Optimal scenario for our O-Line

[Schadie001]

Some have mentioned it already but there is a reason half our line didn't play offensive line in college. Cable said last year he would rather have a dlineman who has ability to learn the oline instead of a olineman who played in the spread offense. He said it was easier and more successful to turn the dlineman than try to reteach a spread guy. With that said, I knew it was going to take most of the year for our line last year to figure it out and it did. Our line wasn't lights out but they were way better at the end of the year than the beginning.

I say all that to say this. If we take a linemen it probably will be a dlineman project in the later rounds, I don't expect us to take a olineman early and probably not at all. i don't see okung back, hell we looked better against the panthers when he got hurt. Sweezy could come back but we certainly aren't breaking the bank for him, if a team comes big for him ala carpenter I see us letting him walk. Honestly, of our "big FA" I really could see them only bringing back none. Okung, sweezy, Irvin, mebane, kearse all gone.

 

[Willyeye]

Hope they can keep Lane and Rubin at the right price.

 

[firebee]

Some have mentioned it already but there is a reason half our line didn't play offensive line in college. Cable said last year he would rather have a dlineman who has ability to learn the oline instead of a olineman who played in the spread offense. He said it was easier and more successful to turn the dlineman than try to reteach a spread guy. With that said, I knew it was going to take most of the year for our line last year to figure it out and it did. Our line wasn't lights out but they were way better at the end of the year than the beginning.

I say all that to say this. If we take a linemen it probably will be a dlineman project in the later rounds, I don't expect us to take a olineman early and probably not at all. i don't see okung back, hell we looked better against the panthers when he got hurt. Sweezy could come back but we certainly aren't breaking the bank for him, if a team comes big for him ala carpenter I see us letting him walk. Honestly, of our "big FA" I really could see them only bringing back none. Okung, sweezy, Irvin, mebane, kearse all gone.

Carp was a 1st round pick, Britt was a 2nd round pick, Moffitt was an early 3rd round pick... I think saying we won't take a lineman early or at all is a bit of a stretch, especially considering that there really isn't any DTs in this draft that would project to the O-Line. The offensive line is a lot deeper and more athletic than the DT class in this draft IMHO. If guys fall within the requirements of our FO, they're going to get drafted and their are a lot of guys that are right in line with what our staff looks for in a player. I am really really liking a late round prospect that I want drafted purely on his physical natural upside and that's Stephane Nembot out of Colorado St. Extremely raw with little football experience, but he's just an absolute monster. The most naturally gifted OT in this draft.

 

[firebee]

Hope they can keep Lane and Rubin at the right price.

I think we land the cheaper of Rubin and Mebane, whoever it may be. If Rubin costs more than Mebane, we let Rubin go. If Mebane asks for more than Rubin, we let Mebane go. Liking Lane at around 3-4 Million, but I'd love to see us draft Trae Elston out of Ole Miss... very similar to Sherman in style, abilities and mannerisms on the field. I like Lane a lot, but I don't trust his durability.

 

[Willyeye]

Hope they can keep Lane and Rubin at the right price.

I think we land the cheaper of Rubin and Mebane, whoever it may be. If Rubin costs more than Mebane, we let Rubin go. If Mebane asks for more than Rubin, we let Mebane go. Liking Lane at around 3-4 Million, but I'd love to see us draft Trae Elston out of Ole Miss... very similar to Sherman in style, abilities and mannerisms on the field. I like Lane a lot, but I don't trust his durability.

One of the biggest problems we've had in the last couple of years is that we have no room on the roster for new, young talent. Good example: Lynch gets injured early in the year, and the next man up is Rawls, and he kills it. Had Lynch not been injured, and had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin one more chance, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks, and he might have even been sent to the Practice Squad and "stolen" by another team. It's so important to know when to let go of vet players and when to let the next man up get his shot. Lynch never should have been given a 3-year extension...it was too much money for a 30 year-old RB who played so physically and was used that much in recent years.

Given our cap space, I pretty much figured Irvin, Okung, Sweezy, Kearse, and Mebane are gone. Spending $8-10 million each on Okung and Irvin would be crazy, and we'll probably get 3rd or 4th round comp picks for them. With losing those 5 players, we should be fine to receive our 4-pick allotment of relatively high compensatory draft picks for 2017.

I'd like JS to go after Rubin because he hasn't begun to decline like Mebane has...Rubin is 1-1/2 years younger and had a better season than Mebane. But I wouldn't pay him more than $4 million. I'd also like to see them make an effort to re-sign Lane. As you said, Lane's durability is questionable, so I wouldn't give him more than $4 million. If those 2 get $8 million, that likely leaves us about $12 million to re-sign a few important ERFA's and RFA's, and maybe a couple of OL/DL's...but those would have to be cut players or FA's after June 1 so that we don't lose any of our compensatory picks. I would also say that, if Sweezy gets no interest in FA, then I wouldn't mind if they sign him for a max of $2 million.

 

[Jville]

One of the biggest problems we've had in the last couple of years is that we have no room on the roster for new, young talent. Good example: Lynch gets injured early in the year, and the next man up is Rawls, and he kills it. Had Lynch not been injured, and had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin one more chance, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks, and he might have even been sent to the Practice Squad and "stolen" by another team. It's so important to know when to let go of vet players and when to let the next man up get his shot. Lynch never should have been given a 3-year extension...it was too much money for a 30 year-old RB who played so physically and was used that much in recent years.

I look at last seasons events at running back differently. The team consistently makes room for young prospects.They remain one of the younger teams in the league. And, Thomas Rawls is evidence of the opportunities for young players and rookies in Seattle.

IIRC Lynch's health problems began early on. Likewise, 4th year Turbin suffered a multi-week high ankle sprain or something early on. He was released because of a need for a roster spot to cover injuries elsewhere. Michael had already been afforded 3 training camps and two seasons of opportunities. He squandered that time by neglecting to build and win the trust in the coaching staff. In the absence of a young player stepping up, Fred Jackson was added because of a much needed upgrade in both maturity and performance at the position. Simultaneously, they also chose to maintain a roster spot of a young promising prospect. Young Thomas Rawls turned out to be the one that stepped up to the challenge and delivered.

 

[Jville]

Circling back to the "O-line" ..... what is the optimal scenario for each of the offensive linemen?

For example, wouldn't 28 year old Russell Okung be better off signing with a 3 step offense? Wouldn't that enhance his health and extend his career? Less blocking duration from fewer extended blocks required by (cue up the Benny Hill theme) school yard plays and play extensions. Less surprise from changing and unexpected blocking angles as the guy with the ball scrambles back and forth. Why not move on to an offense with quicker built in execution, enhanced confidence in play expectations, less surprises and reduced blocking duration. The caveat would be less criticism from fans about penalties, fewer hurries/hits & sacks and and better (holier than thou) PPF ratings. What's not to like about that? :229031_shrug:

Last year, James Carpenter found a better fit. Why wouldn't Russell Okung seek a better fit for where he is at this stage of his career? What's not to like about signing for better fit and more money?

 

[Willyeye]

One of the biggest problems we've had in the last couple of years is that we have no room on the roster for new, young talent. Good example: Lynch gets injured early in the year, and the next man up is Rawls, and he kills it. Had Lynch not been injured, and had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin one more chance, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks, and he might have even been sent to the Practice Squad and "stolen" by another team. It's so important to know when to let go of vet players and when to let the next man up get his shot. Lynch never should have been given a 3-year extension...it was too much money for a 30 year-old RB who played so physically and was used that much in recent years.

I look at last seasons events at running back differently. The team consistently makes room for young prospects.They remain one of the younger teams in the league. And, Thomas Rawls is evidence of the opportunities for young players and rookies in Seattle.

IIRC Lynch's health problems began early on. Likewise, 4th year Turbin suffered a multi-week high ankle sprain or something early on. He was released because of a need for a roster spot to cover injuries elsewhere. Michael had already been afforded 3 training camps and two seasons of opportunities. He squandered that time by neglecting to build and win the trust in the coaching staff. In the absence of a young player stepping up, Fred Jackson was added because of a much needed upgrade in both maturity and performance at the position. Simultaneously, they also chose to maintain a roster spot of a young promising prospect. Young Thomas Rawls turned out to be the one that stepped up to the challenge and delivered.

My point was that even if Rawls totally outplayed Lynch in TC and preseason (kind of hard to prove yourself against someone who is allowed to come in and start in Week 1 without competing in TC or preseason), it would still have been impossible for Rawls to win the starting RB job from Lynch. They preach always compete, but realistically, that's not exactly the case. There are a lot of veterans on this team who wouldn't be replaced no matter how badly they declined, as long as they are still under contract. To be fair, it makes more sense not to cut players, rather wait until they become FA's so that we can get the compensatory picks for them. And I guess that using the example of Michael and Turbin wasn't the best choice. I should've been more specific and said that "had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin another chance, and had neither of them gotten injured, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks."

Another example would be that if Jordan Hill totally kicked but in 2015 preseason and hadn't gotten injured, I don't think he would have replaced Mebane as a starter regardless. It's almost like they become accustomed to certain players starting at certain positions and they don't have enough faith in their younger players to replace those guys. Last year's competition at DB also comes to mind. The Hawks had McCray, Burley, Shead, Blackmon and Tye Smith with Lane coming off the IR at some point during the season, and yet they spent way too much money and signed Cary Williams instead. They'd have been way better off starting one of their young guys and/or signing or trading for a young CB, but they chose an expensive has-been veteran instead.

 

[BlueTalon]

One of the biggest problems we've had in the last couple of years is that we have no room on the roster for new, young talent. Good example: Lynch gets injured early in the year, and the next man up is Rawls, and he kills it. Had Lynch not been injured, and had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin one more chance, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks, and he might have even been sent to the Practice Squad and "stolen" by another team. It's so important to know when to let go of vet players and when to let the next man up get his shot. Lynch never should have been given a 3-year extension...it was too much money for a 30 year-old RB who played so physically and was used that much in recent years.

I think you are forgetting who our coach is. Rawls is on the team because he got a legitimate opportunity to show what he could do in camp and preseason, and he made the most of it. Rawls made Michael expendable. Holmgren might have decided to give Michael another opportunity ahead of Rawls and tried to stash him on the practice squad, and we all know that's exactly the sort of thing Ruskell would have done (e.g., Justin Forsett and Michael Bennett). I suppose you could say PC&JS did the same thing with Rod Smith last year, gave Turbin the extra chance and tried to stash Smith on the practice squad and then ended up losing him to another team. But you can't use Rawls as your hypothetical in a what-if situation. Just the opposite, Rawls is the quintessential example of how rookies have a better shot in the Seahawks' system than on the majority of other teams.

 

[BlueTalon]

The Hawks had McCray, Burley, Shead, Blackmon and Tye Smith with Lane coming off the IR at some point during the season, and yet they spent way too much money and signed Cary Williams instead. They'd have been way better off starting one of their young guys and/or signing or trading for a young CB, but they chose an expensive has-been veteran instead.

The Seahawks staff wouldn't argue with you about this. They made a mistake. To their credit, they corrected it quickly and ate the salary, rather than letting him stay on the team for the whole season.

 

[drdiags]

Guess we will see what the team is thinking for LT starting this week:


[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/706528212319387648[/tweet]

 

[Jville]

Guess we will see what the team is thinking for LT starting this week:


[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/706528212319387648[/tweet]

Russell Okung has been anticipating this opportunity for a long time. So ... more power to him. I hope it all works out.

With regards to the Seahawks, I enjoy watching them go thru thru the business of working up alternatives.

Glass half full: Gary Gilliam was originally looked at as a left tackle prospect. So he is an obvious option at left tackle. He should be better zeroed in on his playing weight this year. I expect him to continue his development. Gilliam, with his evolving development, is writing quite a story.

Kona Schwenke is an option that few here, other than me and possibly a few other unknown souls, have any enthusiasm for. I thought what I saw from Kona was promising prior to an opponent ending his year by rolling up on his leg. He is under contract and presumably focused on his return to competition.

Glass half empty: Alvin Bailey has become a bit of a question. I don't know that Alvin wants to stay with the Seahawks. There is last years' example of Carpenter finding richer pastures in free agency. Plus, there is that annual training camp question as to whether Alvins' weight and conditioning will prove satisfactory. I don't believe the staff wants the rights to someone who may not be firmly locked in. So, I have my doubts about the Seahawks making a tendered offer. Those doubs represent another element of uncertainty going into the upcoming week.

Terry Poole is a mystery. He appeared poorly prepared to mentally compete last year. However, he is under a new contract and will presumably be forded a second chance. Hopefully, he'll excel as a student of the game this year.

 

[Willyeye]

One of the biggest problems we've had in the last couple of years is that we have no room on the roster for new, young talent. Good example: Lynch gets injured early in the year, and the next man up is Rawls, and he kills it. Had Lynch not been injured, and had PC decided to give Michael or Turbin one more chance, Rawls never would have had a chance to start on the Seahawks, and he might have even been sent to the Practice Squad and "stolen" by another team. It's so important to know when to let go of vet players and when to let the next man up get his shot. Lynch never should have been given a 3-year extension...it was too much money for a 30 year-old RB who played so physically and was used that much in recent years.

I think you are forgetting who our coach is. Rawls is on the team because he got a legitimate opportunity to show what he could do in camp and preseason, and he made the most of it. Rawls made Michael expendable. Holmgren might have decided to give Michael another opportunity ahead of Rawls and tried to stash him on the practice squad, and we all know that's exactly the sort of thing Ruskell would have done (e.g., Justin Forsett and Michael Bennett). I suppose you could say PC&JS did the same thing with Rod Smith last year, gave Turbin the extra chance and tried to stash Smith on the practice squad and then ended up losing him to another team. But you can't use Rawls as your hypothetical in a what-if situation. Just the opposite, Rawls is the quintessential example of how rookies have a better shot in the Seahawks' system than on the majority of other teams.

Regardless of whom I use for a hypothetical, my opinion hasn't changed...It's not a good idea for a coach/GM to be overly loyal to old guys who aren't playing as well and aren't staying healthy. The reason the Hawks won SB48 is because they wisely let a bunch of rookies take over the team in 2011 and 2012. If you choose wisely in the draft, you can allow older guys that are past their prime to walk.