So we are going to be a run-first team with no O-line?

[Hawks46]

Holy crap, what are we going to do without any draft picks ?! What..what ? We have some ? :180670:

 

[Throwdown]

What did we exactly lose on the oline? 2 often injured guys? We're gonna be fine.

 

[Jville]

Hasn't the line been weak for a couple years now? I have heard fans wanting the Seahawks to improve the line for a while now, not only for the run, but to protect Wilson as well. I do hope this is the season where they really focus on beefing up the o-line with some quality players. Their willingness to trade Unger makes me suspect they have plans in motion.

Many fans (including rating groupies) have been complaining .... but not all of us. Some of us consider the impact of injuries. Some of us make allowances for first year starters and learning and conditioning curves. Some allow for the lack of continuity. But, Cable is building quite a pile of candidates for that Seahawk competition agenda.

And in those last two years mentioned, there seems to be growing interest, around the league, in Seahawk linemen.

 

[Hawknballs]

5 fat guys is 5 fat guys. We will play games with 5 fat guys between russ and the defense. just like usual.

no i'm not undervaluing the o-line

i've just accepted over the past 3 years that our oline sucks so just put 5 fat guys out there, great.

 

[cacksman]

Seattle is undefeated (as in all wins and zero losses) in the last 8 games Unger has missed.

 

[Popeyejones]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

In the last three years they've paid big bucks for FAs, in trades and for extensions along D-Line, Linebacker, the Secondary, at WR, at RB, and soon to be at QB too. It's EVERY offensive and defensive unit except for the O-Line.

So, by all means, please explain to me the resources the Seahawks have been pouring into the O-line since the start of their run. :roll:

(Or perhaps you are just pissy because we disagreed in the Knighton thread and you're expressing that by making a bad argument in this one?)

 

[Basis4day]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

So, by all means, please explain to me the resources the Seahawks have been pouring into the O-line since the start of their run.

(Or perhaps you are just pissy because we disagreed in the Knighton thread and you're expressing that by making a bad argument in this one?)

Last i checked the Draft is more than 5 rounds and there is more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Seattle is undefeated (as in all wins and zero losses) in the last 8 games Unger has missed.

Is the same cupcake schedule where Seattle didn't face a half decent starting QB? Jon Ryan could have played Centre in those games and the Seahawks would have still won.

 

[Popeyejones]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

So, by all means, please explain to me the resources the Seahawks have been pouring into the O-line since the start of their run.

(Or perhaps you are just pissy because we disagreed in the Knighton thread and you're expressing that by making a bad argument in this one?)

Last i checked the Draft is more than 5 rounds and there is more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Rounds 1 & 2: projected starters

Rounds 3-5: Projected backups who you hope grow into starters

Rounds 6-7: Filling out the depth chart or practice squad.

If you think plugging in lineman from the 6th and 7th round is dedicating resources to your O-line...nah, you don't actually think that.

As for those "more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups" and through the draft, don't be coy, what are they? Just come out and explain how the Hawks have been dedicating resources to their O-line.

It certainly hasn't been through the draft, through FA pickups, through trades or through extensions. So what is it?


Before we forget, I also want to remind that I said that I think this is a strategic decision by the Hawks coaching staff, and ultimatelly a really smart one.

 

[Basis4day]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

So, by all means, please explain to me the resources the Seahawks have been pouring into the O-line since the start of their run.

(Or perhaps you are just pissy because we disagreed in the Knighton thread and you're expressing that by making a bad argument in this one?)

Last i checked the Draft is more than 5 rounds and there is more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Rounds 1 & 2: projected starters

Rounds 3-5: Projected backups who you hope grow into starters

Rounds 6-7: Filling out the depth chart or practice squad.

If you think plugging in lineman from the 6th and 7th round is dedicating resources to your O-line...nah, you don't actually think that.

As for those "more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups" and through the draft, don't be coy, what are they? Just come out and explain how the Hawks have been dedicating resources to their O-line.

It certainly hasn't been through the draft, through FA pickups, through trades or through extensions. So what is it?


Before we forget, I also want to remind that I said that I think this is a strategic decision by the Hawks coaching staff, and ultimatelly a really smart one.

Round 3-5 Projected Backups... yeah. If you don't know what the Hawks do in the 5th rd through their roster you really don't know our team at all.

Considering we took a DT in the 7th and turned him into a starting RG and won a SB in the last two years behind a strong rushing attack i'd say they know what they're doing with the O-Line

 

[volsunghawk]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

I think the debate over the resources put into the O-line can be viewed in a couple of different ways, sure.

First off, our planned starters were Okung/Carpenter/Unger/Sweezy/Britt.

That's 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks, and a converted DL grabbed in the 7th round to serve as the RG. Many people would suggest that amounts to a great deal of resources (4 high round picks) put into the line. Of course, this doesn't stick to your "last three years" parameter.

On the flipside, we haven't looked interested in keeping our O-line starters during Carroll's tenure. In fact, the only lineman we ever gave an extension to is the one we just shipped off to New Orleans.

That's either a tacit acknowledgment that we haven't done a great job at drafting O-linemen or we don't consider the unit to be important enough to pour dollars into.

 

[Popeyejones]

Round 3-5 Projected Backups... yeah. If you don't know what the Hawks do in the 5th rd through their roster you really don't know our team at all.

Considering we took a DT in the 7th and turned him into a starting RG and won a SB in the last two years behind a strong rushing attack i'd say they know what they're doing with the O-Line

You're shifting the argument. You're now claiming that I said that the Hawks don't know what they're doing with their O-line, when I said that in recent history they haven't been dedicating resources to their O-Line.

It's particularly annoying because you're now accusing me of the exact opposite of the point I was arguing: my point, quite clearly expressed I thought, was that I think they DO KNOW WHAT they're doing with their O-Line.

Remember, your argument is that the Hawks HAVE BEEN putting resources into their O-Line as of late. You've just been, while alluding to them, refusing to specify what those resources are. That they're starting a converted 7th round defensive tackle at offensive guard is really, really, really, really not a strong point for your argument, so I don't know why you're bringing that up (it's like you're pulling my trump card for me :lol: ).

 

[Popeyejones]

I think the debate over the resources put into the O-line can be viewed in a couple of different ways, sure.

First off, our planned starters were Okung/Carpenter/Unger/Sweezy/Britt.

That's 2 1st round picks, 2 2nd round picks, and a converted DL grabbed in the 7th round to serve as the RG. Many people would suggest that amounts to a great deal of resources (4 high round picks) put into the line. Of course, this doesn't stick to your "last three years" parameter.

On the flipside, we haven't looked interested in keeping our O-line starters during Carroll's tenure. In fact, the only lineman we ever gave an extension to is the one we just shipped off to New Orleans.

That's either a tacit acknowledgment that we haven't done a great job at drafting O-linemen or we don't consider the unit to be important enough to pour dollars into.

Yeah, my "last three years" cut point can definitely be read as arbitrary and opportunistic.

I picked it because:

1) three years (really starting with the second half of the season three years ago) was the start of the Seahawks run of success.

2) starting with that run of success it was pretty clear that the resources they had previously put into the O-Line through draft capital had for the most part busted (Moffitt was traded away for an undrafted nost tackle, Carpenter was a bust who they just let walk, Okung is the only person you could really argue for, and they've spent the last three years seemingly generally disinterested as he's gone in and out of the lineup due to injuries).

3) Starting with that run of success most Hawks fans themselves have complained (repeatedly and quite vociferously) about the lack of resources dedicated to the O-Line.

And you're absolutely right that it could be an acknowledgement of an inability to draft them, although I think if valuing the position was part of their overall strategy, they'd be bringing them in through trades and FA as they've done with many other positions (e.g. WR, TE, DE, DT).

My guess is that this is strategic on their part. It doesn't mean they won't ever break from the strategy, but I don't think it's just irrational.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Round 3-5 Projected Backups... yeah. If you don't know what the Hawks do in the 5th rd through their roster you really don't know our team at all.

Considering we took a DT in the 7th and turned him into a starting RG and won a SB in the last two years behind a strong rushing attack i'd say they know what they're doing with the O-Line

You're shifting the argument. You're now claiming that I said that the Hawks don't know what they're doing with their O-line, when I said that in recent history they haven't been dedicating resources to their O-Line.

It's particularly annoying because you're now accusing me of the exact opposite of the point I was arguing: my point, quite clearly expressed I thought, was that I think they DO KNOW WHAT they're doing with their O-Line.

Remember, your argument is that the Hawks HAVE BEEN putting resources into their O-Line as of late. You've just been, while alluding to them, refusing to specify what those resources are. That they're starting a converted 7th round defensive tackle at offensive guard is really, really, really, really not a strong point for your argument, so I don't know why you're bringing that up (it's like you're pulling my trump card for me :lol: ).

2 first round draft picks
1 second round pick
1 3rd round draft pick
1 Large extension for a 2nd round draft pick

How is that not putting rescues into the OL? Oh you didn't realize they used those resources on the OL? Then why comment on something you don't know about acting like you're stating fact?

 

[Scottemojo]

Round 3-5 Projected Backups... yeah. If you don't know what the Hawks do in the 5th rd through their roster you really don't know our team at all.

Considering we took a DT in the 7th and turned him into a starting RG and won a SB in the last two years behind a strong rushing attack i'd say they know what they're doing with the O-Line

You're shifting the argument. You're now claiming that I said that the Hawks don't know what they're doing with their O-line, when I said that in recent history they haven't been dedicating resources to their O-Line.

It's particularly annoying because you're now accusing me of the exact opposite of the point I was arguing: my point, quite clearly expressed I thought, was that I think they DO KNOW WHAT they're doing with their O-Line.

Remember, your argument is that the Hawks HAVE BEEN putting resources into their O-Line as of late. You've just been, while alluding to them, refusing to specify what those resources are. That they're starting a converted 7th round defensive tackle at offensive guard is really, really, really, really not a strong point for your argument, so I don't know why you're bringing that up (it's like you're pulling my trump card for me :lol: ).

You are getting the Niner fan treatment.
You are also spot on. As the team evolves, the Carpenter and Okung type picks have been replaced by Bailey and Gilliam type picks. Throwing first round picks at the line has not resulted in dominant and durable starters. Which is what I would want from first round picks.

Which has always kind of been the theory with zone blocking. Gibbs the guru joked about being able to turn a garbageman into a good zone blocker.

 

[Hawkfan77]

You're obviously not paying attention to the resources they have put into the OL so why even comment?

:lol:

Okay, why don't you explain it to me, and in the process you can also explain it to all your fellow Hawks fans in this thread and all the other threads over the last few years questioning why the Hawks aren't addressing the o-line.

O-lineman are 5 of a team's 22 starters.

In the last three years the Hawks have made 18 picks in the first five rounds and only one of them has gone to O-Line.

In the last three years the Hawks have also traded away or let walk four of their five starting O-lineman, and haven't replaced a single one with a FA signing with any salary cap ramifications at all.

So, by all means, please explain to me the resources the Seahawks have been pouring into the O-line since the start of their run.

(Or perhaps you are just pissy because we disagreed in the Knighton thread and you're expressing that by making a bad argument in this one?)

Last i checked the Draft is more than 5 rounds and there is more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Rounds 1 & 2: projected starters

Rounds 3-5: Projected backups who you hope grow into starters

Rounds 6-7: Filling out the depth chart or practice squad.

If you think plugging in lineman from the 6th and 7th round is dedicating resources to your O-line...nah, you don't actually think that.

As for those "more ways to get players than veteran FA pickups" and through the draft, don't be coy, what are they? Just come out and explain how the Hawks have been dedicating resources to their O-line.

It certainly hasn't been through the draft, through FA pickups, through trades or through extensions. So what is it?


Before we forget, I also want to remind that I said that I think this is a strategic decision by the Hawks coaching staff, and ultimatelly a really smart one.

Thats how bad organizations view the draft, naturally being a 49ers fan you would view the draft the same. Low expectations for your organization who isn't very good at drafting.

 

[Anonymous]

On Zone blocking scheme for a moment, who did that originate from?

Was that a Gibbs' concept Scotte, or did he just "guru" it?

 

[Scottemojo]

On Zone blocking scheme for a moment, who did that originate from?

Was that a Gibbs' concept Scotte, or did he just "guru" it?

Gibbs gets a lot of credit. Pretty sure he is not the originator, though. My guess is a lot of football concepts finally got a good label under guys like him and Mudd.

Lombardi described aspects of the zone block even though he was known for other run concepts. He called it the do dad block.

 

[v1rotv2]

It is very short sighted to make assumptions about the quality of the Oline now when the season is still 5 months away. Is it not possible that JS and PC have a process and this is part of it? The beauty about JS is that he is always thinking and moving. I'll take a play maker over a center every time. As much as I liked Unger he is still a center, a good one but still a center.

JS mentioned on the radio that we have not seen some of the talent they have and I trust them on that.

 

[Jville]

This just in .... Coach Carroll is confirming what we are seeing from the tweets. I.E. lots of movement among linemen.

Back on Topic
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DavisHsuSeattle/status/576101446552178688[/tweet]