Do the Hawks value the LT position differently?

So, Okung left without too much of a fight from our Front Office. Despite reported interest in a couple of reasonable stop-gap solutions, they have made absolutely no move at all. A lot of teams would have handed out a panic contract to one of those stop-gap veterans by now. I wonder whether the reason for our low energy response to the problem is because they simply put a different level of value on the position than other teams.

It is a premium position for most teams, but for us:-

1 - RW obviously has an ability to avoid rushers that just hasn't been seen before, including blindside rushers through that crazy spin and run back and to the weakside where you are not sure how he managed to see the rusher.

2 - even a good LT will have to spend an extra 2 seconds on half of our pass plays trying to block the rusher from the opposite way they had been blocking them for the first 3 seconds, and all LTs are probably equally bad at that.

3 - where we have really struggled to move the ball on teams has been when they have got pressure through the middle, either through a penetrative DT like Donald at LAR or Lotulelei at CAR, or A-gap blitzes like ARZ, and Wilson seems to have more problems with that kind of pressure.

4 - teams have learned to play Russell in a way that keeps him in the pocket through outside contain rather than letting loose their DEs to pin their ears back and rush (obviously the read option has been an element of teams learning to play more disciplined).

5 - the closest size comp for Russell is usually given as being Brees, and NO had their success through a strong interior line giving Brees time and lanes to throw through.

I honestly wonder whether we will go into the season with flotsam and jetsam at the OT positions, but our FO won't be bothered as they don't rate LT as any more value or importance than LG? I hope I'm way wrong on this, but I wouldn't hate it if we had real talent at OG and it was all by design.

It'd be easier to buy this proposition if the team was spending more money elsewhere on the OL, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I assume Britt is still a presumed starter on the inside. And then you got an unknown at RG and Lewis at C. With that, it's hard to argue they've been emphasizing resources or talent on the interior. Also, the only vets they've signed look like they'll be plugged in at the edges, so that sort of goes against this theory. They've really brought in no competition for the interior spots, which are currently being manned by unknown or underwhelming talent.

But the draft will certainly reveal a lot. And I think there's still time for them to make some other moves.

It's a fair point, and I agree the draft is going to be very interesting in that particular regard. Though that would still mean that they do value the LT position differently, they just undervalue pretty much all of the OL positions as well.

I think it's safe to say that the team is playing moneyball on the offensive line - they think they can use a certain scheme wherein the talent required to build an adequate unit can be found cheaply. In order to make this work, you need a) a dominant defense that can withstand lots of 3-and-outs on offense, b) a dominant running game to lessen the need for pass-blocking, and c) an elusive quarterback who can still make plays when protection breaks down.

I think this moneyball theory applies across the line, not just at Left Tackle -- they've let our entire line from our Super Bowl title year go, either by trade or through free agency: Giacomini, Carpenter, Unger, Sweezy, Okung.

It's an interesting experiment, and I for one still think they can pull it off. One thing I think they figured out last year is when you're in a championship window, you can't start a 2nd year player in a new position at LG, a first year starter at C, a converted DL at RG, and a first year starter at RT, and not have growing pains that will threaten your title run.

However, I don't think last year disproved the theory. What was missing last year was competition... that's why there are a few veterans being brought in this time around who can fill in in the short term to take the pressure off of the talented youngsters to not only succeed individually right off the bat but to develop cohesion across the line.

Regarding LT - it's been beaten to death but I think Gilliam could be the player who ultimately proves the moneyball theory correct, IF (big IF) he can adequately fill in at the most critical (and difficult to fill) position at a bargain basement price. There just aren't a lot of Walter Joneses, Johnathan Ogedens, or Orlando Paces around... and when they do show up they're usually top-5 picks or close to it. The Seahawks are potentially a dynasty and they just aren't gonna get one of these guys. It's not that they wouldn't love to have one, it's that they just aren't there for us. Anyone who lasts to the mid 20's either has some serious physical limitations or has a long development path.

It's a gamble, but I'm sure the team has used a ton of data to arrive at this strategy. The approach is still being refined -- the cheap veteran signings are evidence of that. We are going to spend most of our money on the defense and our QB -- that's not going to change. In order to facilitate this we have to spend less money on the O-Line. If John, Pete, and Cable can pull this off, it will be one of the biggest keys to creating a lasting dynasty.

The main takeaway for me is that they are attempting to value health. If Okung's tenure here had been more consistent then my money is on the team viewing him as a core player and extending him last off-season.

It gets forgotten now that he is playing well in NY but Carpenter had two serious knee injuries while he was here. Breno was sidelined or questionable for about half of 2013 with a knee issue. Unger missed major parts of 2013 and 2014 with arm, knee, and ankle injuries and Okung has been dealing with something or other most of his career here. At some point consistency has to outweigh upside and they've decided we are better off trying to get a consistent group than needing to shuffle around the line every other week due to injury.

Talk of treating the OL as a dump stat may seem attractive in general but I think it falls apart when you look at specific players. We threw money at both Gallery and Unger when we thought each of them would be consistent for us. The lineman whom we let go, on the other hand, have tended to be injured, inconsistent, and paid more in FA than it is reasonable to match when you factor in the comp picks we receive for them. We've spent a lot of draft capital on the OL beyond the #6 overall selection on Okung and that's a currency every bit as real as salary for a FO like ours that likes to build and maintain the team with draft picks.

In my view, following all of our OL transactions since 2010 tells a story that is mostly about disappointing outcomes and not about undervaluing the position.

PC/JS have spent two 1sts and a 2nd round pick on offensive tackles who they intended to start at tackle. At guard, they've spent a handful of mid-round picks. At center, they've never drafted a guy who predominantly played center in college. Not even one.

Cable's outside zone scheme means that rushing just outside the tackles is the staple play. This puts a very high emphasis on having good run blockers who can be counted on to win matchups at the tackle spots.

The Seahawks probably value right tackles and left tackles a bit differently than other teams do but it's still a position they've valued highly up until the present time.

AgentDib":7pcvfmkz said:

In my view, following all of our OL transactions since 2010 tells a story that is mostly about disappointing outcomes and not about undervaluing the position.

Click to expand...

Great post.

AgentDib":7pcvfmkz said:

The main takeaway for me is that they are attempting to value health. If Okung's tenure here had been more consistent then my money is on the team viewing him as a core player and extending him last off-season.

It gets forgotten now that he is playing well in NY but Carpenter had two serious knee injuries while he was here. Breno was sidelined or questionable for about half of 2013 with a knee issue. Unger missed major parts of 2013 and 2014 with arm, knee, and ankle injuries and Okung has been dealing with something or other most of his career here. At some point consistency has to outweigh upside and they've decided we are better off trying to get a consistent group than needing to shuffle around the line every other week due to injury.

Click to expand...

This is a great point that seems to get overlooked. In terms of talent, Seattle had an even better OL in 2013 than they did in 2012, but it ended up being the worst O-line of the PC/JS era due to a ridiculous rash of injuries. Injuries were also a problem in 2014.

The reason the line was so bad in 2013 and 2014 wasn't because of talent, it was because a lot of the games had four backups starting on the OL. Availability is huge in the NFL, and it's especially huge on the OL.

This is why Seattle made it a point to trade Max Unger, there were several reports that said Unger was gone even if the Graham trade hadn't happened. Seattle had seen enough of the injuries and felt it was time to move on.

With that in mind, I didn't expect Seattle to retain Okung since he is the most injury prone of them all. If they really wanted him, they would have signed him to an extension a year ahead of FA. And even when Seattle "made a strong push" for Okung right before FA opened, Seattle's unwillingness to match Denver's joke of a contract suggests that they were never serious about keeping Okung in the first place, and that their efforts to keep him were just a show to help drive his price up for a better comp pick.

(I don't think anyone was more unhappy about Okung's choice of agent than the Seahawks were, as the terrible deal Okung signed in Denver will likely kill the comp pick Seattle would get back).

So now they are trying to start over and it seems likely that a big part of this competition across the OL will hinge on each players ability to stay healthy.

Interesting point about the injuries - I guess you're saying they don't value LT or even OL differently, it's simply that the players we have acquired turned out to be injury-prone and that's why we're letting everyone go.

I'm not sure I buy it though, simply because injuries are such a hard thing to predict. Sure, you could stay away from overweight linemen or linemen with a significant injury history or older linemen, but I don't think the Seahawks are unique in being mindful of those things. While it may explain why we let many of our linemen move on, I just don't see "acquire healthier linemen" as a legitimate strategy going forward simply because the science behind doing so is so inexact and prone to random chance.

One other thing I thought I'd mention is that Cable wasn't around yet when Okung was chosen -- that was an Alex Gibbs pick. On top of that Okung wasn't the guy Gibbs really wanted. Gibbs wanted Trent Williams who was pick just ahead of Okung and it was rumored that he was really upset not to get Williams. At this point it's pretty clear that Williams turned out to be a much better player. Regardless, Gibbs made a strong push for a top LT... it would be interesting to see if Cable would have done the same thing.

And where does Sweezey fit into all of this? Cable sure did talk highly of this guy. Certainly viewed him as a top guard in this league but they let someone else pay him top guard money. I've really wondered myself if it wasn't for Okung's injury laden career here if he wouldn't have been paid like our other studs have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3uSX-BARkk

kearly":1ybc543q said:

AgentDib":1ybc543q said:

In my view, following all of our OL transactions since 2010 tells a story that is mostly about disappointing outcomes and not about undervaluing the position.

Click to expand...

Great post.

AgentDib":1ybc543q said:

The main takeaway for me is that they are attempting to value health. If Okung's tenure here had been more consistent then my money is on the team viewing him as a core player and extending him last off-season.

It gets forgotten now that he is playing well in NY but Carpenter had two serious knee injuries while he was here. Breno was sidelined or questionable for about half of 2013 with a knee issue. Unger missed major parts of 2013 and 2014 with arm, knee, and ankle injuries and Okung has been dealing with something or other most of his career here. At some point consistency has to outweigh upside and they've decided we are better off trying to get a consistent group than needing to shuffle around the line every other week due to injury.

Click to expand...

This is a great point that seems to get overlooked. In terms of talent, Seattle had an even better OL in 2013 than they did in 2012, but it ended up being the worst O-line of the PC/JS era due to a ridiculous rash of injuries. Injuries were also a problem in 2014.

The reason the line was so bad in 2013 and 2014 wasn't because of talent, it was because a lot of the games had four backups starting on the OL. Availability is huge in the NFL, and it's especially huge on the OL.

This is why Seattle made it a point to trade Max Unger, there were several reports that said Unger was gone even if the Graham trade hadn't happened. Seattle had seen enough of the injuries and felt it was time to move on.

With that in mind, I didn't expect Seattle to retain Okung since he is the most injury prone of them all. If they really wanted him, they would have signed him to an extension a year ahead of FA. And even when Seattle "made a strong push" for Okung right before FA opened, Seattle's unwillingness to match Denver's joke of a contract suggests that they were never serious about keeping Okung in the first place, and that their efforts to keep him were just a show to help drive his price up for a better comp pick.

(I don't think anyone was more unhappy about Okung's choice of agent than the Seahawks were, as the terrible deal Okung signed in Denver will likely kill the comp pick Seattle would get back).

So now they are trying to start over and it seems likely that a big part of this competition across the OL will hinge on each players ability to stay healthy.

Click to expand...

Fly in the Ointment, Sweezy. Healthy and loved by the front office. But too expensive.

They simply do not want to spend money on the OL.

AgentDib":2llnwdzc said:

paid more in FA than it is reasonable to match when you factor in the comp picks we receive for them.

Click to expand...

Sweezy is who I was referring to here and I think it supports my view that he was loved here. If they had unwisely decided to match TB's offer and forgo a comp pick on top of overpaying him then Sweezy's availability would have been a key factor in the decision.

A-Dog":36ygv61z said:

While it may explain why we let many of our linemen move on, I just don't see "acquire healthier linemen" as a legitimate strategy going forward simply because the science behind doing so is so inexact and prone to random chance.

Click to expand...

I'd frame it instead as "don't overvalue the injury prone linemen." I agree that luck plays a major role but teams are still able to differentiate players based on injury risk despite the uncertainty of the variables. Past injury history and body types are still predictive of future injury outcomes and teams can acknowledge that uncertainty by diversifying their risk with depth.

They value ALL the OL positions differently than other teams.

With Wilson being great at scrambling it would negate some of his value if we paid a lot of money for a top O-line. Because of that, it makes sense to build the OL on a budget.

The problem has been that their draft choices for OL haven't been good, and we only have a few years with draft picks before they start getting paid good money.

If the Hawks drafted well on OL then there wouldn't be an issue.

A-Dog":p0r2lj56 said:

I'm not sure I buy it though, simply because injuries are such a hard thing to predict.

Click to expand...

No prediction is necessary. If a guy gets hurt a ton, you kick him to the curb and try someone else. It's as simple as that.

And for the record, Gibbs was pumped to get Russell Okung.

We've allowed our guards to depart frequently, Now our LT of several years. Hard to gauge what they are thinking since they started Nowak at C last year.

They have painted themselves in a corner now and thank Gawd that this draft has viable O-Line available.

The question is, will they actually draft highly this time. Frankly I'll be pissed if they don't.

Scottemojo":2hjk7a16 said:

Fly in the Ointment, Sweezy. Healthy and loved by the front office. But too expensive.

They simply do not want to spend money on the OL.

Click to expand...

I beg to disagree.

Seattle paid Okung a lot of money on his rookie contract for six seasons. They could have traded him at any point if not spending money was the goal.

They also signed Max Unger to a contract extension in 2012 that made him one of the highest paid centers in football. When Unger was healthy, Seattle had no issues whatsoever finding money to pay him.

Sweezy's $6.5m APY deal was desperate and insane. His cap hit in 2016 is over $9 million. I can't make judgements about how Seattle budgets OL based on their decision to pass on a brutal contract.

The oft-injured theory is interesting, but I'm not sure I buy it as a predictive measure. I wouldn't, however, be surprised if this was Cable's rationale. If so, I think that's a flawed approach. Also, are we even sure that these injury issues are player-specific and not system-specific?

Small-ish sample size, but Unger, Carpenter and Giacomini have started 64/64 games since leaving Seattle. All three had injury issues while they were here.

The answer is yes.

They most certainly value the LT position differently due to Wilson's style...which happens to mesh perfectly with Pete's desire to "go long". That's also the reason why we'll never know how good any of the Hawks lineman actually are. I'm sure they'd all look serviceable to average if they went WCO/rhythm passing.

Also, the proper response to concerns about the OL was never to overpay said oft-injured and/or erratic Olinemen causing the concern. That's lunacy.

kearly":1wu6cnqu said:

Scottemojo":1wu6cnqu said:

Fly in the Ointment, Sweezy. Healthy and loved by the front office. But too expensive.

They simply do not want to spend money on the OL.

Click to expand...

I beg to disagree.

Seattle paid Okung a lot of money on his rookie contract for six seasons. They could have traded him at any point if not spending money was the goal.

They also signed Max Unger to a contract extension in 2012 that made him one of the highest paid centers in football. When Unger was healthy, Seattle had no issues whatsoever finding money to pay him.

Sweezy's $6.5m APY deal was desperate and insane. His cap hit in 2016 is over $9 million. I can't make judgements about how Seattle budgets OL based on their decision to pass on a brutal contract.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Okung's first contract before they new what they had with RW? I could see them making different decisions if we had a non-mobile qb. Whatever all the considerations are they think they can get by with a Cheap OL.

StoneCold":dfamxm2d said:

kearly":dfamxm2d said:

Scottemojo":dfamxm2d said:

Fly in the Ointment, Sweezy. Healthy and loved by the front office. But too expensive.

They simply do not want to spend money on the OL.

Click to expand...

I beg to disagree.

Seattle paid Okung a lot of money on his rookie contract for six seasons. They could have traded him at any point if not spending money was the goal.

They also signed Max Unger to a contract extension in 2012 that made him one of the highest paid centers in football. When Unger was healthy, Seattle had no issues whatsoever finding money to pay him.

Sweezy's $6.5m APY deal was desperate and insane. His cap hit in 2016 is over $9 million. I can't make judgements about how Seattle budgets OL based on their decision to pass on a brutal contract.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Okung's first contract before they new what they had with RW? I could see them making different decisions if we had a non-mobile qb. Whatever all the considerations are they think they can get by with a Cheap OL.

Click to expand...

My original thought as well. If only Charlie had lived up to his hype on the field, Okung would still be here and paid.