PFF says the Hawks have the worst O-line in the league

Watching them this season, I don't buy that. I know what the worst line in the league looks like because the Hawks have had it at times before. I don't buy that they have the worst line this season.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ra ... -week-5-2/

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Attyla the Hawk":15ovflpv said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

NINEster":2lnilr6k said:

Attyla the Hawk":2lnilr6k said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

Click to expand...

Teams have made the Super Bowl with mediocre OL's.

MontanaHawk05":2jon0wir said:

NINEster":2jon0wir said:

Attyla the Hawk":2jon0wir said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

Click to expand...

Teams have made the Super Bowl with mediocre OL's.

Click to expand...

They're saying our line isn't even mediocre, instead terrible.

FlyHawksFly":31hjumzy said:

I have no idea why anyone gives PFF the time of day.

Click to expand...

It's truly awful

NINEster":29qrvs18 said:

Attyla the Hawk":29qrvs18 said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

Click to expand...

In 2012 the Seahawas were one play away from the Superbowl with the 20th ranked OL.

In 2013 the Seahawks won the Superbowl with the 27th ranked OL.

In 2014 the Seahawas were one play away from winning the Superbowl with the 19th ranked OL.

In 2015 the Seahawks made it to the 2nd round with the 30th tanked OL.

That's 4 consequetive deep playoff runs, 2 Superbowl appearances and one championship, all with a bad offensive line.

McGruff":1rcwqm5z said:

NINEster":1rcwqm5z said:

Attyla the Hawk":1rcwqm5z said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

Click to expand...

In 2012 the Seahawas were one play away from the Superbowl with the 20th ranked OL.

In 2013 the Seahawks won the Superbowl with the 27th ranked OL.

In 2014 the Seahawas were one play away from winning the Superbowl with the 19th ranked OL.

In 2015 the Seahawks made it to the 2nd round with the 30th tanked OL.

That's 4 consequetive deep playoff runs, 2 Superbowl appearances and one championship, all with a bad offensive line.

Click to expand...

Just imagine how much better this year could go if our O-Line is ranked "average." While there may not be all that much of a gap, practically speaking, between 27th and 17th, for instance, I'd still rather have a better line.

If our run-blocking begins to help us gain 120-140 yards on the ground every game, and Russ is still upright, PFF won't matter to anyone here.

McGruff":puw3326r said:

NINEster":puw3326r said:

Attyla the Hawk":puw3326r said:

And yet the bottom 3 of this list are among the top 10 in the NFL.

Yet again an example that if you're going to skimp somewhere on your team -- do it on the OL.

Not that I really consider PFF to be entirely accurate in their grading. Basically they are the public authority because they are the only ones that consider taking the effort. Even still, there isn't a premium on OL quality as it relates to wins. It's one way to be successful. But you can be 'terrible' at it and still be amongst the best in the league.

Click to expand...

Not in January.

Click to expand...

In 2012 the Seahawas were one play away from the Superbowl with the 20th ranked OL.

In 2013 the Seahawks won the Superbowl with the 27th ranked OL.

In 2014 the Seahawas were one play away from winning the Superbowl with the 19th ranked OL.

In 2015 the Seahawks made it to the 2nd round with the 30th tanked OL.

That's 4 consequetive deep playoff runs, 2 Superbowl appearances and one championship, all with a bad offensive line.

Click to expand...

You mean the NFC championship game against the 49ers, right?

Defensive Attack dogs across the League will always get the lions share of accolades, that's just how it is.
Not too many Offensive linemen are standouts; They're usually getting the most attention when they whiff while going up against some All Pro Defender ripping through the line,
Dirt bags, we need more "Dirt bags".

They have cut the sacks in half from last year, and that is a good stat, but they are doing the little things that don't show up in the stats.

Much improved line, and I'll happily have some seasoned Britt crow myself.

Is it really that hard to believe we have the worse line?

I mean, yeah they're getting better, but they were pretty damn bad before the Niners game, and even last week allowed what three sacks and Michael didn't run for much?

Sgt. Largent":31j4enwt said:

Is it really that hard to believe we have the worse line?

I mean, yeah they're getting better, but they were pretty damn bad before the Niners game, and even last week allowed what three sacks and Michael didn't run for much?

Click to expand...

The trade off is that since we didn't run as well, we threw the ball all over the field, sacks happen when a team does that. I totally expected a bad line at first but here we are at 3-1 into the bye, Ifedi gets his first game, Britt is solid. It's way better than last year, and I could care less where the line is ranked.

can't keep using the "we've done it before with a bad line" as justification for continually neglecting it or trying to patch it up with FA cast-offs and converted D linemen.

Marshawn Lynch was like having an extra o-line guy on the field.

Russell Wilson isn't getting any younger. The older he gets the less effective his wheels are going to be.

Have they watched the Colts this season?

I expect these stats to look better when Russ gets his mobility back and poses some sort of running threat. But I don't actually care, because they don't work.

Hawknballs":ck3zgcc7 said:

can't keep using the "we've done it before with a bad line" as justification for continually neglecting it or trying to patch it up with FA cast-offs and converted D linemen.

Click to expand...

If there is a component of a team that is more fungible than another, it kind of makes a good argument to allocate your money elsewhere. Especially if that component is an OL protecting Russell Wilson, who can protect himself with his legs. The money instead went to Jimmy Graham, who is also protecting Wilson by giving him someone to throw to. He and Doug are playing the role Lynch did - offensive heavy-hitter who keeps defenses honest.

Also, Seattle has only one individual on its current OL who could be considered a free-agent castoff. The rest were all drafted by the Seahawks, and none of them have ever played DL.

I saw an article that said the Cardinals interior O-line is garbage. I guess we can test that theory out shortly. Will be interesting to see it against the Niners tomorrow night.

We know our line is our weakest point. You get what you pay for. The key is in adjusting the offense to accommodate the piss poor line play. Last week against the Jet's it looked as if we were moving in that direction.

Hawknballs":21ehyejq said:

can't keep using the "we've done it before with a bad line" as justification for continually neglecting it or trying to patch it up with FA cast-offs and converted D linemen.

Marshawn Lynch was like having an extra o-line guy on the field.

Russell Wilson isn't getting any younger. The older he gets the less effective his wheels are going to be.

Click to expand...

Please outline which players we should cut to get an average OL?

Hawknballs":1xu43xfp said:

can't keep using the "we've done it before with a bad line" as justification for continually neglecting it or trying to patch it up with FA cast-offs and converted D linemen.

Click to expand...

I'd say considering the investment in the last two drafts, and the fact that we don't have any D line conversion projects on the roster -- you should be somewhat pleased with the new direction.

Looks like we have 4 homegrown OL on this line, with three sufficiently high picks. Seattle is carrying Fant as a dev prospect, but otherwise have youth in the pipeline. Makes complete sense to get a couple bridge FAs to fill in the gaps this year.

As poor as Sowell and Webb are, they aren't Michael Bowie and Paul McQuistan poor.

I'd expect we'll allow the youth we have on the roster to percolate up next year. And possibly add another day 1 starter in next year's draft. Seems like a solid medium range plan for the OL to me.

It's a tired argument. Mostly because it's a 'grass is greener' kind of argument that absolutely NEVER concedes the opposite side of the coin. It's basically wishing for a Lineman fairy to just give you talent at no consequence or cost. Teams (often the best teams) skimp on the OL every single year. Patriots and Seahawks are the absolute worst in terms of investing in their lines. And we're the teams that are consistently the best year in and year out.

Why would I ever concede this theory that we need to (or should want to) have a 2005 Seahawks OL with a 2005 Seahawk's defense? It's plain stupid. The results -- not just for us but for other consistently great teams -- contradicts this notion every single year.

Denver may have the best OL in the last 4 years. They have had middling to bad OLs until now. What are the odds you think that they're going to be in the AFC Championship game this year (as opposed to the last three)?