hawks!

 

[scutterhawk]

A few months ago there was an interesting article about Pete's defensive and roster philosophies. Long and short of it; its his belief that to succeed he needs around 15 starters on defense. That means he allots dollars and uses draft capitol to meet that requirement.

So, by default, wont a Pete Carroll team always be slightly "deficient" on offense? Isn't it Pete's sole principle to spend money's on the Williams, McDaniels, Bennett' and Avrils? Use the draft picks to build defensive depth over offensive depth? Pete's built depth in on his defense by drafting Hill, Lane, Simon etc. When it comes to the offensive line, Cable gets one guy a year, and the rest is filled out scraping the barrel. Also, it sure seems like for every OL guy picked, there's at least one DL guy selected and another two DL brought in via FA. Doesn't that tell us something?

More importantly, isn't that working? I mean, the opposite would be GB, right? Does GB scare you away from Lambeau? No, they don't, because they spend their resources on offense.

I'm kind of rambling, but I guess the point is under Pete the offense will always kind of be rookie contract and cast off types. Offense is literally secondary to what he's trying to accomplish overall. So, we're kind of bitching about a mans proven record of winning games and building a program.

I think we are one Russell Wilson injury away from blowing up that philosophy.

 

[scutterhawk]

But, this team's pass pro is at best below average and it can be improved.

For RW's sake?, It can and SHOULD be.

 

[Scottemojo]

A few months ago there was an interesting article about Pete's defensive and roster philosophies. Long and short of it; its his belief that to succeed he needs around 15 starters on defense. That means he allots dollars and uses draft capitol to meet that requirement.

So, by default, wont a Pete Carroll team always be slightly "deficient" on offense? Isn't it Pete's sole principle to spend money's on the Williams, McDaniels, Bennett' and Avrils? Use the draft picks to build defensive depth over offensive depth? Pete's built depth in on his defense by drafting Hill, Lane, Simon etc. When it comes to the offensive line, Cable gets one guy a year, and the rest is filled out scraping the barrel. Also, it sure seems like for every OL guy picked, there's at least one DL guy selected and another two DL brought in via FA. Doesn't that tell us something?

More importantly, isn't that working? I mean, the opposite would be GB, right? Does GB scare you away from Lambeau? No, they don't, because they spend their resources on offense.

I'm kind of rambling, but I guess the point is under Pete the offense will always kind of be rookie contract and cast off types. Offense is literally secondary to what he's trying to accomplish overall. So, we're kind of bitching about a mans proven record of winning games and building a program.

I think we are one Russell Wilson injury away from blowing up that philosophy.

How many team's are not one QB injury away from getting worse?

 

[Chukarhawk]

This team making the investment they did in Percy Harvin, and then spending two of our first four draft picks this past offseason, indicates that Pete is perfectly willing to balance the team out and spend capital to improve the passing game. We're just in a transitional phase right now because obviously we can't do anything more with our receiver position until the offseason, but I don't think at all that Pete is perfectly satisfied with just having mediocre wideouts.

How many offensive draft picks vs defensive though? I didn't say they'll never spend or select offensive players. But, I think it'll be less than he does on the defensive side of the ball. Preference being rookie contract/low $ guys.

Pe, that line has 2 ist rounders and 2 2nd rounders, thye need to be better we have just whiffed somewhat on picks.

 

[dang253]

The first 4 rounds are slightly skewed towards Offense:
2010: 2 Offense, 3 Defense
2011: 3 Offense, 1 Defense
2012: 2 Offense, 3 Defense
2013: 2 Offense, 1 Defense
2014: 3 Offense, 2 Defense

The 5th through 7th rounds are also balanced with two years (2011 and 2012) being HUGE exceptions.

2010: 2 Offense, 2 Defense
2011: 0 Offense, 5 Defense
2012: 0 Offense, 5 Defense
2013: 4 Offense, 4 Defense
2014: 2 Offense, 2 Defense

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Se ... ft_history

It's really impressive to list the defensive impact players we've picked up in round 5 and later:
2010 5th Round: Kam Chancellor
2011 5th Round: Richard Sherman
2011 6th Round: Byron Maxwell
2011 7th Round: Malcolm Smith
2012 6th Round: Jeremy Lane
2013 5th Round: Tharold Simon

On the offensive side (rounds 5-7), we've had:
2012 7th Round: J.R. Sweezy
2013 5th Round: Luke Wilson