StoneCold":13n4ct6s said:Posted for perspective.
Bobblehead":d7t0vopv said:StoneCold":d7t0vopv said:Posted for perspective.
That won't win the SB though.
SeahawksFanForever":2l8mzxji said:Pete was basically saying the same thing in almost all of his press conferences & interviews after the playoff loss. There will be changes but most of the roster should remain the same including the guys play as OL.
hawknation2017":c4umloas said:Good topic. The proverbial iceberg that we have watched inching toward us over the last six years has been the failure to draft ANY offensive tackle prospect.
In the last six drafts, the team has essentially avoided drafting from the small pool of players with the requisite skills to succeed at offensive tackle in the NFL. Only 7th Rounder Michael Bowie in 2013 (their fourth and final 7th-round selection in that draft) saw any significant time as an offensive tackle, and even he was another G-RT tweaner better suited for the interior. In fact, zero offensive linemen at all were drafted above the 7th Round in the 2012, 2013, and 2014 drafts.
Plenty of people have been sounding the alarm bells over this problem as the years crept on. It should come as no surprise now that we have two undrafted offensive line conversion projects manning the offensive tackle positions. Yes, I consider Garry Gilliam a conversion project because he only moved from TE his senior season at Penn State. However, not even the most anxious offensive line observer among us could have imagined a power forward protecting Russell Wilson's blindside.
The team clearly had a plan in place to cut the fat from the roster by spending leanly on offensive line veterans. But if that was the plan all along, then they should have made a concerted effort to stock the roster with offensive linemen on rookie deals. Linemen drafted in 2013 and 2014 would have been grisly veterans this season playing on the 3rd and 4th years of rookie contracts.
I think they need to draft a protypical tackle like they have not done since taking Russell Okung with this regime's first selection in 2010. Gilliam should be tendered or re-signed on a cheap deal at the near minimum because they badly need the depth. George Fant needs major work this off-season on his pass blocking technique, working on his footwork, hand placement, drop, punch, etc. But most importantly, they must find a way to draft a true offensive tackle who already has experience at the position. It's a small pool - and clearly not a group they have been very fond of - but they must do it if they hope to make the offensive line competent again.
hawknation2017":26jpngg6 said:SeahawksFanForever":26jpngg6 said:Pete was basically saying the same thing in almost all of his press conferences & interviews after the playoff loss. There will be changes but most of the roster should remain the same including the guys play as OL.
Well, there is a salary cap to contend with, and you do not improve depth by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of cutting guys, you add to the competition with draft picks. Gilliam, for example, has a couple years of starting experience at RT. He can be re-signed for very little, which maintains the depth. Then you add to it with a couple draft picks capable of playing OT. The best case scenario is that you strike gold with a rookie, experienced at the offensive tackle position, who beats out one of the current starters. In that case, Gilliam provides depth and experience on the cheap. The worst case scenario is still more depth with rookies developing behind the current starters.
SeahawksFanForever":vqfsbyng said:hawknation2017":vqfsbyng said:SeahawksFanForever":vqfsbyng said:Pete was basically saying the same thing in almost all of his press conferences & interviews after the playoff loss. There will be changes but most of the roster should remain the same including the guys play as OL.
Well, there is a salary cap to contend with, and you do not improve depth by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of cutting guys, you add to the competition with draft picks. Gilliam, for example, has a couple years of starting experience at RT. He can be re-signed for very little, which maintains the depth. Then you add to it with a couple draft picks capable of playing OT. The best case scenario is that you strike gold with a rookie, experienced at the offensive tackle position, who beats out one of the current starters. In that case, Gilliam provides depth and experience on the cheap. The worst case scenario is still more depth with rookies developing behind the current starters.
Yes, they are going to add to the depth but core positions should remain the same.
CHawkTailGator":dujf3am1 said:Gee Scott (710AM) was saying that Odihambo has a chance to make a big jump in year two. I'd expect Fant to be better. Actually I'd expect Russ to stay healthy and really play a lot better. Now, if we could figure out our leaky secondary, that would be great.
sondevil89":32e2w93s said:Will our line get better in '17? Yes. BUT, being the worst rated line in the NFL leaves them no place to go but up. Going with what we have will just be a repeat of the last two years. They need to draft a 1st rounder if a legit one is available and then go find a FA OT.
We are not rebuilding, the future is now!
Sgt. Largent":1a41su2m said:You could say this about 8-10 playoff bubble teams right now.
IMO that's a shortsighted sentiment. What we want is a dynasty, a 13-14 win team for the next 10 years.
THAT requires more than just a couple roster tweaks. That requires major improvements on and off the field in coaching, philosophy, scheme, playcalling, roster talent, depth, hitting on a higher percentage of draft picks, team attitude and distraction.
Yes a couple roster tweaks might hold this group of players together for one more run at a SB. But I don't want just one more run............As long as Russell's our QB, I want 4-5 more SB appearances. That's going to require more than just trying to squeeze out two more wins.
Sgt. Largent":3a9tuc92 said:You could say this about 8-10 playoff bubble teams right now.
IMO that's a shortsighted sentiment. What we want is a dynasty, a 13-14 win team for the next 10 years.
THAT requires more than just a couple roster tweaks. That requires major improvements on and off the field in coaching, philosophy, scheme, playcalling, roster talent, depth, hitting on a higher percentage of draft picks, team attitude and distraction.
Yes a couple roster tweaks might hold this group of players together for one more run at a SB. But I don't want just one more run............As long as Russell's our QB, I want 4-5 more SB appearances. That's going to require more than just trying to squeeze out two more wins.
StoneCold":vlaoz81a said:Sgt. Largent":vlaoz81a said:You could say this about 8-10 playoff bubble teams right now.
IMO that's a shortsighted sentiment. What we want is a dynasty, a 13-14 win team for the next 10 years.
THAT requires more than just a couple roster tweaks. That requires major improvements on and off the field in coaching, philosophy, scheme, playcalling, roster talent, depth, hitting on a higher percentage of draft picks, team attitude and distraction.
Yes a couple roster tweaks might hold this group of players together for one more run at a SB. But I don't want just one more run............As long as Russell's our QB, I want 4-5 more SB appearances. That's going to require more than just trying to squeeze out two more wins.
We were a tie and a a 3 point loss to AZ from being 12-4. With a seriously injured QB and work in progress Oline. I see the need for improvement, but no wholesale changes. Hawks are not the 2014-2015 Mariners.
Sgt. Largent":32d697ad said:Like I said, 10 teams could pick out 2-3 games and injuries this year and say the same thing. The Patriots didn't have their starting or 2nd string QB for 4 and 2 games, and lost their best receiver for most of the year. Yet 14 wins and in the SB, again.
Sorry, but I just don't buy that minor tweaking is going to fix this team long term as the elite 13-14 wins a year team we all think it can be.
Too many major issues going on right now, on and off the field.
hawknation2017":vdq3yvui said:Sgt. Largent":vdq3yvui said:Like I said, 10 teams could pick out 2-3 games and injuries this year and say the same thing. The Patriots didn't have their starting or 2nd string QB for 4 and 2 games, and lost their best receiver for most of the year. Yet 14 wins and in the SB, again.
Sorry, but I just don't buy that minor tweaking is going to fix this team long term as the elite 13-14 wins a year team we all think it can be.
Too many major issues going on right now, on and off the field.
Your mean the Patriots team we beat this season at Gillette Stadium . . . on a short week. :2thumbs:
The foundation of the team is very strong. How many teams can say they have every starter back (sans Shead due to the ACL)? There is quite a lot to be excited about on this current roster we have returning. Can they get better at certain positions like offensive tackle, backup guard, backup safeties, etc.? Absolutely, that is what the draft and $30 million in cap space are for.
Uncle Si":yivqj790 said:hawknation2017":yivqj790 said:Sgt. Largent":yivqj790 said:Like I said, 10 teams could pick out 2-3 games and injuries this year and say the same thing. The Patriots didn't have their starting or 2nd string QB for 4 and 2 games, and lost their best receiver for most of the year. Yet 14 wins and in the SB, again.
Sorry, but I just don't buy that minor tweaking is going to fix this team long term as the elite 13-14 wins a year team we all think it can be.
Too many major issues going on right now, on and off the field.
Your mean the Patriots team we beat this season at Gillette Stadium . . . on a short week. :2thumbs:
The foundation of the team is very strong. How many teams can say they have every starter back (sans Shead due to the ACL)? There is quite a lot to be excited about on this current roster we have returning. Can they get better at certain positions like offensive tackle, backup guard, backup safeties, etc.? Absolutely, that is what the draft and $30 million in cap space are for.
We are probably somewhere in between these two trains of thought...