I think it's time to churn the team a bit. (My opinion 100%)

[Hawks46]

Good post and I like the overall premise. However, where do you think we need to churn the roster ?

We were the third or fourth youngest roster in the league last year. Plus, we have our core guys that you have to build around, and they are locked in due to guaranteed money.

I also don't think churning the OL is the way to go. At the very least, we need to introduce more competition, but we have to retain come continuity here. From what I understand of the OL, you can replace a Tackle on the edge easier due to him just having to play next to one guy so that's a positive for us, as we need to upgrade both. The problem is that the "grizzled veteran" next to each new OT only has one year of starting experience on either side. We'd have to go get a veteran FA to alleviate this, which goes counter to the "churn the roster with younger, hungrier guys" theme of the original post.

Not actually trying to debate here...just curious what folks think we need to churn and where ?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Good post and I like the overall premise. However, where do you think we need to churn the roster ?

We were the third or fourth youngest roster in the league last year. Plus, we have our core guys that you have to build around, and they are locked in due to guaranteed money.

I also don't think churning the OL is the way to go. At the very least, we need to introduce more competition, but we have to retain come continuity here. From what I understand of the OL, you can replace a Tackle on the edge easier due to him just having to play next to one guy so that's a positive for us, as we need to upgrade both. The problem is that the "grizzled veteran" next to each new OT only has one year of starting experience on either side. We'd have to go get a veteran FA to alleviate this, which goes counter to the "churn the roster with younger, hungrier guys" theme of the original post.

Not actually trying to debate here...just curious what folks think we need to churn and where ?

I think the offensive line is probably the position in least need of turnover due to the young personnel group and importance of lineup continuity that's fairly unique to the positional group. I'm firmly in the camp that says fire Cable, however. I think the turnover there should be in the coaching staff and schemes.

I'd like to see at least one big salary traded, if the locker room would have it. Personally, I think Michael Bennett should be traded if you can get a decent return for him. If we could use him to bump our pick in the first up to the high teens or late single digits, for instance, I'd hop on it like crazy. I'm not taking cap penalties into account, just spit balling.

Turnover/churn in the roster can't be forced, or else it'll just be simply downgrading. The desire for roster churn, I suppose, is sort of a veiled desire for an influx of new talent to add competition that's worth a damn to the team, because clearly theyre sorely lacking it if the past 3 drafts (before this past one) are any indication.

 

[Anthony!]

Good post and I like the overall premise. However, where do you think we need to churn the roster ?

We were the third or fourth youngest roster in the league last year. Plus, we have our core guys that you have to build around, and they are locked in due to guaranteed money.

I also don't think churning the OL is the way to go. At the very least, we need to introduce more competition, but we have to retain come continuity here. From what I understand of the OL, you can replace a Tackle on the edge easier due to him just having to play next to one guy so that's a positive for us, as we need to upgrade both. The problem is that the "grizzled veteran" next to each new OT only has one year of starting experience on either side. We'd have to go get a veteran FA to alleviate this, which goes counter to the "churn the roster with younger, hungrier guys" theme of the original post.

Not actually trying to debate here...just curious what folks think we need to churn and where ?

I think the offensive line is probably the position in least need of turnover due to the young personnel group and importance of lineup continuity that's fairly unique to the positional group. I'm firmly in the camp that says fire Cable, however. I think the turnover there should be in the coaching staff and schemes.

I'd like to see at least one big salary traded, if the locker room would have it. Personally, I think Michael Bennett should be traded if you can get a decent return for him. If we could use him to bump our pick in the first up to the high teens or late single digits, for instance, I'd hop on it like crazy. I'm not taking cap penalties into account, just spit balling.

Turnover/churn in the roster can't be forced, or else it'll just be simply downgrading. The desire for roster churn, I suppose, is sort of a veiled desire for an influx of new talent to add competition that's worth a damn to the team, because clearly theyre sorely lacking it if the past 3 drafts (before this past one) are any indication.

Hmm so leave the oline as is. HMm well you know if I saw some improvement, or even say major flashes or had at least played the position before in college with success I might agree, but as it relates t out Tackles there were none. The problem as I see it is you are asking a former TE and Basketball player to play tackle in the NFL, they have to be replaced at least one of them, or it will be another year of holding our breath hoping Wilson does not get injured to the point where he can't play, another year or little to no run game, etc etc. They have to upgrade the tackles.

 

[chris98251]

Remember churning the roster does not mean replacing the starters as much as getting depth that can push the starters and if done right take their spots at some point.

That's what we have been missing, we lose players due to attrition being signed off the team not because they step up anymore.

 

[Largent80]

but as it relates t out Tackles there were none.

This may be your best post ever.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Good post and I like the overall premise. However, where do you think we need to churn the roster ?

We were the third or fourth youngest roster in the league last year. Plus, we have our core guys that you have to build around, and they are locked in due to guaranteed money.

I also don't think churning the OL is the way to go. At the very least, we need to introduce more competition, but we have to retain come continuity here. From what I understand of the OL, you can replace a Tackle on the edge easier due to him just having to play next to one guy so that's a positive for us, as we need to upgrade both. The problem is that the "grizzled veteran" next to each new OT only has one year of starting experience on either side. We'd have to go get a veteran FA to alleviate this, which goes counter to the "churn the roster with younger, hungrier guys" theme of the original post.

Not actually trying to debate here...just curious what folks think we need to churn and where ?

I think the offensive line is probably the position in least need of turnover due to the young personnel group and importance of lineup continuity that's fairly unique to the positional group. I'm firmly in the camp that says fire Cable, however. I think the turnover there should be in the coaching staff and schemes.

I'd like to see at least one big salary traded, if the locker room would have it. Personally, I think Michael Bennett should be traded if you can get a decent return for him. If we could use him to bump our pick in the first up to the high teens or late single digits, for instance, I'd hop on it like crazy. I'm not taking cap penalties into account, just spit balling.

Turnover/churn in the roster can't be forced, or else it'll just be simply downgrading. The desire for roster churn, I suppose, is sort of a veiled desire for an influx of new talent to add competition that's worth a damn to the team, because clearly theyre sorely lacking it if the past 3 drafts (before this past one) are any indication.

Hmm so leave the oline as is. HMm well you know if I saw some improvement, or even say major flashes or had at least played the position before in college with success I might agree, but as it relates t out Tackles there were none. The problem as I see it is you are asking a former TE and Basketball player to play tackle in the NFL, they have to be replaced at least one of them, or it will be another year of holding our breath hoping Wilson does not get injured to the point where he can't play, another year or little to no run game, etc etc. They have to upgrade the tackles.

Allow me to rephrase, I've misrepresented myself. (Who am I, Russell Okung?) I believe the offensive line is in severe need of improvement, but not a significant turnover. I'd like to see them change the coach and insert a decent tackle badly. Other than that, strive for continuity and the line will improve.

Honestly, the line even if untouched will probably perform better next season with an offseason of work together.

 

[nash72]

Honestly, the line even if untouched will probably perform better next season with an offseason of work together.

They cant possibly perform worse.

 

[truehawksfan]

I think there's a big difference between roster churn and finding players to replace starters and quality depth because this team churned starters, quality players in their rotation and just plain backups.

Approximately 26 players on the 2015 active rosters were not on the team in 2016.
Offense
Marshawn Lyunch
JR Sweezy
Russell Okung
Patrick Lews
Drew Nowak
Derrick Coleman
Fred Jackson
Ricardo Lockette
Cooper Helfet
Tavaris Jackson
Kristjan Sokoli
Bryce Brown
Chris Mathews
Kevin Smith
Chase Hoffman

Defense
Brandon Mebane
Bruce Irvin
Cary Williams
Marcus Burley
Jordan Hill
Demarcus Dobbs
AJ Francis
Tharold Simon
Eric Pinkins
Tye Smith

I don't think most realize how difficult it is to build a quality roster each year because of the salary cap. So, you want to trade Michael Bennett. Why? This team has always prided itself of having a deep DLine roster, rotating players based on down and distance. MB is versatile, playing End in run plays Tackle on passing downs. Who on this roster is capable of doing this? Ok. Frank Clark. So, who replaces MB on the rotatation?

This ain't Madden. It's not easy to build a playoff team year after year. Super Bowl L participants didn't make the playoffs. Arizona was the preseason favorites after a 13-3 record in 2015. There's a boneyard filled with stories of failed teams that do not even make the playoffs.

The team made the playoffs despite having 9 RBs carry the ball. How many Hawks RB have significant carries in the super bowl year?

Spoiled comes to mind when I read things like this.

 

[Largent80]

^^^^^ Yeah it's got to be real easy to do that and do it under a cap and keep players happy... :roll:

Just go out and buy a LT, it's that easy... :roll:

 

[Seymour]

Honestly, the line even if untouched will probably perform better next season with an offseason of work together.

They cant possibly perform worse.

This. So what I expect this "improvement" would amount to would be from # 32 ranked to possibly #28-30 ranked with no other changes. If we are content to get knocked out of the playoffs early for the 3rd straight year then that should work out quite well for those people. Just don't expect to jump up to mediocre (where we need to be) from the worst with just 1 year with the same players and same coach IMO.

 

[KiwiHawk]

It's a bit like building a performance car. When you have next to no horsepower, adding 100 HP makes a massive difference. But once you get up there, adding 100 more HP gives you a negligible impact on overall performance. You get greater gains from tuning the car to the driver, knowing the course better, etc.

Changing our roster is like searching for more horsepower. When we sucked, it worked brilliantly. Now, however, the roster is pretty stacked, so improvements are harder to come by and make less of an impact. What looks like no improvement is just less room for improvement.

We do need more depth, but you can't get depth without having injuries to starters so that those backups get a chance to play real games with the first team. Otherwise, if we stay healthy, we got this.

Like possibly fielding an average OL to protect the guy we pay 25M to? Pretty decent plan in my opinion. Seriously if this team had just an average OL they are 14-2/15-1 as of right this second hunger or no hunger. And I don't think this team isn't hungry at least most of them. It's all about a truly horrible OL.

The OL is a result of salary cap being used elsewhere and continual roster churn.

Sure if we spent more than the cap and had a Cowboys-quality OL we'd be winning everything. Problem is you can't, because of the cap.

The OL with existing personnel would get somewhat better with consistency of position. The constant roster churn there only exacerbates the issues we have. if we can settle it down, I believe the superior coaching we have can turn the current lot into an average OL. If we do add some better players, that will also improve the OL, but the lack of consistency will still make it only an average OL. It takes a season or so for an OL to become a cohesive unit. They have to know instinctively where the other guy will be, and trust the other guy to be there.

I don't see blowing the thing up as a solution, because we don't have the resources to replace it with anything better than roookies and journeymen, and it won't be any better than if the current lot (maybe with a couple of changes) has more time together.

Until they do gel, we just need to tell our $25M QB to get rid of the damn ball. He can't be extending the play when the OL can't hold the blocks.