We're Saved !!! O-Line "Nailed"

[Seymour]

Haven't they already, this off season, put more dollars and resources into the Oline?

We had Webb and Sowell last year and exchanged Joeckel and Aboushi at just under $9M this year, so maybe a little. Pretty sure they are still at bottom of the league in spending (need to see who makes roster to know for sure), but this may very well take more than 1 season to fix also.

Hey, don't forget Robert Myers. More experience and more money, in both the free agents and current roster. It may not add up to "enough", but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't doing anything. Only next year will answer is it enough. For some here it seems that only another SB will be enough.

I haven't heard anyone say that, I sure haven't. My biggest problem thus far (prior to this season) was, what they were trying has largely been a failure.

Name another position group that every single season since their coordinator has been here has gone backwards or has regressed.

 

[Jville]

Haven't they already, this off season, put more dollars and resources into the Oline?

We had Webb and Sowell last year and exchanged Joeckel and Aboushi at just under $9M this year, so maybe a little. Pretty sure they are still at bottom of the league in spending (need to see who makes roster to know for sure), but this may very well take more than 1 season to fix also.

Hey, don't forget Robert Myers. More experience and more money, in both the free agents and current roster. It may not add up to "enough", but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't doing anything. Only next year will answer is it enough. For some here it seems that only another SB will be enough.

I haven't heard anyone say that, I sure haven't. My biggest problem thus far (prior to this season) was, what they were trying has largely been a failure.

Name another position group that every single season since their coordinator has been here has gone backwards or has regressed.

That begs for a third question. When was the last time they didn't make the playoffs 8)

 

[Seymour]

That begs for a third question. When was the last time they didn't make the playoffs 8)

Serious question. Would you rather have 1 playoff appearance in 3 years and a Lombardi trophy (and winning seasons but just missing playoffs), or 3 playoff seasons and no SB appearances?

I'll take door #1. #2 seems to be over rated IMO.

 

[FidelisHawk]

I can see and even understand the point being made here, but as a FO what should you do when you have an unprecedented defense of young players all coming of age at the same time? Do you let one or two of them leave because you THINK two or three years down the road you MAY need better offensive linemen?

Or do you continue to use draft capital to find young linemen to fill in for the future, which they tried albeit without as much success as they or the fans had hoped.

Given Pete’s current run of success’ I’m willing to give his philosophical beliefs more time before abandoning them because of recent setbacks or making large-scale radical changes.

 

[Jville]

That begs for a third question. When was the last time they didn't make the playoffs 8)

Serious question. Would you rather have 1 playoff appearance in 3 years and a Lombardi trophy (and winning seasons but just missing playoffs), or 3 playoff seasons and no SB appearances?

I'll take door #1. #2 seems to be over rated IMO.

Dodging the question doesn't answer it.

 

[toffee]

Pete and company clearly identified the solution to our offense problem was the need for more running yardage. What they have done and tried to do was:

1. to have a durable power back .... in comes feast mode.
2. better guard plays ..... Joeckle was labeled as best guard before his injury and willing to spend big for Lang. Both guards.
3. for whatever reason, our coaching staffs didn't feel the need to address tackle situations, or couldn't afford to. Although they did let our starting RT leave.

So now, we need to pray that
1. feast mode somehow turn into beast mode,
2. Fant's weight gain and experience transform into middle of the road LT.
3. Ifedi somehow become a different player.

of the 3, I have confidence in Lacy he may not be beast mode but he could be a way above average RB. I also have some confidence in Fant, dude is hungry .... and he is trying real hard. Can't see how he regress from last year.

We have enough journeymen to fill RG.

Ifedi?? He worries me.

 

[StoneCold]

Haven't they already, this off season, put more dollars and resources into the Oline?

We had Webb and Sowell last year and exchanged Joeckel and Aboushi at just under $9M this year, so maybe a little. Pretty sure they are still at bottom of the league in spending (need to see who makes roster to know for sure), but this may very well take more than 1 season to fix also.

Hey, don't forget Robert Myers. More experience and more money, in both the free agents and current roster. It may not add up to "enough", but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't doing anything. Only next year will answer is it enough. For some here it seems that only another SB will be enough.

I haven't heard anyone say that, I sure haven't. My biggest problem thus far (prior to this season) was, what they were trying has largely been a failure.

Name another position group that every single season since their coordinator has been here has gone backwards or has regressed.

The numbers posted above do not show a regression every year. They show a pretty consistent production with one big year and one low year.

And to answer the other question, we haven't had 3 years of making the playoffs without an SB appearance. But I will take making the playoffs every year (Which we have since the coming of nano bubbles) with a real...real shot at the SB than your pessimistic door number #2.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He worries you after one season? Plenty of people were worried about Britt after his first season. Give the guy a chance.

 

[Seymour]

That begs for a third question. When was the last time they didn't make the playoffs 8)

Serious question. Would you rather have 1 playoff appearance in 3 years and a Lombardi trophy (and winning seasons but just missing playoffs), or 3 playoff seasons and no SB appearances?

I'll take door #1. #2 seems to be over rated IMO.

Dodging the question doesn't answer it.

I'm not dodging the question, it is obvious and doesn't require thought or opinion. 2011.

You however did not answer the far less obvious question I asked.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

I don't know about all the hysterics...
If we have 2 to 3 games decided by the liquored
Up kicker ...when we have Russell Wilson
One of the greatest quarterbacks in the league..
Then let's fire the inept and delusional coach already.

I like the greatest Seahawks teams of our time to play offense and defense. To watch when we can't complete a pass or a run is frustrating because we have world championship ability. I hope it doesn't take half a season to get the line settled. Then Peter out when we hit stiffer competition in the playoffs.

Tom Cable. Elephant in the room.

liquored up

 

[Seymour]

We had Webb and Sowell last year and exchanged Joeckel and Aboushi at just under $9M this year, so maybe a little. Pretty sure they are still at bottom of the league in spending (need to see who makes roster to know for sure), but this may very well take more than 1 season to fix also.

Hey, don't forget Robert Myers. More experience and more money, in both the free agents and current roster. It may not add up to "enough", but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't doing anything. Only next year will answer is it enough. For some here it seems that only another SB will be enough.

I haven't heard anyone say that, I sure haven't. My biggest problem thus far (prior to this season) was, what they were trying has largely been a failure.

Name another position group that every single season since their coordinator has been here has gone backwards or has regressed.

The numbers posted above do not show a regression every year. They show a pretty consistent production with one big year and one low year.

And to answer the other question, we haven't had 3 years of making the playoffs without an SB appearance. But I will take making the playoffs every year (Which we have since the coming of nano bubbles) with a real...real shot at the SB than your pessimistic door number #2.

Your numbers are not for a position group (oline only). Difficult to qualify I'll admit, but those are running yards only. That is less than 1/2 the picture. We spend huge $$ on Percy, then Graham to boost the offense, then cannot give the QB time to get them the ball.
Thank god for Wilson there. Last year rated #5 under pressure that helped Cable keep his job 1 more season.

5. Russell Wilson, Seattle Seahawks

The final spot was a toss-up between Russell Wilson and Tyrod Taylor, with the edge going to Wilson due to his fourth-best 73.1 adjusted completion percentage under pressure (Taylor at 58.0).

Wilson has been hobbled by an ankle injury for much of the season, but is playing efficiently despite that, with the eighth-best passer rating under pressure (78.4). Inconsistencies along the Seattle offensive line have put him under pressure on 37.8 percent of his 230 dropbacks (seventh-highest rate), but Wilson has thrown for the third-most yards in such situations, with his 523 yards under pressure making up 33 percent of his total passing yards so far this season. He boasts the sixth-lowest sack percentage (12.6), and has been a good decision-maker, despite his ankle injury at times limiting him from doing what he does best.

Wilson’s play under pressure is something he’s always excelled at, as the Seahawks’ QB is the most creative pocket-mover in the game.

 

[Jville]

That begs for a third question. When was the last time they didn't make the playoffs 8)

Serious question. Would you rather have 1 playoff appearance in 3 years and a Lombardi trophy (and winning seasons but just missing playoffs), or 3 playoff seasons and no SB appearances?

I'll take door #1. #2 seems to be over rated IMO.

Dodging the question doesn't answer it.

I'm not dodging the question, it is obvious and doesn't require thought or opinion. 2011.

You however did not answer the far less obvious question I asked.

Your scenario of 1 playoff appearance in 3 years and a Lombardi trophy doesn't match up with the experience of the Carroll era. So door #1 is off in some land of hypothetical.

The goal every year is to win a divisional championship over a 16 game season.

Getting into the sudden death tournament as a divisional champion or wild card participant is the next goal.

Advancing thru the playoffs and securing a Conference Championship thereby qualifying for Super Bowl is the next goal.

Winning a Super Bowl is the final goal. It means nothing the following year because, as we all know, that sequence reboots and starts all over again ........ from square one ........every year.

I understand that reoccurring sequence. I'm not plagued by some kind of 'fan entitlement syndrome'.

Yesterday is done and gone. What matters is this year, this month, this week and this day.

Guess there must be a door #3. :229031_shrug:

 

[Lords of Scythia]

weeping slap-fight in the shower

 

[Jville]

This is rich ......... will there ever be enough cap room for the offensive line?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/874784967888297984[/tweet]

....................................................LOL

 

[pittpnthrs]

This is rich ......... will there ever be enough cap room for the offensive line?

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/874784967888297984[/tweet]

....................................................LOL

And I think this is our biggest issue. There's a huge difference between playing hungry and playing for the cash.

 

[chris98251]

I'm not a suck up to the Front Office or Cable in Bevell just because the new season is starting, other then the Gimme with Okung, this team isn't even as good as a broken clock at O line evaluation to this date, at least a broken clock is right twice a day, we wasted three years finding where Britt can play, were looking at a Center and " Hoping" he can play Tackle, we drafted a Tackle last year and hoped he could play Guard and now say were letting him play tackle. Sure you have your players that are Smart enough and gifted enough to play multiple positions, but we try that with every player.

 

[hawkfan68]

Rushing stats:
Year Team Russell
2012 2579 489
2013 2188 539 SB Win
2014 2768 849 SB Loss (Hmm, maybe someone should have run that ball in :stirthepot: )
2015 2268 553
2016 1591 259

I think we all agree last year was a disaster when it comes to the Oline and our running game. The other years, despite Cable (or because of him :stirthepot: ) We were more than respectable. What caused last years decline. Inexperienced Oline, Running back by committee, injuries to Rawls and Porcise and Russell.

While no one can guarantee that wont happen again this year, the likely hood of getting bit by that many set backs is low. Seahawk's are going to kick butt next year. Unless of course, caveat, caveat, caveat emptor.

Definitely not just the O-line last year.

I know Pete and Cable got a LOT of credit for putting the patchwork lines together before last year. But the truth is a healthy Russell and Beastmode in his prime probably had more to do with the offense's success than anything Cable, Pete and the O-line did.

Last year just reinforced this fact.

Bingo Sgt. Couldn't agree more :2thumbs:

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'm just gonna say it. The offensive line is the place Pete and John have chosen to skimp in order to afford their QB and defense.

It should be pretty obvious by now, as should their reasons. You have to skimp somewhere. And there are few teams in as good a position to skimp on the offensive line than the Seahawks, thanks to a quarterback who is able to produce despite his offensive line (because of his mobility). It was even truer when the team had a Hall of Fame running back with similar ability to out-produce his line. And when Seattle lost some of that effectiveness at both the QB spot (due to a knee injury that wasn't even the line's fault) and the RB spot (due to Lynch's retirement and Rawls' inability to stay healthy), the result was still 10.5 wins and a playoff run, one that ended due to a couple bad plays and the compounded effect of losing Earl Thomas.

So you could say that nothing about Seattle's performance under Pete and John's "skimp on the line" philosophy has indicated that it's not working. Unless you see a perennial 10-win team and playoff contender as a failure, in which case you just have to ask yourself if you think the Patriots were a failure between 2004 and 2014.

You aren't going to keep 22 Pro Bowlers on the same team. It's impossible. You have to skimp somewhere. And it's pretty telling that when Richard Sherman started mouthing off last year, he got a bunch of Seattle fans eager to trade him to some other team. It wasn't about the mouthing. Not really. Those fans sensed an excuse for the team to offload a large but earned contract and allocate more to the offensive line. A lot of people admitted it flat-out on this very board. Of course, it was a flimsy excuse, because Sherman's still the best corner in the game and his absence would still dramatically hurt this team against #1 receivers. But what can you say. Some people don't think about anything but the offensive line.

 

[StoneCold]

I'm just gonna say it. The offensive line is the place Pete and John have chosen to skimp in order to afford their QB and defense.

It should be pretty obvious by now, as should their reasons. You have to skimp somewhere. And there are few teams in as good a position to skimp on the offensive line than the Seahawks, thanks to a quarterback who is able to produce despite his offensive line (because of his mobility). It was even truer when the team had a Hall of Fame running back with similar ability to out-produce his line. And when Seattle lost some of that effectiveness at both the QB spot (due to a knee injury that wasn't even the line's fault) and the RB spot (due to Lynch's retirement and Rawls' inability to stay healthy), the result was still 10.5 wins and a playoff run, one that ended due to a couple bad plays and the compounded effect of losing Earl Thomas.

So you could say that nothing about Seattle's performance under Pete and John's "skimp on the line" philosophy has indicated that it's not working. Unless you see a perennial 10-win team and playoff contender as a failure, in which case you just have to ask yourself if you think the Patriots were a failure between 2004 and 2014.

You aren't going to keep 22 Pro Bowlers on the same team. It's impossible. You have to skimp somewhere. And it's pretty telling that when Richard Sherman started mouthing off last year, he got a bunch of Seattle fans eager to trade him to some other team. It wasn't about the mouthing. Not really. Those fans sensed an excuse for the team to offload a large but earned contract and allocate more to the offensive line. A lot of people admitted it flat-out on this very board. Of course, it was a flimsy excuse, because Sherman's still the best corner in the game and his absence would still dramatically hurt this team against #1 receivers. But what can you say. Some people don't think about anything but the offensive line.

It is the weakest link. A few years back when Beast Mode was tearing it up and Russell was auditioning for Benny Hill it was the pedestrian receivers. I am 100% in agreement with your take. It's natural for fans to point out what isn't working, but sometimes they over react to both the causes and the solutions. The overall picture is we are a few plays from winning every game. That's fun football to watch.

 

[FidelisHawk]

I'm just gonna say it. The offensive line is the place Pete and John have chosen to skimp in order to afford their QB and defense.

It should be pretty obvious by now, as should their reasons. You have to skimp somewhere. And there are few teams in as good a position to skimp on the offensive line than the Seahawks, thanks to a quarterback who is able to produce despite his offensive line (because of his mobility). It was even truer when the team had a Hall of Fame running back with similar ability to out-produce his line. And when Seattle lost some of that effectiveness at both the QB spot (due to a knee injury that wasn't even the line's fault) and the RB spot (due to Lynch's retirement and Rawls' inability to stay healthy), the result was still 10.5 wins and a playoff run, one that ended due to a couple bad plays and the compounded effect of losing Earl Thomas.

So you could say that nothing about Seattle's performance under Pete and John's "skimp on the line" philosophy has indicated that it's not working. Unless you see a perennial 10-win team and playoff contender as a failure, in which case you just have to ask yourself if you think the Patriots were a failure between 2004 and 2014.

You aren't going to keep 22 Pro Bowlers on the same team. It's impossible. You have to skimp somewhere. And it's pretty telling that when Richard Sherman started mouthing off last year, he got a bunch of Seattle fans eager to trade him to some other team. It wasn't about the mouthing. Not really. Those fans sensed an excuse for the team to offload a large but earned contract and allocate more to the offensive line. A lot of people admitted it flat-out on this very board. Of course, it was a flimsy excuse, because Sherman's still the best corner in the game and his absence would still dramatically hurt this team against #1 receivers. But what can you say. Some people don't think about anything but the offensive line.

It is the weakest link. A few years back when Beast Mode was tearing it up and Russell was auditioning for Benny Hill it was the pedestrian receivers. I am 100% in agreement with your take. It's natural for fans to point out what isn't working, but sometimes they over react to both the causes and the solutions. The overall picture is we are a few plays from winning every game. That's fun football to watch.

I too agree (sort of) it seems to be Pete’s and the FO’s philosophy now, but it needs to be understood that (perhaps) by happenstance they did draft some phenomenal defensive players at or around the same time and by phenomenal I mean top ten (or higher) players at their positions.

These players were going to get paid one way or another either by the Seahawks or another team.

To the point of the OL, they have yet to draft a player that falls into this category, a top ten or better player at his position. Okung and Unger are quite possibly the best linemen the Seahawks have seen in the Carroll era and neither could be considered a top ten player at their position.

Then it begs the question do you pay an average player top ten money or let another team pay them? They are going to get paid, it’s just the nature of free agency in a hard-caped league.

Now, we can argue their scouting or player evaluation is sub-par and that’s why they have yet to find an elite player in this area, but given their draft position and the league wide need for offensive linemen it’s a lot like finding a an all pro CB or Safety in the 5 round. You just need to get lucky and so far they haven’t.

That’s not to say they won’t ever find one and if they do they won’t pay him or the “scrimp on the OL” is a hard fast line that they believe is the only way to build a winning team.

They have consistently paid players how they feel they fit our system on a league wide scale be they on the defensive or offensive a CB or RB, have let players go they feel are not worthy of elite pay, and traded or cut players they deemed to have made mistakes on their money for performance evaluations.

That said, I’ve seen nothing to convince me either Pete’s or the FO’s philosophy is one that would allow an exceptional lineman to walk away for the sake of another positional group, only that they are unwilling to overpay for average players, at any position, no matter how bad the position grades out.