I think we should consider him.
I do still believe that we need interior pass rush help. Bennett's absence is giving us a window into what this defense will look like when his level of play drops off.
My opinion on the need at OL is evolving. I'm finding that I'm becoming less able to reconcile several aspects of our team/roster structure.
Seattle has implemented a ZBS. And a central part of the value of that scheme, is that it's supposed to provide market efficiency by allowing a team to get more mundane talents to function at a higher level. By raising the importance of attributes that other teams don't typically value (agility and movement). The advantages being we shouldn't need to draft OL as highly -- allowing for us to use draft capital at the top of the draft for other needs.
However the last several drafts (and we're proposing more future first pick capital as well) has essentially rendered this advantage impotent. We're not getting market efficiency here. We're plowing top pick capital year after year.
The disadvantage of the ZBS, is that it's admittedly (by those coaches that are it's proponents) a difficult system to master. Taking roughly 2 full training camps to master. So getting new players isn't an immediate panacea. You end up getting very little relative value on the rookie year. But more than that -- is that it takes roughly two seasons before you can determine if a guy is going to be worth keeping. The evaluation period based on needs is extended.
The problem we're having is that we aren't resigning guys on the OL at all. So really any draft pick we acquire has been a two year rental of sorts. With a difficult and painful first year incurred due to inability to function/block the scheme properly.
For the ZBS to work for a team, it needs to allow clubs to load up on R3-UDFA level talents and allow them to develop over time and percolate up to the starting roster as they master the scheme. It also puts a premium on retaining the ones that work out by signing second deals. Neither of which Seattle is doing.
A man blocking scheme is simpler to learn. And generally requires higher level talent to achieve needed results. Right now, we're drafting and playing OL draftees like a team running a man/power blocking scheme. We're not getting those results (which by design we shouldn't expect). So we're continually drafting day 1/2 talents -- and not getting day 1/2 value.
It very much feels like Seattle should reevaluate what they want from their OL. Because we're not getting the benefits that a ZBS should be providing. And our roster building strategy isn't compatible with retaining OL talent long term. If we're talking about taking yet another top 64 pick on the OL, and fully expect that we'll be in the same exact place repeatedly as our old top picks' rookie deals expire ad infinitum. Then perhaps it's wise to s#&% can the scheme entirely and implement a scheme easier to pick up.
