The future of the OL

[McGruff]

I suspect our "continuity" is being developed between the 1st and 2nd string lines. I can conceive of a scenario where we blend together guys we have with guys we've been developing.

LT Gilliam - LG Britt - C Sokoli - RG Glowinski - RT ????

Its a risky line, and we'd probably sign some cheap veteran insurance and we'd need to address the tackles, but I wouldn't put it past Tom and Pete to go this direction.

 

[ludakrishna]

I suspect our "continuity" is being developed between the 1st and 2nd string lines. I can conceive of a scenario where we blend together guys we have with guys we've been developing.

LT Gilliam - LG Britt - C Sokoli - RG Glowinski - RT ????

Its a risky line, and we'd probably sign some cheap veteran insurance and we'd need to address the tackles, but I wouldn't put it past Tom and Pete to go this direction.

If we go down this road I will start the Fire Pete Carroll wagon. I will not let his ego destroy a franchise QB. He feels that he is the smartest person in the room and refuses to change his ways. That got the better of him at USC...and hopefully that is not the case here.

 

[mrt144]

I keep hearing the word "continuity" splashed around the board like it is something you dare not abandon. I will grant you that some players and even coaches sometimes get better with experience but continuity really means more of the same. Typically the players given college scholarships were the best not just on their team, but probably their conference too and that holds true for the pros as well. Granted there those exceptions who don't live up to their expectations but just take a look at who the great players are and they typically were always great throughout their careers and that plays true down the line of competence. In fact, if continuity were such an essential element to success no one would ever get fired. Ask Kodak, Blockbuster, Nokia, Polaroid, and Borders how well "continuity" worked for them.

Continuity is the by product of a good line, not a prerequisite of a good line.

 

[MysterMatt]

I suspect our "continuity" is being developed between the 1st and 2nd string lines. I can conceive of a scenario where we blend together guys we have with guys we've been developing.

LT Gilliam - LG Britt - C Sokoli - RG Glowinski - RT ????

Its a risky line, and we'd probably sign some cheap veteran insurance and we'd need to address the tackles, but I wouldn't put it past Tom and Pete to go this direction.

All due respect, but yeah, uh, no way. The idea is to improve the OL, you'll recall. The only thing you'd accomplish with this OL is a cheapest unit in NFL history and a dead QB. Now if you are suggesting the above scenario as a 2nd unit, then that's okay, I suppose.

 

[mrt144]

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/1/24/108 ... 1452541840

I posted an article about how to improve the O-line over on Fieldgulls.

 

[Ozzy]

McGruff I love your posts but I have to disagree with you here. I could be completely wrong on this too, I fully admit that. I would hate it if we started the year with that line in place. Gilliam and Glowinski are the only two I have some faith in but not a ton. I really think they need to bring in a couple of sure starters with some veteran experience. The communication was terrible all year and having Sokoli with Britt/Glowinski on either side seems like a step backwards in that regard. I'm not an offensive line guy so I could be way off base. Interesting off season for sure.

 

[sutz]

I keep hearing the word "continuity" splashed around the board like it is something you dare not abandon. I will grant you that some players and even coaches sometimes get better with experience but continuity really means more of the same. Typically the players given college scholarships were the best not just on their team, but probably their conference too and that holds true for the pros as well. Granted there those exceptions who don't live up to their expectations but just take a look at who the great players are and they typically were always great throughout their careers and that plays true down the line of competence. In fact, if continuity were such an essential element to success no one would ever get fired. Ask Kodak, Blockbuster, Nokia, Polaroid, and Borders how well "continuity" worked for them.

Continuity is the by product of a good line, not a prerequisite of a good line.

mrt, I think you're using a "chicken or egg" postulate there. I happen to think that the two go together. IMO the best lines are those that play 14-16 games a season together. Now that doesn't mean you can take any fat guys off the street, suit them up and suffer through their growing pains and voila, they'll be great in a couple of years. :laugh:

However, given even the most talented players, it takes some time playing together to develop that unity that "elite" o-lines display, where everybody knows what to do in every situation. Even then, breakdowns occur as DC's scheme and plan ways to surprise and deceive o-linemen to get through to the QB.

I certainly agree that we need a talent upgrade on the o-line. From Pete's recent comments, I'd have to say he agrees, and it sounds like he and JS will be strategizing to do that. However, some of the comments around here suggesting willy-nilly trades, drafts, and shuffling of players to different positions smacks of panic, and Pete and John don't panic.

We've been to the playoffs 5 straight years, and to two super bowls, and I might add, had wins in every one of those trips IIRC. That's not bad. It does not mean I think everything is "fine." It does mean that I think we have some pretty smart football minds that will be focused on this problem and I'll expect improvement. However, and here's where the 'continuity' thing come in in my mind. It may take a year or two to actually reap the benefits of the work done, depending on how extensive the changes are and how good the talent is that we bring in, plus whatever improvement current players that stay around might show.

So, IMHO, continuity may not be a prerequisite of a good line, but it sure as hell helps.

 

[Overseasfan]

RT - I like Gilliam here. He's no special talent but he's been playing decent and he still has more potential. We're better off keeping him here and investing in the other OL positions. If he stagnates in his growth during 2016 try to find a replacement next year.

RG - This is the best situation on the O-line. Sweezy is a solid starter and it is certainly possible and even likely he's retained fot relatively cheap. If not, we still have Glowinski behind him who should prove a capable starter himself.

C - I feel like the best situation here is to just keep Lewis and spend a late round pick here as well. Very good centers can easily fall into day 3 of the draft. Then have the rookie develop behind Lewis or start the rookie and use Lewis as serviceable back-up + mentor

LG - Let's just experiment here for a bit. Britt isn't working out here. He's the primary reason for our interior struggles. Keeping him as back up for both RT and LG isn't a bad idea but we are going to need a new starter here. Sokoli is a promising talent who could develop into someone special but he isn't ready yet. Poole has some of the measurables the Hawks look for in a LG but I highly doubt he'd be any improvement. Best bet is to sign a cheap vet here to hold the fort down untill next year.

LT - The premier Oline position. Keeping Okung would be a mistake here. He's way too expensive for his value. I'd draft a LT in the first few rounds to try and find a long term answer, while we also sign a proven vet with average production as a fail safe or as mentor for the rookie.

So if I were in charge the OL would look like this:
RT - Gilliam
RG - Sweezy/Glowinski
C - late round draft pick/Lewis
LG - FA
LT - early round draft pick/FA

Plenty of continuity on the right side and a fresh start on the left.

The recurring theme I see in your post is that you want to go cheap, either in terms of cap space or draft capital. But why? Being cheap is part of the problem of the last few years and what led us into this position. We have the cap space and draft capital to make some real moves and make the offensive line a strength without really hurting the rest of the team. Why settle for trying to achieve an average offensive line?

In terms of the center I just feel like a 5-6th round pick could get us something like the third best center in the draft. We could go 2nd or 3rd round here and try to get the best guy but there are other positions that need adressing. As long as there is a guy who looks really special then I wouldn't mind a high round pick but if the drop off isn't that big I'd find it a waste of a pick.

In terms of the LG and LT free agents I meant cheap in the sense of affordable. A couple millions at most. I'm all in to invest a bit more in the line but we shouldn't put 25-30 million in the line. That'd mean we'd have way less money for other positions. An average O-line is enough to flourish.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

The line feels like it's a 2+ year fix to me. I don't see a clear building block on the current OL, especially if my theory on Okung proves correct. We could be looking at five new starters by 2017.

I am in agreement. I think this is a 2+ year project. Right now in 2016, we're talking mostly of continuity. But right now I kind of see Britt/Lewis/Sweezy as being consistent only insofar as they seem genuinely below average. You could keep them alright and have continuity. Not the kind you want either.

I do think we're looking at improving from within. The development projects we kept on the roster last year should be ingrained in the system. Not unlike the way our DBs have to take that year to master their roles. I'd expect us to add two new development players for the OL. Not a stretch, but also looking at the depth at OL this year which seems similar to last year. Seems if we want to add OC/OG talent in day three, we'll have good players to sift through.

My biggest worry is that Seattle won't abandon the flawed processes that got them in this mess at OL. Never at any point have PC/JS or Cable self-repudiated their methods. Reaching for guys in the draft because Cable likes them hasn't worked.

The only bad thing I can say about Pete is that he can be stubborn at times and slower than he should be at ditching a bad process or a struggling assistant coach. Pete is a fixer, but does he accept that the process with Cable the past few years has been deeply flawed? If he doesn't, then true progress on the OL would surprise me.

Couple things. One I do think they have shown a stubborn streak when it comes to picking OL. In particular, by circumstantial/read between the lines remarks, Seattle has been 'unfortunate' in that the OL prospects they hoped would be available were simply not.

Seattle has until the last few years, been stubborn in their refusal to be aggressive and get the players they liked at the top of the draft. And that seems most true with OL prospects. I have to wonder if the experience and result in trading aggressively for Lockett may in fact bolster their decisions in the future to being more aggressive when the situation warrants.

Also, in looking at the draft the way it shakes out right now -- we are fortunate in that we are picking ahead of both Green Bay and Kansas City. All three teams share an affinity for the same kinds of players. And it is always seeming that one of those two teams ends up taking guys we are linked to heavily.

As it stands now, the draft needs of teams really does kind of shake out well for us. Outside of Minnesota, the teams picking between 19 and our selection at 26 don't seem to have strong OL needs. Seattle has a willing trade partner in Washington sitting there at 21. If a LT prospect does slide down, it may not be prohibitive to trade up to get him. Similarly if Houston at 22 is looking at a QB prospect -- moving back to 26 shouldn't prohibit that.

There should be opportunity to move up. There very well could be guys we covet still lingering after Indy picks at 18.

Clearly just waiting for the guys you covet to fall in your laps hasn't worked well for us. And trading up recently has proven to be worth the cost looking back. Seattle likes to have around 9 draft picks each draft. With the way the comp picks have been flowing -- we end up having that many without having to move back at all.

I agree, that we've been stubborn. In this case stubborn to ante up and go get our man if he is a lineman. The conditions seem pretty favorable for us to make a move to get our guy this year.

 

[mrt144]

I keep hearing the word "continuity" splashed around the board like it is something you dare not abandon. I will grant you that some players and even coaches sometimes get better with experience but continuity really means more of the same. Typically the players given college scholarships were the best not just on their team, but probably their conference too and that holds true for the pros as well. Granted there those exceptions who don't live up to their expectations but just take a look at who the great players are and they typically were always great throughout their careers and that plays true down the line of competence. In fact, if continuity were such an essential element to success no one would ever get fired. Ask Kodak, Blockbuster, Nokia, Polaroid, and Borders how well "continuity" worked for them.

Continuity is the by product of a good line, not a prerequisite of a good line.

mrt, I think you're using a "chicken or egg" postulate there. I happen to think that the two go together. IMO the best lines are those that play 14-16 games a season together. Now that doesn't mean you can take any fat guys off the street, suit them up and suffer through their growing pains and voila, they'll be great in a couple of years. :laugh:

However, given even the most talented players, it takes some time playing together to develop that unity that "elite" o-lines display, where everybody knows what to do in every situation. Even then, breakdowns occur as DC's scheme and plan ways to surprise and deceive o-linemen to get through to the QB.

I certainly agree that we need a talent upgrade on the o-line. From Pete's recent comments, I'd have to say he agrees, and it sounds like he and JS will be strategizing to do that. However, some of the comments around here suggesting willy-nilly trades, drafts, and shuffling of players to different positions smacks of panic, and Pete and John don't panic.

We've been to the playoffs 5 straight years, and to two super bowls, and I might add, had wins in every one of those trips IIRC. That's not bad. It does not mean I think everything is "fine." It does mean that I think we have some pretty smart football minds that will be focused on this problem and I'll expect improvement. However, and here's where the 'continuity' thing come in in my mind. It may take a year or two to actually reap the benefits of the work done, depending on how extensive the changes are and how good the talent is that we bring in, plus whatever improvement current players that stay around might show.

So, IMHO, continuity may not be a prerequisite of a good line, but it sure as hell helps.

It's something that develops naturally when everyone proves they are capable of playing their position and gets contracts that reflect that belief. It won't elevate the scrappiest from bad to mediocre. A continuity of sub par players hurts the unit more than it helps, as this season showed.

As that one long big block of text I posted illustrates, I don't think continuity is important to the FO either (Unger?), rather it's mostly about saving money to spend on other position groups and testing the limits of divesting from the OL. Maybe they alter course now that they have a lot of great players locked in till 2018 at least and start putting more cap into OL but I'll only venture a guess when the ink is dry.

 

[sam1313]

Not re-signing Kearse and cutting Graham would free up an extra 12M or so to spend on the OL (9M from Graham and about 3-4M from Kearse). I'm hoping they do this.

The Seahawks spent 12.8M on the OL last season with only two other teams spending less. Would be nice if they can double that number in free agency to go along with some high draft picks next season.

A great line and no playmakers? How did that work out for Dallas?

Well, last season they did about as well as we did this season.

You can't say that in a season where Romo hardly played that a good OL is a bad experiment. One of the biggest differences between the Seahawks and the Panthers is the Panthers' OL - which is substantially better than our OL on our OL's best day. I'm not saying we go full fire sale on playmakers, but we better spend some high picks and some dollars on the OL this offseason.

 

[McGruff]

McGruff I love your posts but I have to disagree with you here. I could be completely wrong on this too, I fully admit that. I would hate it if we started the year with that line in place. Gilliam and Glowinski are the only two I have some faith in but not a ton. I really think they need to bring in a couple of sure starters with some veteran experience. The communication was terrible all year and having Sokoli with Britt/Glowinski on either side seems like a step backwards in that regard. I'm not an offensive line guy so I could be way off base. Interesting off season for sure.

I'm merely suggesting that in all our clamoring to address the line, Pete and John and Tom may have a firm belief that they already have . . . by drafting 2 developmental starters last year that are ready to plug and play this year.

Not saying I would love the idea, but I wouldn't hate it either. Really for three reasons . . .

1. You'd have a line that is young across the board and IF it works you have them for a long time.

2. You have a line that is ridiculously athletic, especially in the interior, to deal with the likes of Donald and Short.

3. You have a line that is super cheap, allowing you to significantly address other areas.

 

[MysterMatt]

I'm merely suggesting that in all our clamoring to address the line, Pete and John and Tom may have a firm belief that they already have . . . by drafting 2 developmental starters last year that are ready to plug and play this year.

Not saying I would love the idea, but I wouldn't hate it either. Really for three reasons . . .

1. You'd have a line that is young across the board and IF it works you have them for a long time.

2. You have a line that is ridiculously athletic, especially in the interior, to deal with the likes of Donald and Short.

3. You have a line that is super cheap, allowing you to significantly address other areas.

That's fair, but it's also an immense gamble. It seems those guys are all welcome to compete, but starting the upgrade process a piece or two at a time, probably starting at C, makes more sense to me.

 

[McGruff]

I'm merely suggesting that in all our clamoring to address the line, Pete and John and Tom may have a firm belief that they already have . . . by drafting 2 developmental starters last year that are ready to plug and play this year.

Not saying I would love the idea, but I wouldn't hate it either. Really for three reasons . . .

1. You'd have a line that is young across the board and IF it works you have them for a long time.

2. You have a line that is ridiculously athletic, especially in the interior, to deal with the likes of Donald and Short.

3. You have a line that is super cheap, allowing you to significantly address other areas.

That's fair, but it's also an immense gamble. It seems those guys are all welcome to compete, but starting the upgrade process a piece or two at a time, probably starting at C, makes more sense to me.

I agree on the pieces, but I think it starts at tackle, not center. I can see them bringing Lewis back on the cheap as insurance to battle with Sokoli and Nowak. But RT or LT seems like the better place to start.

 

[sam1313]

I keep hearing the word "continuity" splashed around the board like it is something you dare not abandon. I will grant you that some players and even coaches sometimes get better with experience but continuity really means more of the same. Typically the players given college scholarships were the best not just on their team, but probably their conference too and that holds true for the pros as well. Granted there those exceptions who don't live up to their expectations but just take a look at who the great players are and they typically were always great throughout their careers and that plays true down the line of competence. In fact, if continuity were such an essential element to success no one would ever get fired. Ask Kodak, Blockbuster, Nokia, Polaroid, and Borders how well "continuity" worked for them.

Continuity is the by product of a good line, not a prerequisite of a good line.

That is a great quote and an accurate one as well I believe. I played 9 years of OL (albeit nothing close to the NFL - Div. 3 college was my highpoint), but I always thought it was far more about the ability of they OL members themselves as opposed to "playing together." Sure, sometimes playing together works, but when all else fails sometimes you need to just call out who you are taking and beat that man even though he knows you will be the one blocking him. It often isn't as big of a mystery as it seems anyway once the defense sees the formation and personnel.

 

[bjornanderson21]

I do agree that Okung will likely not be back because he is not going to be a good value. He is a UFA left tackle who can play well when healthy and some team out there is going to overpay him as a result.

I don't agree with the sentiment some have that the FO wants to minimize investment on the offensive line. Gallery is a good counter example as is all of the draft capital we have spent: Two 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, two 4ths, a 5th, a 6th, three 7ths, and a ton of effort spent on UDFAs. Many of those guys just haven't worked out but it's misleading to think we've been ignoring the unit.

The FO is simply looking for good value because they have confidence in themselves as a developmental coaching staff. They would absolutely jump on a Thomas/Mack type if they thought the value was there.

You actually help support the argument that the OL is a mess and that management and the coaching staff are clueless.

As you said, for the amount of draft capital spent we have come away with very little. They have done a terrible job turning draft picks into good additions.

You mentioned that they probably have confidence in themselves as a developmental coaching staff, but Tom Cable is one of the worst (if not THE worst) OL coach in the NFL when it comes to developing players so their confidence is completely misplaced.

Tom Cable has NEVER put together an offensive line that can protect the QB. He didn't when he was a HC and he hasn't as an OL coach. He has LITERALLY FAILED EVERY YEAR!

When someone has been a coach as long as Cable and has failed EVERY SINGLE YEAR how can any LOGICAL person have faith in that failure of a coach?

As bad as Bevell is, most of our offensive problems can be traced to the OL. Tom Cable is the biggest dead weight on the seahawks. We probably lose a solid 2 games a year simply because we stick with Cable.

It's getting to the point where the Seahawks need to hire an assistant GM specifically for OL decisions. Schneider has proven incompetent as has Cable, and Pete refuses to make any changes. A change desperately needs to be made otherwise we will continue to draft the wrong guys and any FA we sign will be wasted money.

 

[MysterMatt]

That's fair, but it's also an immense gamble. It seems those guys are all welcome to compete, but starting the upgrade process a piece or two at a time, probably starting at C, makes more sense to me.

I agree on the pieces, but I think it starts at tackle, not center. I can see them bringing Lewis back on the cheap as insurance to battle with Sokoli and Nowak. But RT or LT seems like the better place to start.

I felt that way at first as well, but after reviewing the Rams, Vikings, and Panther's games I have changed my mind. Lewis is my new LJP...a guy who you like to have as depth. The interior OL is really weak and a good C could help with that. LT is huge as well, but I wouldn't go with Gilliam at such a critical spot.

 

[jammerhawk]

There will be some big changes on the OLine for next season. Of course this just my opinion.

The present starting 5 (0kung 1st, Britt 2nd, Lewis undrafted, Sweezy 7th, Gilliam undrafted)

I don't believe that Okung will be kept and Britt has not demonstrated he was worth either the pick or being a starter as yet. Britt will find competition at his position next season and will need to show something to keep his job, he's a G and not a T b/c he's too slow to play OT with any consistent effectiveness. The team demonstrated that w/o a fast pass release by RW there was no passing game and that can be defended by opponents who prevent short routes from being open. None of the centres the team has is truly a worthy starter and capable of being developed into a quality starter w/o some significant coaching up. Sweezy will only be kept if he doesn't price himself out of the range the team will pay for him,Sweezy was a 7th round pick and the first of the several DL conversion projects, he's tough but challenged as a pass blocker. Gilliam looks like a potential successor for the LT job and that worries me, he's athletic but whiffs in pass protection a lot. Bailey is unlikely to be given a 2nd rd. RFA contract to be kept and will be signed elsewhere w/o compensation, he also. hasn't played well as a G. The team will keep Lewis and let him understudy a more experienced C ( like Wisniewskl or another like Mack and suspect the team will look harder than ever in both the draft and and FA for a quality or experienced C to anchor the OLine. Lewis won't be guaranteed a job and will face much more competition this coming season, he's really a backup. I truly believe both Bailey & Jeanpierre won't be back and the team will be looking harder at some of the deeper backup players and a number of draft picks. Glowinski showed enough to me to cause me to think he could be Sweezy's replacement and become a better player than Sweezy or least have a higher ceiling. It's time for the team to make the OLine a priority and reload as others have said there could be 5 new starters at their respective positions next season. FA and the draft will tell a lot the direction the team intends to take.

To me Okung will not get an offer from the team that he will find acceptable and the team will opt for greater reliability at the position and whatever comp pick results from him signing elsewhere. His injuries have eroded his physical ability to play at high level, he is too unreliable b/c of injuries, and takes too many penalties as he tries to compensate for a lack of upper body strength and pure speed. One of the most attractive things about Okung coming out of college was his durability however as a pro he's been injury prone and has only started 1 more game than Sweezy (who has played a year less) while never having a complete season as a pro. Perhaps he may be the best player on the OLine but that isn't saying much, as the 2016 version is certainly no longer the same player as the 2012 version. For sure he's not worth the money he is being paid now and certainly not big FA $. If he is prepared to accept a lesser contract,which I doubt, he could be kept but by now it has become clear as others have noted here that the team doesn't like to pay players who cannot be counted upon to stay healthy.

I'm not sure I totally disagree with McG's above post of an eventual potential O Line of:
LT Gilliam - LG Britt - C Sokoli - RG Glowinski - RT (Poole) ????
However, they certainly won't be starters for a while, and may only be seen together in preseason. The team has gambled on the players they drafted and have opted for physical potential for reasons stated by Coach Cable. It is clear they have made quite a few mistakes and the results on field have not been pretty yet. If the team gets a home run from one or more of the above players they will have been hugely successful with this buy low but buy physical ability strategy. I remain curious about both Glowinski and about Sokoli.

Lots of excellent discussion in this thread.

 

[byau]

Kearly...love it. Great thoughts

Unger had missed 29 games over the previous five seasons, and had just two 16 game seasons out of six with Seattle (ironically, he started 16 games for the Saints in 2015).

WIthout looking up any numbers, I would bet you it's a bit easier mentally and physically to center an offense like the Saints than an offense like the Seahawks. Lots of timing pass plays, not as much run blocking, less chance of getting rolled up.

And good for Unger.

 

[Happypuppy]

"If history is any indication, there should be a lot of concern about Graham ever being the same again. Also, how many games will he miss? Better off spending that 9M somewhere else like the OL."


This is an excellent analysis. The odds are JG will never be the same player based on historical information.

The realize that it's would be a big hit to JS to have him and harvin bust but it probably the case.

If we took the $$ from Jimmy and perhaps Okung could we fix the the line and sign a good miller type pass catching and blocking TE?

I think so and it maybe out best option regardless. We have invested a lot in the QB and he was hit way too much. Sooner or later the odds will catch up with you and we lose or QB for an extended period. Best option IMO is to minimize risk by investing a lot more in the OL.