The Titanic, the Seahawks and Hubris. (warning': long)

My turn! My turn!

Thanksgiving is almost here, and unlike the last 3 years we are mulling if the season is lost, what went wrong. Blame is assigned. Accusations fly. None of it helps. We are addicted to winning. Like everyone else Ive sought to figure out where the wrong turn(s) were. The root of this post is my dinner with Sammy0521, who I had dinner with a couple nights ago.

Everyone knows the basics of the Titanic story, the worlds largest ever metaphor for hubris. It wasnt just hubris that sent it to the bottom though, it was also White Star Line forgetting what exactly had made it one of the two best passenger lines in the world. On its maiden voyage, White Star Lines got away from from some of its key points. It was never the FASTEST, those ships belonged to Cunard. White Star Lines had the most luxurious ships and the best trained crew.

The Titanic was the most luxurious..but on its maiden voyage it also tried to meet its time schedule.. to go faster than anyone expected. And it put crew together at the last minute, cancelling another ships voyage (due to a coal miners strike) combining crew that hadnt worked together before. Both played a huge part in the deaths of 2200 people days later.

For me, the Seahawks this year have done the same thing. And there, for me, is most of the blame for the season.

For me, the key to the Seahawks 2012 to 2014 was Moneyball, in many aspects.

Its a passing league and defenses spend that way: defenses blow their budgets bringing in 3 quality CBs if they can and pass rushers. Against that the Seahawks ran the ball. Your 25 million dollar CB that is usually used to shut down Antonio Brown or Julio Jones..against the Seahawks.. baby sits Kearse or Baldwin.. who dont warrant that good of a CB, but you still have to cover him. Meanwhile your 12 million dollar pass rushing monster only got 20 to 25 chances to rush instead of 30 to 40, and instead exhausted himself against a rushing block all day.. when he did get to rush, he faced a young, dynamic QB who was just as fast.

Because our offense was structured against the grain, it could be built on the cheap, and was. We went to the Super Bowl in 2014 with an all UDFA receiver corps, street free agents at FB and 2 of the 3 TE positions, (the other a 5th rounder), a former D lineman at guard, and a 3rd round qb that is a franchise QB, but only if used a certain way..which again worked mostly because no one else did it that way.

On defense the key was arrogant players that did one thing well for the most part, with an elite safety set to pick up the slack. The attitude and lack of self doubt meant players were free to excel in their window.

Then this past offseason happened... and I think some bad decisions were made. Some were purely bad and hurt our "money ball" concept, and some were bad decisions you had to live with.

Lynch asked for and got more money. I love Lynch as a player. But I dont love Lynch 12 million dollars worth. And this isnt 20-20 hindsight, I said it at the time. Lynch is better than, say, Blount.. but for the build of this team, I think its better to have Blount and 10 million in cap than Lynch. The team needs a PHYSICAL presence, of course. And Lynch is the best at that. But we dont need "the best", we need a RB that sets tone. Lynch's cap money and the dead money from Harvin would have brought in O line.

The Seahawks tried to Moneyball the O line..get more value than other teams see by doing things in an unorthodox way. This has worked so often for them they felt comfortable with this. But this wasnt one player on a line of 5..this year they did it at 3 of the 5 positions and even PC this week admitted it hasnt worked as he thought it would.

Cary Williams. We ask our CBs to do one thing really well, be good at another, and help at the rest. Cover the deep patterns to perfection, be good against the run.. tackle well on the rest. Cary Williams is BUILT like what we needed and the Seahawks assumed he could learn the right way. This week again PC admitted he hasnt. Watch the games. Williams is an ok CB.. ok at everything..but we needed him to be really good at one. In games he still doesnt use the "step-kick" technique.. he is the same guy he was in Philly. This gamble also failed.

Bobby Wagner. I love Bobby. But in my opinion, this was too much too pay for his role in the defense.

And then Russell Wilson. And this is the contradiction in the Seahawks philosophy that I am still trying to figure out the work around for. I agree you need a Franchise QB to win Super Bowls. But I love that the Seahawks were building an offense to take advantage of what Defenses dont spend money on. So, if you are going to pay Wilson 22 million.. 1/3rd of the budget on offense.. you either have to get bang for your buck and throw more.. or admit you are sort of eating money on offense. And you still have to be willing to use him in the way that earned him the 22 million. Wilson isnt taking games over as much and part is he is waiting longer and longer every year to be willing to pull the ball from Lynch on the read options and run. Defenses actually havent caught up. Watch the tape. The DE will crash the line and Wilson will NOT keep the ball in the first half. Quite the opposite, one reason Lynch isnt getting the yards this year is that defenses have caught on that Wilson WONT keep the ball anymore. Anyway.. the over problem here is we need to pay 22 million for a QB on a team that doesnt want to be a passing team. And cant be. We havent built ourselves like that.

Jimmy Graham. When we got Graham I was excited.. unlike Harvin, you dont need to build the team around him or call special plays for him. I heard him say "Im 6ft 7, I can block if I want to block" and I nearly wet myself. I went to 4 days of training camp and watched him dominate. Then the games started. Graham apparently doesnt want to block, if what he said is true. Moreover, he tips off defenses. And, back to what Seattle does..this is bad Money Ball. For what we need him to do, we would be just as well served using Luke Willson and having brought Moeaki. Graham is MUCH better. But if we want to throw the ball just 25 times a game..and target the TE position 8 times.. then is it really smart to spend 9 times as much on that position?

Overall, we are spending money in the wrong places and it has taken away the identity of the offense. I dont know what to do about the QB position..but JS and PC need to see that they have done best when they are NOT spending money on receivers, because as I wrote earlier.. whether its Kearse or a great WR out there, the odds are the defense is covering with expensive CBs. And 5 "B-" receivers will actually win the day against a team that has an "A" CB, a B+ CB, and 3 C+ to D+ CBs. Thats how Seattle has had the success theyve had..cancel the talent of the other team, and invest where it isnt matched. Theyve gotten away from that.



And finally , there is this. Every year we say "well, based on where we draft, its better to get ________ instead of who wed get at that position." But that means we are now short two cheap number one draft picks for a guy who isnt on the team now and one who probably wont be here next year Id guess. 4 or 5 years of cheap salary can make up for getting a guy of lesser talent because it means you can bring some one else in. If Unger had been traded for picks, and we didnt get Williams..we could have kept Maxwell, a position where in our philosophy it makes sense to spend money.

I think JS and PC are great, but I think theyve lost focus a little on what they were doing and how they were doing it. I hope they can get back to effective MoneyBall this next offseason. Get O linemen that specialize in the run but are only so so in pass protection so they are cheap.. get depth at CB, let young hungry players play.

Great post.

One thing people who think we should not pay such and such player continually forget that if we don't pay them and we go somewhere else then who. It is easy to say so and so cost this much and he is good enough but it is not that simple. Only players on the open market are available. Of these how many will fit our team and cost guidelines. Of those how many will play here. If we did not pay Russell then who would we get. This game cost money. It is worth it to pay for a proven player on your squad. Plus there are also intangibles in the locker room and leadership.

It is also easy to sit back after bad decisions and say it was wrong and we should have done something different.

Year of The Hawk":1q5zc8kj said:

One thing people who think we should not pay such and such player continually forget that if we don't pay them and we go somewhere else then who. It is easy to say so and so cost this much and he is good enough but it is not that simple. Only players on the open market are available. Of these how many will fit our team and cost guidelines. Of those how many will play here. If we did not pay Russell then who would we get. This game cost money. It is worth it to pay for a proven player on your squad. Plus there are also intangibles in the locker room and leadership.

It is also easy to sit back after bad decisions and say it was wrong and we should have done something different.

Click to expand...

Totally understand your point.

But, for example, the option in not paying Williams was to keep a known factor.. Maxwell.

The option in not paying Lynch 12 million and letting him hold the team hostage was having 12 million more and RB is pretty predictable.

Wagner.. yes.. thats a risk. But MLB is again a position where the results dont vary so much, compared to WR, CB and especially QB.

And finally, if you go back to summer..nearly all of these I actually had called, except Graham, which as I admitted, I was entranced with too. Writing from training camp in daily reports I wrote that Cary Williams wasnt working out and strongly hoped Simon would steal the job (sigh). Wagner I expressed doubts about that money in this scheme early on.

And as far as Wilson goes, my initial post talks about this problem. You need to spend the money we spent to keep Wilson. But then you are trying to be a run first team while spending 1/3 of the money on a QB you hope only throws the ball 24 times. OR to make it worse, youre spending HALF the offenses budget (which is about 40% of the cap) on the QB and TE.. a combo you think is going to come into play on maybe 12.5% of your plays (8 passes out of say 64 offensive plays). In the era of the salary cap if you want to be a run first team you need to spend the money on things that help the run. Wilson is still worth the 22 milion perhaps IF he can still be used to run it and if the rest of the team is Money Balled. We have to accept flawed players that do one thing well. We cant afford Graham, in my opinion, but can afford Luke Wilson..who can threaten from the TE but is cheaper because of his flaws. We can afford the Baldwins and the Kearses..who arent amazing but are efficient and dont get offered big money elsewhere because of their limits..but who suit are style well.

And above all..start using our number ones on guys we develop and play well..then trade away when they reach their peak and people will overpay for.

Wagner worth every penny.

The propensity the Seahawks have for trading future picks for splash players is/was surprising considering how much JS was reported to love the draft. I hope this is something the team stops going forward. Not only the 1st rounders but high end picks given up for both Harvin and Graham impacts the team down the road.

At first the thinking that there wasn't room on a championship team to hold a bunch of picks seemed logical but now we talk about lack of depth having an impact. The team has been spending picks on Burley, McCrae and a few others the past two seasons.

Will be interesting to see what becomes of the next few draft classes. On field issues are also part of this discussion but that is more coaching rather than construction and construction as an issue is a valid question. Not sure if there will be changes in how the team is put together going forward. Commitments have been made so a reversal might have to be spurred by changes high up the food chain.

Just want to clarify, as I re-read and worry about tone.. This isnt meant to be a "this is what they did wrong , I could have done better". post. Its an idea of how we got where we are..with an idea of thinking how to get back to where we want to be.

First steps are to collect draft picks and use a bunch on OL and CB in my opinion.

Personally, Id let Wiliams go, and sad to say, Lynch. Graham as well.

In another thread people are talking about coaches.. I do think we need to take a long hard look at our co-ordinators as well. I think Bevell is the best there is at building an offense on a budget. Can you name an offensive coordinator who has had success that has done so much with so little? How many co ordinators would have let Wilson be Wilson and have this success? That said, always compete.

Kris Richard I think , and now Im out on a limb.. may not have the cred in the locker room for the job. We might have been better off with Norton. Richard is really smart but he seems to be a DB guy.. the rest of the D clearly were Quinn guys and I dont think have jumped on board with changes Richard made and I just wonder if he has their undivided attention.

Football is so interconnected though its really hard to pin point things...

I give the OP an A for effort. That said, I see things differently in a few spots.

The first is that I don't really see the 2015 seahawks as a cautionary tale much less a sinking ship. They are currently 5th in DVOA in the NFL and with just average luck at the end of games they'd probably be 6-3 right now. If they have average luck and Kam never does his stupid holdout, they are probably 7-2. Those are numbers I'd happily take with a rebuilding OL.

Its just that, unfortunately, the 2015 season has been about maximum heartbreak. The gap between the team's performance in quarters 1-3 and the 4th quarter has got to be one of the worst in NFL history, and that won't continue forever. It's a fluke. Going 0-5 in games they win the turnover battle can't continue forever. It's a fluke. If the NFL could somehow play a 162 game season like baseball, all of us would see the first nine games as an annoying blip on the radar. In a 9 game sample weird stuff can happen.

Another theme I see very differently is Graham and the moneyball aspect. I actually don't think Graham was the team's plan A, but he was still a moneyball move. I'll explain.

I am pretty sure that Seattle's 'plan A' at the position was to sign Julius Thomas in FA, then draft a WR early (Dorial Green Beckham was widely rumored and fit Seattle's drafting MO to a tee). Seattle did go hot and heavy after Thomas at the bell in FA, but lost out because Jacksonville offered an absurd amount of money (5/46). Then talks happened with the Saints and the Graham deal happened serendipitously. So Seattle traded a 1st round pick and Unger for Graham and a 4th. Seattle no longer could draft DGB early, so they added Tyler Lockett in the 3rd round then solidified their WR group with Kasen Williams in UDFA, and brought back Kevin Smith.

So far this year, Tyler Lockett has been a difference maker while Smith and Williams looked like NFL players in the preseason, and they are all getting paid dirt cheap. Now factor that the Saints ate Jimmy Graham's signing bonus cap hit to send him here, meaning that Graham is playing on a 3/27 contract in terms of Seahawks cap hits, and additionally if Seattle were to cut Graham after this season, his dead money number would be zero. Compare Graham's $9 million APY with no strings attached after this season to a similar Red Zone beast like Dez Bryant who is making $14 million a year with huge guarantees.

Additionally, the offloading of Unger freed up $9 million in cap hits from 2015-2016, and the lack of paying a 1st round pick saved $7 million over four years. The difference in pay between that first round pick and a Kevin Smith type is about $5 million. And you had to pay Unger's replacement which is costing them $1.5 million over three years. That means there was a hidden reimbursement from the trade valued at $12.5 million. This means that Seattle only added about $14.5 million ($27m-$12.5m) spread over three years ($4.83m net APY) in new expenses to add one of the best touchdown makers in the game. Again, compare this to the huge numbers handed out for difference makers like Dez Bryant, TY Hilton, or Antonio Brown. The Graham trade was a terrific moneyball move which is why I loved it when it went down.

And to Graham's credit, he's the same dude in Seattle that he was in New Orleans where he was a super-star. But his QB changed, his OC changed, and the offense changed. Unfortunately things are taking longer than hoped to click and its possible that some changes might need to be made to better implement Graham, but in terms of value, Graham is a good value.

...

The real problem with Seattle is they put too much trust in Cable this past offseason. I can see now that all of Cable's talk about how this was the best OL group he's ever had was an exaggeration on his part to calm his bosses. I don't know how many OL coaches would look good when asked to play three young players on the OL at new positions all at the same time, while totally lacking a blocking TE. Pete Carroll has pushed the envelope with young players in the past and it usually worked, but in this case it backfired. But it's not a long term problem, rather it is a one time miscalculation and I'm certain the FO has taken this lesson to heart.

My other worry is the corner group. But it feels like the kind of thing that could be fixed in one offseason if Sherman gets his head back in the game.

Thanks for that Kearly. As you said, on a couple things we disagree but love reading what you have to say.

Question for you... how do you evaluate Lockett at the moment? Hes clearly still an upgrade over last season. But is he still having strong impact? Hes shown up more in the passing game than many expected. His returns havent been special since early in the season. Not that we expect a bunch of tds but I dont think hes even having even the "side effects" you might expect from a real threat at returned.. its been many games since a team felt they had to kick away from him. Of course that gets into the question of is it the returner or the blocking..

Let me say at the outset I'm not taking issue with anything you've laid out, just thinking out loud.

Let's look at the Lynch money. Could they have reasonably used it to get a better Oline? Guess that would depend on who they thought they could get as a replacement for Lynch. I don't think anyone thinks that Michael or Turbin would have worked and no one expected Rawls to be this productive. Add to that who could they have used that money on at Oline? I don't follow closely enough to have any clue here. So at the time it may have been the best option.

As for Williams, is he really that much worse than Maxwell? Every time I watch an Eagles game I keep hearing he's not doing well In Philly. I also don't think Williams was responsible for the wide open TE in the Panthers game nor the right corner end zone TD against Arizona. He may have cost us on other plays that made the plays mentioned above back breakers, but most of our D has returned and they are not playing as well as in the past.

Graham is more expensive than Luke, but is he not an upgrade at that position? Money aside, who would you rather have on your team? I do get that money spent one place can not be spent at another, but if Graham is an upgrade and Russell plays like Russell and Lynch is Lynch, spending that money on these players this year doesn't explain why we're 4-5. Of course that brings us back to the Oline. And while a better Oline may have helped the Offense it doesn't explain the 34 points to the Rams, 27 to the Packers, 27 to the Bengals, 27 to the Panthers nor the 39 the Cards hung on us.

This team is underperforming it's level of talent.

StoneCold":270res0c said:

Let me say at the outset I'm not taking issue with anything you've laid out, just thinking out loud.

Let's look at the Lynch money. Could they have reasonably used it to get a better Oline? Guess that would depend on who they thought they could get as a replacement for Lynch. I don't think anyone thinks that Michael or Turbin would have worked and no one expected Rawls to be this productive. Add to that who could they have used that money on at Oline? I don't follow closely enough to have any clue here. So at the time it may have been the best option.

As for Williams, is he really that much worse than Maxwell? Every time I watch an Eagles game I keep hearing he's not doing well In Philly. I also don't think Williams was responsible for the wide open TE in the Panthers game nor the right corner end zone TD against Arizona. He may have cost us on other plays that made the plays mentioned above back breakers, but most of our D has returned and they are not playing as well as in the past.

Graham is more expensive than Luke, but is he not an upgrade at that position? Money aside, who would you rather have on your team? I do get that money spent one place can not be spent at another, but if Graham is an upgrade and Russell plays like Russell and Lynch is Lynch, spending that money on these players this year doesn't explain why we're 4-5. Of course that brings us back to the Oline. And while a better Oline may have helped the Offense it doesn't explain the 34 points to the Rams, 27 to the Packers, 27 to the Bengals, 27 to the Panthers nor the 39 the Cards hung on us.

This team is underperforming it's level of talent.

Click to expand...

Some legit points. Again, my writing is to point out where, in my opinion, we have gotten off course and to indicate where to go moving forward. The Lynch thing would have, to do it differently, required doing a series of things differently, possibly a trade even.

Williams, yes, is much worse than Maxwell in our scheme. And thats the point. Maxwell isnt doing great in philly..because he may not be a fit for that scheme. And its not just the plays he is directly responsible for. Earl doesnt seem to trust him and so is pulled out of position by shading that way. A case can be made that Sherman is pressing, feeling he needs to make plays, because HE doesnt trust him. And its pretty telling that for the first time ever, Sherman is being asked to shadow receivers a lot.

Yes, Graham is an upgrade. But thats not the point. Is it the BEST USE of the money is the question. Luke Willson is 629,000 dollars. Graham is 8 million. So, for example, would you rather have Willson and Iupati with another 1.3 million left?

I didnt say o line was the only reason we are 4-5.. in fact you talked about one defensive player. And yes, depth at CB is a big part of the reason. And that points at Cary Williams, and counting on Shed. But to go back to the offense.. if you DO invest in the passing game, you are investing in going up against what most other defenses are geared against now. To do that at the skilled positions but not at the line is a mistake. As I said in my original post and Kearly restated, the front office tried to Money Ball the O line pretty big time and it didnt work out and its caused some problems.

I have used the word hubris to describe our plan at center since before the season. And cables talk about how Good the line would be was silliness.

kearly":1d9mzvot said:

The real problem with Seattle is they put too much trust in Cable this past offseason. I can see now that all of Cable's talk about how this was the best OL group he's ever had was an exaggeration on his part to calm his bosses. I don't know how many OL coaches would look good when asked to play three young players on the OL at new positions all at the same time, while totally lacking a blocking TE. Pete Carroll has pushed the envelope with young players in the past and it usually worked, but in this case it backfired. But it's not a long term problem, rather it is a one time miscalculation and I'm certain the FO has taken this lesson to heart.

My other worry is the corner group. But it feels like the kind of thing that could be fixed in one offseason if Sherman gets his head back in the game.

Click to expand...

BIN BING BING we have a winner, this is the problem with the Hawks the oline and thanks to Cable and Bevell now internal issues as last I checked blaming your QB for everything is the media is not smart at all. This will backfire in some way, if it has not already. Really stupid move on their part. I expect that form Bevell he has always pointed fingers, but Cable? Something is wrong is Seahawk land and it goes way behind the field.

+1 for the cruise line history alone.

Vetamur":28cimavx said:

StoneCold":28cimavx said:

Let me say at the outset I'm not taking issue with anything you've laid out, just thinking out loud.

Let's look at the Lynch money. Could they have reasonably used it to get a better Oline? Guess that would depend on who they thought they could get as a replacement for Lynch. I don't think anyone thinks that Michael or Turbin would have worked and no one expected Rawls to be this productive. Add to that who could they have used that money on at Oline? I don't follow closely enough to have any clue here. So at the time it may have been the best option.

As for Williams, is he really that much worse than Maxwell? Every time I watch an Eagles game I keep hearing he's not doing well In Philly. I also don't think Williams was responsible for the wide open TE in the Panthers game nor the right corner end zone TD against Arizona. He may have cost us on other plays that made the plays mentioned above back breakers, but most of our D has returned and they are not playing as well as in the past.

Graham is more expensive than Luke, but is he not an upgrade at that position? Money aside, who would you rather have on your team? I do get that money spent one place can not be spent at another, but if Graham is an upgrade and Russell plays like Russell and Lynch is Lynch, spending that money on these players this year doesn't explain why we're 4-5. Of course that brings us back to the Oline. And while a better Oline may have helped the Offense it doesn't explain the 34 points to the Rams, 27 to the Packers, 27 to the Bengals, 27 to the Panthers nor the 39 the Cards hung on us.

This team is underperforming it's level of talent.

Click to expand...

Some legit points. Again, my writing is to point out where, in my opinion, we have gotten off course and to indicate where to go moving forward. The Lynch thing would have, to do it differently, required doing a series of things differently, possibly a trade even.

Williams, yes, is much worse than Maxwell in our scheme. And thats the point. Maxwell isnt doing great in philly..because he may not be a fit for that scheme. And its not just the plays he is directly responsible for. Earl doesnt seem to trust him and so is pulled out of position by shading that way. A case can be made that Sherman is pressing, feeling he needs to make plays, because HE doesnt trust him. And its pretty telling that for the first time ever, Sherman is being asked to shadow receivers a lot.

Yes, Graham is an upgrade. But thats not the point. Is it the BEST USE of the money is the question. Luke Willson is 629,000 dollars. Graham is 8 million. So, for example, would you rather have Willson and Iupati with another 1.3 million left?

I didnt say o line was the only reason we are 4-5.. in fact you talked about one defensive player. And yes, depth at CB is a big part of the reason. And that points at Cary Williams, and counting on Shed. But to go back to the offense.. if you DO invest in the passing game, you are investing in going up against what most other defenses are geared against now. To do that at the skilled positions but not at the line is a mistake. As I said in my original post and Kearly restated, the front office tried to Money Ball the O line pretty big time and it didnt work out and its caused some problems.

Click to expand...

I didn't take your post as an I could have done better, I took it as a let's learn from history point of view. I also didn't mean to imply I thought you had said it was only the Oline. I would much rather have Luke, Iupati and 1.3 million. Oh the .net party I would throw. And all good points on how the weakness of Williams pulls players out of their position. Which answers my main thought which was trying to figure out how those moves affect the current players and why it seems they are not playing to their potential.

One point I'm not sure I follow is how paying RW means you are investing in the passing game.

All good points.

I think it boils down to this: we went cheap on the o-line trying to gamble on some guys with raw potential, they may pay off down the road and they seem to be getting a bit better, but their poor play has affected Wilson. The other things can all be dealt with, but when you're O-line is off and your QB is off, it's going to lead to losses.

My opinion only, but to me it seems we basically follow the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" theory. As Vet correctly points out, we are now spending money and draft capital on positions that do not attack other teams weak spots With over 3 years of film available to all other teams, they have indeed identified our trends and tendencies, and have figured out how to defend us. They have also identified the soft spots in our cover 3 scheme, and now know how to attack us.

This year, to put the icing on the cake, we doubled down on Cable being able to turn rotgut wine into champagne. What we really got is a near beer kinda line. Looks good, has some flavor, but no real kick.

Question for others. Could it be our coaching structure is working against us a bit. With Cable as assistant HC, o-line coach and run game coordinator, and Bevell as supposed O-coordinator, pass game guy, but basically just the guy calling plays. Seems to me the lines of responsibility are a bit blurred, and unless you kick it up to PC, there is no 1 coach responsible/accountable for our entire offense. Worked pretty well for the past 3 years, but has it outlived its usefulness?

One point I'm not sure I follow is how paying RW means you are investing in the passing game.

Click to expand...

It doesnt. Paying the opportunity cost of retaining a SB winning qb with tons of room to grow doesn't mean we've put any of the other pieces in place.

The commitment to homegrown talent on OL and WR and not contractually retaining any of it would be malinvestment from my perspective.

kearly":3kp8ta64 said:

...

The real problem with Seattle is they put too much trust in Cable this past offseason. I can see now that all of Cable's talk about how this was the best OL group he's ever had was an exaggeration on his part to calm his bosses. I don't know how many OL coaches would look good when asked to play three young players on the OL at new positions all at the same time, while totally lacking a blocking TE. Pete Carroll has pushed the envelope with young players in the past and it usually worked, but in this case it backfired. But it's not a long term problem, rather it is a one time miscalculation and I'm certain the FO has taken this lesson to heart.

My other worry is the corner group. But it feels like the kind of thing that could be fixed in one offseason if Sherman gets his head back in the game.

Click to expand...

I don't think Cable's cheerleading was for his bosses, it was for the kids who had to change positions, 'twas pure psychology on Cable's part. I doubt he was preaching to the boss, the boss knows. He was also rubbin' the fan's asses. Yep, us.

THANK YOU for the Sherman comment. He's quiet, he's reserved and his arrogance seems to be left on the floor in one of his many closets. Arguably it pertains to Russ as well... he's got a boatload of new closets too.

KUDOS to Vet and Kearly for phenomenal thoughts as usual.

Vetamur":khbl0pvc said:

Thanks for that Kearly. As you said, on a couple things we disagree but love reading what you have to say.

Question for you... how do you evaluate Lockett at the moment? Hes clearly still an upgrade over last season. But is he still having strong impact? Hes shown up more in the passing game than many expected. His returns havent been special since early in the season. Not that we expect a bunch of tds but I dont think hes even having even the "side effects" you might expect from a real threat at returned.. its been many games since a team felt they had to kick away from him. Of course that gets into the question of is it the returner or the blocking..

Click to expand...

I think if Lockett were on a team like the Steelers he'd be a RoY candidate. He's seriously talented, but a bit of a misfit for Seattle's passing attack IMO. He's just too small to be a decent blocker, and Seattle relies pretty heavily on getting quality blocks from WRs.

I do think he is a very good player though, he is like Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin before him, better than his counting stats suggest.