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

[scutterhawk]

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.

Not true....I'd rather have a team that is on the cusp of winning it all because they have the gonads, and every Year, they are CONTENDERS.
The Seahawks got there TWO YEARS IN A ROW....Gonads?...CHECK!....Contenders?...CHECK!

 

[Seymour]

As has been asked over and over again, and to piggyback​ off of a previous post, who do you want to get rid of to do this? It sounds simple, just build a better line without spending a ton of money. But reality is, it's not that simple. What happens when robbing from Peter to pay Paul, creates an even greater weakness in a position group that doesn't have a top 5 player to make up for the inadequacies of the rest(Wilson)? We saw what happens when we lose DB's. We saw what happens when we don't have d line depth. If they cut or trade a couple of star players, cause that's what it would take, and those groups go way down hill, you same people would be on here pounding the table, mad about it. This is a lose/lose situation with most of you. I don't get it.

What's the solution to the problem? I see tons of people here pointing out the problems, just very few rational solutions to it. Please, GM's, let us know the answer. Then we can all write Paul and let him know pcjs has to go, and these fans with greater ideas need to be hired in their place.

For starters this applies more to last season since this year we don't know if the moves made will be effective.

1) I don't sign Kearse and sign G Incognito for around $1M more than Kearse.

2) Trade Jimmy Graham for a solid young (top 20-30 not top 10) tackle.

3) This season I sign Lang first for a bit more than the offer made, and forget about Joeckel.

Those moves alone make a huge difference IMO and cost very little and no effect on the defense.

 

[scutterhawk]

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.

Money is a huge incentive, it can reinvigorate that hunger :rumble:

 

[Jimjones0384]

As has been asked over and over again, and to piggyback​ off of a previous post, who do you want to get rid of to do this? It sounds simple, just build a better line without spending a ton of money. But reality is, it's not that simple. What happens when robbing from Peter to pay Paul, creates an even greater weakness in a position group that doesn't have a top 5 player to make up for the inadequacies of the rest(Wilson)? We saw what happens when we lose DB's. We saw what happens when we don't have d line depth. If they cut or trade a couple of star players, cause that's what it would take, and those groups go way down hill, you same people would be on here pounding the table, mad about it. This is a lose/lose situation with most of you. I don't get it.

What's the solution to the problem? I see tons of people here pointing out the problems, just very few rational solutions to it. Please, GM's, let us know the answer. Then we can all write Paul and let him know pcjs has to go, and these fans with greater ideas need to be hired in their place.

For starters this applies more to last season since this year we don't know if the moves made will be effective.

1) I don't sign Kearse and sign G Incognito for around $1M more than Kearse.

2) Trade Jimmy Graham for a solid young (top 20-30 not top 10) tackle.

3) This season I sign Lang first for a bit more than the offer made, and forget about Joeckel.

Those moves alone make a huge difference IMO and cost very little and no effect on the defense.

You probably wouldn't get a top 20 linemen for Graham considering most teams have a shortage of linemen. You could get a top 30, but with improvements, our linemen have potential to be that.

On Lang, he probably have the opportunity to sign for more, his wife made the decision for him. The money wasn't far apart.

Incognito is a good idea, but he signed with buffalo for three years. He said he got better offers elsewhere, but signed with Buffalo for less out of loyalty for giving him a second chance. So, you wouldn't have signed him. And in my mind, you are back at square one.

Edit:. Here is an article about Ritchie and his decision to sign with Bills, for less.


http://www.democratandchronicle.com/sto ... /81486730/

 

[Seymour]

Yes, you could blow holes in all ideas with conjecture. Exactly why I rarely fall for these trap questions.

Anyway, is what it is, and they are working to improve the sh!t show last year exposed. Time will tell if it's enough.

 

[West TX Hawk]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

 

[hawkfan68]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

Good points. This leads me into believing that they are looking to Cable to develop these guys and yet in his 7 years with the team, he hasn't really shown he can develop anyone except Sweezy and Britt. That's Sweezy a former DL who was deemed not resignable and Britt who was moved around 3 positions. This instability of the OL strategy has Cable's fingerprints all over them. I believe PC/JS rely quite a bit on Cable to help them with moves, development, on the OL. PC is a defense guy. His strength is on defensive side of the ball. The defense has been consistently good for the past 7 years. The OL continues to be the weakest aspect of the team. If you are looking to develop young players, then get a coach who is great at developing players. Cable's record in player development has been subpar to this point.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

This is an incredibly salient point. The advantage of the ZBS, is that it can maximize roster inefficiency by making mundane OL talent perform above their ability. Allowing for better retention of lesser talent -- the assumption being they won't be coveted on the open market. Or at the very least allow for teams to routinely stock up on drafted talent late in the draft and develop them. The cost of this scheme being the significant tutoring time required to become efficient with it.

It's important to remember this scheme flourished in the pre-CBA NFL landscape. Indeed even before that -- before as Hutchinson mused, "They're giving me LT money". The entire landscape of OL talent has fundamentally changed since the ZBS was constructed. The precipitous drop in OL talents entering the NFL has altered the efficiency equation.

Right now, I'd argue that the ZBS is currently virtually impossible to employ as it was when it was concocted. And almost all of the natural advantages of the scheme are no longer applicable.

1. Salaries.

Player salaries explode after 4 years. This obliterates the advantage of retaining a unit at less than market price. Seattle has succumbed to the reality that we can't pay our OL. Exactly the opposite of how the scheme is supposed to benefit us.

2. Cohesion and Draft value.

Draftees only provide 1 to 2 years of credible/competent production. We still spend upwards of 24 months to develop players. But because we can't retain them, our 'value' in terms of quality starts relative to draft stock is severely crippled. Instead of allowing teams to retain continuity and supplement the group with late round picks -- we lose continuity and have to burn higher picks to try and reduce the development curve. We aren't paying in second contracts. We're paying in draft capital. And it's no surprise Seattle has spent the highest draft capital in the entire league in the OL group since 2010.

3. Incoming OL talent

The amount of talent on the OL has almost vanished. In particular the depth of talent. But in addition, the intense explosion of schemes at the collegiate (and now high school) level that minimize the risk of poor OL play in order to have winning programs has virtually altered this forever. It's going to get much much worse before it improves. In fact, I expect it will not only fail to improve, but will force the NFL to adjust to the reality and have to mimic some of the same lack of risk elements at the pro level.

I have to wonder aloud how long it'll take before top HS OL talents end up just skipping college altogether and paying for a 3rd party academy to develop skills that the NFL actually desires. It's not hard to assume that a 19 yr. old who spent a full year at something akin to Bentley's O-Line performance academy could be better prepared (skill wise) to play in the NFL than a redshirt junior at the University of Washington. That 19 year old would be working full time, without workout limitations of the NCAA. And would be learning NFL correct skills from day one. Instead of entrenching incorrect, even ruinous habits by pro standards for years in college. And doing so without the risk of game injuries. Of course they'd have to pay out of pocket for such tutelage. I'm speaking only as to the efficacy of the regimen to get a prospect ready for the NFL.

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

This one is easy. Every team in the NFL does this. With limited roster spots, you need to have guys able to play multiple positions. And with what we can see as a limited number of quality players in the league as a whole, teams may only be 4-6 competent players deep on a roster. So you can't afford to specialize because your backup RG may really be your 8th or 9th best OL player. Your backup RT may be better at RT than your RG backup is at RG.

In addition, with a ZBS, it's vital to understand what the assignments of the guys are next to you. Being versatile in this way makes you better at your primary position.

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

While I disagree on the 'throw versatility out with the bath water' approach. I think the case can be made that the ZBS really cannot be implemented how it was originally in the 90s and early 00s. If I'm building a roster and want to establish a ZBS (which btw still works well), then I'm going do so with the full on requirement that I'm doing it with guys who I'm going to keep and I'm going to pay. I'm skimping on other positions (defense, RB and WR) where getting day one ready talents in R2-4 is relatively easy.

ZBS only works if you retain players. The high level of familiarity and training necessary to get it to function properly is a key element to that. I am most interested to see how Pocic's first two seasons go. Because he is a player who really presages that construct. He's a player steeped in the ZBS, with excellent skill levels. Instead of getting raw guys to train, we're getting a guy who is close to ready out of the box. Meaning we should get a full extra year of service out of him. Maybe even two high quality years.

It could mean Seattle starts targetting OL prospects from very select schools. And basically ignoring spread offense OL talents almost entirely.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

This is an incredibly salient point. The advantage of the ZBS, is that it can maximize roster inefficiency by making mundane OL talent perform above their ability. Allowing for better retention of lesser talent -- the assumption being they won't be coveted on the open market. Or at the very least allow for teams to routinely stock up on drafted talent late in the draft and develop them. The cost of this scheme being the significant tutoring time required to become efficient with it.

It's important to remember this scheme flourished in the pre-CBA NFL landscape. Indeed even before that -- before as Hutchinson mused, "They're giving me LT money". The entire landscape of OL talent has fundamentally changed since the ZBS was constructed. The precipitous drop in OL talents entering the NFL has altered the efficiency equation.

Right now, I'd argue that the ZBS is currently virtually impossible to employ as it was when it was concocted. And almost all of the natural advantages of the scheme are no longer applicable.

1. Salaries.

Player salaries explode after 4 years. This obliterates the advantage of retaining a unit at less than market price. Seattle has succumbed to the reality that we can't pay our OL. Exactly the opposite of how the scheme is supposed to benefit us.

2. Cohesion and Draft value.

Draftees only provide 1 to 2 years of credible/competent production. We still spend upwards of 24 months to develop players. But because we can't retain them, our 'value' in terms of quality starts relative to draft stock is severely crippled. Instead of allowing teams to retain continuity and supplement the group with late round picks -- we lose continuity and have to burn higher picks to try and reduce the development curve. We aren't paying in second contracts. We're paying in draft capital. And it's no surprise Seattle has spent the highest draft capital in the entire league in the OL group since 2010.

3. Incoming OL talent

The amount of talent on the OL has almost vanished. In particular the depth of talent. But in addition, the intense explosion of schemes at the collegiate (and now high school) level that minimize the risk of poor OL play in order to have winning programs has virtually altered this forever. It's going to get much much worse before it improves. In fact, I expect it will not only fail to improve, but will force the NFL to adjust to the reality and have to mimic some of the same lack of risk elements at the pro level.

I have to wonder aloud how long it'll take before top HS OL talents end up just skipping college altogether and paying for a 3rd party academy to develop skills that the NFL actually desires. It's not hard to assume that a 19 yr. old who spent a full year at something akin to Bentley's O-Line performance academy could be better prepared (skill wise) to play in the NFL than a redshirt junior at the University of Washington. That 19 year old would be working full time, without workout limitations of the NCAA. And would be learning NFL correct skills from day one. Instead of entrenching incorrect, even ruinous habits by pro standards for years in college. And doing so without the risk of game injuries. Of course they'd have to pay out of pocket for such tutelage. I'm speaking only as to the efficacy of the regimen to get a prospect ready for the NFL.

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

This one is easy. Every team in the NFL does this. With limited roster spots, you need to have guys able to play multiple positions. And with what we can see as a limited number of quality players in the league as a whole, teams may only be 4-6 competent players deep on a roster. So you can't afford to specialize because your backup RG may really be your 8th or 9th best OL player. Your backup RT may be better at RT than your RG backup is at RG.

In addition, with a ZBS, it's vital to understand what the assignments of the guys are next to you. Being versatile in this way makes you better at your primary position.

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

While I disagree on the 'throw versatility out with the bath water' approach. I think the case can be made that the ZBS really cannot be implemented how it was originally in the 90s and early 00s. If I'm building a roster and want to establish a ZBS (which btw still works well), then I'm going do so with the full on requirement that I'm doing it with guys who I'm going to keep and I'm going to pay. I'm skimping on other positions (defense, RB and WR) where getting day one ready talents in R2-4 is relatively easy.

ZBS only works if you retain players. The high level of familiarity and training necessary to get it to function properly is a key element to that. I am most interested to see how Pocic's first two seasons go. Because he is a player who really presages that construct. He's a player steeped in the ZBS, with excellent skill levels. Instead of getting raw guys to train, we're getting a guy who is close to ready out of the box. Meaning we should get a full extra year of service out of him. Maybe even two high quality years.

It could mean Seattle starts targetting OL prospects from very select schools. And basically ignoring spread offense OL talents almost entirely.

Well said Attyla. The academy of fine oline men. It could also be put on as a Trade School. Wonder if the output from this trade school/academy would be able to play as those coming out of college had to pass at least to the Junior level in College. Or would they be given a pass or be waivered to play after completing all requirements? Would that be in the next CBA? Interesting idea I would say.

 

[West TX Hawk]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

This is an incredibly salient point. The advantage of the ZBS, is that it can maximize roster inefficiency by making mundane OL talent perform above their ability. Allowing for better retention of lesser talent -- the assumption being they won't be coveted on the open market. Or at the very least allow for teams to routinely stock up on drafted talent late in the draft and develop them. The cost of this scheme being the significant tutoring time required to become efficient with it.

It's important to remember this scheme flourished in the pre-CBA NFL landscape. Indeed even before that -- before as Hutchinson mused, "They're giving me LT money". The entire landscape of OL talent has fundamentally changed since the ZBS was constructed. The precipitous drop in OL talents entering the NFL has altered the efficiency equation.

Right now, I'd argue that the ZBS is currently virtually impossible to employ as it was when it was concocted. And almost all of the natural advantages of the scheme are no longer applicable.

1. Salaries.

Player salaries explode after 4 years. This obliterates the advantage of retaining a unit at less than market price. Seattle has succumbed to the reality that we can't pay our OL. Exactly the opposite of how the scheme is supposed to benefit us.

2. Cohesion and Draft value.

Draftees only provide 1 to 2 years of credible/competent production. We still spend upwards of 24 months to develop players. But because we can't retain them, our 'value' in terms of quality starts relative to draft stock is severely crippled. Instead of allowing teams to retain continuity and supplement the group with late round picks -- we lose continuity and have to burn higher picks to try and reduce the development curve. We aren't paying in second contracts. We're paying in draft capital. And it's no surprise Seattle has spent the highest draft capital in the entire league in the OL group since 2010.

3. Incoming OL talent

The amount of talent on the OL has almost vanished. In particular the depth of talent. But in addition, the intense explosion of schemes at the collegiate (and now high school) level that minimize the risk of poor OL play in order to have winning programs has virtually altered this forever. It's going to get much much worse before it improves. In fact, I expect it will not only fail to improve, but will force the NFL to adjust to the reality and have to mimic some of the same lack of risk elements at the pro level.

I have to wonder aloud how long it'll take before top HS OL talents end up just skipping college altogether and paying for a 3rd party academy to develop skills that the NFL actually desires. It's not hard to assume that a 19 yr. old who spent a full year at something akin to Bentley's O-Line performance academy could be better prepared (skill wise) to play in the NFL than a redshirt junior at the University of Washington. That 19 year old would be working full time, without workout limitations of the NCAA. And would be learning NFL correct skills from day one. Instead of entrenching incorrect, even ruinous habits by pro standards for years in college. And doing so without the risk of game injuries. Of course they'd have to pay out of pocket for such tutelage. I'm speaking only as to the efficacy of the regimen to get a prospect ready for the NFL.

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

This one is easy. Every team in the NFL does this. With limited roster spots, you need to have guys able to play multiple positions. And with what we can see as a limited number of quality players in the league as a whole, teams may only be 4-6 competent players deep on a roster. So you can't afford to specialize because your backup RG may really be your 8th or 9th best OL player. Your backup RT may be better at RT than your RG backup is at RG.

In addition, with a ZBS, it's vital to understand what the assignments of the guys are next to you. Being versatile in this way makes you better at your primary position.

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

While I disagree on the 'throw versatility out with the bath water' approach. I think the case can be made that the ZBS really cannot be implemented how it was originally in the 90s and early 00s. If I'm building a roster and want to establish a ZBS (which btw still works well), then I'm going do so with the full on requirement that I'm doing it with guys who I'm going to keep and I'm going to pay. I'm skimping on other positions (defense, RB and WR) where getting day one ready talents in R2-4 is relatively easy.

ZBS only works if you retain players. The high level of familiarity and training necessary to get it to function properly is a key element to that. I am most interested to see how Pocic's first two seasons go. Because he is a player who really presages that construct. He's a player steeped in the ZBS, with excellent skill levels. Instead of getting raw guys to train, we're getting a guy who is close to ready out of the box. Meaning we should get a full extra year of service out of him. Maybe even two high quality years.

It could mean Seattle starts targetting OL prospects from very select schools. And basically ignoring spread offense OL talents almost entirely.

Outstanding analysis and great points Attyla. Thank you for the detailed response.

I wholeheartedly agree that if we continue to utilize the ZBS, we need to look at more long-term retention of many of our OL prospects. It almost seems they're a little unsure exactly what they want-they wish for obvious cap reasons not to offer 2nd contracts, but they continue to use a system that requires a high learning curve, continuity and most importantly, time, for optimum results.

And that's a very intriguing idea about the academy process as an alternative for NFL player development. The NFL loves the college game for its essentially free minor league system, so perhaps a compromise could be reached in the CBA allowing draft eligible players after 2 years in an approved academy system?

 

[FidelisHawk]

Yes, you could blow holes in all ideas with conjecture. Exactly why I rarely fall for these trap questions.

Anyway, is what it is, and they are working to improve the sh!t show last year exposed. Time will tell if it's enough.

I’m going to poke some hole in your premise because, well, that’s what we do around here :lol: .

First off, in order to “fix the shit show that was last year”, I have to assume these decisions would be done before last season, so the Lang signing couldn’t happen. That leaves the Graham trade, the non signing of Kearse and the signing of Incognito for the 2015 offseason.

For discussion's sake I’ll assume every thing happened as you suggested. This means (without the the clarity of hindsight) you let the your second best receiver walk (for nothing?) after he had a career year in all his offensive stats. Okay.

Then you trade your best Tight End who was your fourth best receiver (despite playing for only ⅔ of the the season, before blowing out his knee ((I’m not even sure you CAN trade an injured player, but for this we’ll say you can)) one season after a highly visible trade. Then you not only trade your expansive TE, you trade him for an offensive lineman and not an all-pro lineman but a second tier line man. Okay.

These decisions alone would probably have gotten you tarred and feathered on these boards, but fans don’t make these calls, and you’d still have your supporters, because with the money saved you’ve sign Incognito.

Now the “shit show” of of 2016. Last year you traded away almost 1300 yds and 7 TDs of offense. For this year we’re assuming the other receivers/TEs make up both Kearse’s and Graham’s offensive output and (we’ll cheat just a bit) we’ll say because of Richie and second tier Tackle, Russ was sacked not the least since his rookie year, but even less than that 30 times.

Everything else remains the same Wilson has a career year in yds and completion percentage, granted he could of had even better stats, but we can only cheat so much. Your stable of receivers/TEs makeup the difference (over 1400 yds and 7 TDs).

In 2015, you traded or let go your two of your three best receivers, we now know in 2016 Kearse regresses, but still has 500 yds and a TD for his new team, you get bonus points for that. Unfortunately for you, Graham has a 923 yd 7 td season and a pro bowl selection for his new team (the heat is rising now) and the offense has scored the least amount of points since Pete and company’s arrival. But hey, Incognito is a pro bowler and Wilson had a career low in sacks!

So, this offseason instead of finding more weapons for Russ you use the rest of your cap money to sign Lang, the OL is fixed with plenty of young back-up linemen to fill in. Whoo Hoo!

The only problem now is we’re debating about why we’re putting so much money into the OL when it’s obvious to everyone the Seahawks need a more diverse offense with better receivers (Doug can’t do it all on his own), while Wilson’s still in his prime and this defense is still elite.

Lucky for you your job is still safe, because clearly it’s the OC’s fault. Fire Bevell!!

 

[jammerhawk]

LOL, Que: Siouxhawk

 

[cymatica]

ZBS only works if you retain players. The high level of familiarity and training necessary to get it to function properly is a key element to that

Now why is it even us with just an average football IQ get this, yet it slips by the higher ups.

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

Guns or butter guys and gals. Take your pick but you only get one of the choices.
Prior Seahawk FO's built solid O lines. It never got us a Lombardi.
Our D was a massive factor in winning our 1st SB.
Pete and John have decided that the D gets most of the resources. I think they have a great plan. So be it suckas.

 

[Jville]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

I don't know that I can concur with the notion that the ZBS is more complex than other schemes or that it takes years to master. The rules for what to do when covered by a defender as well as the rules for what to do when uncovered by a defender remain consistent from snap to snap. There is a continuity***** of those rules that remain the same for every position. So if a linemen moves from tackle to guard or from guard to center, there is a continuity***** in the blocking rules ..... i.e. they remain the same.

In zone blocking, linemen are responsible for an area or zone. In man on man schemes, blocking assignments can be manipulated by defenders moving around and altering assignments while making assignments more complex and allowing the defense to dictate. A zone scheme remains simpler and can be picked up more quickly. It is friendlier to both young rookies and 1 year prove it veterans. Because it is simpler, players can play faster. Because there is typically more running required in zone blocking ......... youth, health and endurance are treasured.

The value of versatility shows up when a linemen, following the same blocking rules, can demonstrate the ability to line up at multiple positions and/or mirror left and right positions Versatility leverages the ability to get the best and healthiest five linemen on the field of play.

What the Seahawks like to put on the field is a hybrid zone. When it is working right, some refer to it as a power zone blocking scheme. Last year in 2016, their wounded running back room and burnt out position coach struggled badly. They have healed or reloaded for 2017. When the power running game works, defenses respect the running game. Defenses cheat at their own risk and are more reluctant to do so. And when the running game is respected, the play action passing game explodes. And when that happens, fans go wild!
..........................................................................................................................................................

**** Note the use of the word continuity. I mention this because there is often confusion over the differences in the use of that word by Tom Cable and the presumed use by the public. It is, as yet, a distinction that hasn't been sufficiently spot lighted. When Cable makes use of the word continuity, it is often in the context of ....... referring to functional continuity ...... as in a continuity in execution of the blocking rules .......... regardless of where players line up.

............................................................................................................................................................

I hope these clarifications help.

GO HAWKS!

 

[West TX Hawk]

If the philosophy is to quickly develop young OL and let them go after their rookie contract, why do they continue to use the complex ZBS which takes years for OL to master?

If continuity is truly vital to a line's development, why do we rotate players in and out and up and down the line with such frequency? If continuity is again so important, why sign questionable FAs to 1 year prove-it deals? (And expensive deals at that)

In short, this team needs to stop being so enamored with OL "versatility"-draft a tackle to play tackle, guard to play guard=quicker development. And drop the ZBS and simplify the system=quicker learning path to OL competency.

I don't know that I can concur with the notion that the ZBS is more complex than other schemes or that it takes years to master. The rules for what to do when covered by a defender as well as the rules for what to do when uncovered by a defender remain consistent from snap to snap. There is a continuity***** of those rules that remain the same for every position. So if a linemen moves from tackle to guard or from guard to center, there is a continuity***** in the blocking rules ..... i.e. they remain the same.

In zone blocking, linemen are responsible for an area or zone. In man on man schemes, blocking assignments can be manipulated by defenders moving around and altering assignments while making assignments more complex and allowing the defense to dictate. A zone scheme remains simpler and can be picked up more quickly. It is friendlier to both young rookies and 1 year prove it veterans. Because it is simpler, players can play faster. Because there is typically more running required in zone blocking ......... youth, health and endurance are treasured.

The value of versatility shows up when a linemen, following the same blocking rules, can demonstrate the ability to line up at multiple positions and/or mirror left and right positions Versatility leverages the ability to get the best and healthiest five linemen on the field of play.

What the Seahawks like to put on the field is a hybrid zone. When it is working right, some refer to it as a power zone blocking scheme. Last year in 2016, their wounded running back room and burnt out position coach struggled badly. They have healed or reloaded for 2017. When the power running game works, defenses respect the running game. Defenses cheat at their own risk and are more reluctant to do so. And when the running game is respected, the play action passing game explodes. And when that happens, fans go wild!
..........................................................................................................................................................

**** Note the use of the word continuity. I mention this because there is often confusion over the differences in the use of that word by Tom Cable and the presumed use by the public. It is, as yet, a distinction that hasn't been sufficiently spot lighted. When Cable makes use of the word continuity, it is often in the context of ....... referring to functional continuity ...... as in a continuity in execution of the blocking rules .......... regardless of where players line up.

............................................................................................................................................................

I hope these clarifications help.

GO HAWKS!

Thank you for the great analysis Jville. I appreciate your response. Definitely makes things more clear with the Hawks' OL strategy and clarifies several commonly misunderstood areas. Hopefully this year the OL can take major strides with another year under their belt and we'll see real improvement.

 

[StoneCold]

Yes, you could blow holes in all ideas with conjecture. Exactly why I rarely fall for these trap questions.

Anyway, is what it is, and they are working to improve the sh!t show last year exposed. Time will tell if it's enough.

Much of what's said on this board is conjecture.

 

[scutterhawk]

? So it's his fault he runs for his life????? ok

LOL, Yeah, self preservation is a funny thing...One of the TOP 5 Quarterbacks in the League, who sustained THREE injuries and he still throws for over 4,000 yards behind the Offen-SEIVE Line..NO real Run Game... NOT being a statue or tackling dummy has worked out pretty well for him.
As the O-Line get's it's shit together and the Run Game REEMERGES, Wilson can maybe start TRUSTING that the O-Line will gain the experience that affords him a LITTLE better protection, and maybe even some time for a few plays to develop.

 

[SeaWolv]

Cable ebullience = kiss of death

Exactly. I want to be excited but the past has mandated that I reserve any exuberance.

 

[RussB]

I dont even care what they say about the O line anymore. I want to see the what they look like week 1. We will know then what they are all about.