Seahawks 16th best offense (ESPN article)

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2016 ... nfl-season

The team that beat the pats in NE 31-24 is only 16th? Did they forget Wilson is healthy? I wouldn't put us top 5... but 16th?

Looked at the author. Explanation found.

Last season we finished 12th in yards and 18th in scoring, so 16th puts us close to where we left off. Personally I think we take a jump. But I could not offer a strong argument we will for sure without seeing our oline compete with another team. Tom Cable can't either, and that is why you will see a different line in game 4 then game 1. Outsiders think our oline will be of the leagues worst also keep in mind.

Given our other weapons and Russell's health it stands to reason we would be better. But ultimately the line will dictate that more than the weapons we have.

Seymour":1mlv5h99 said:

Last season we finished 12th in yards and 18th in scoring, so 16th puts us close to where we left off. Personally I think we take a jump. But I could not offer a strong argument we will for sure without seeing our oline compete with another team. Tom Cable can't either, and that is why you will see a different line in game 4 then game 1. Outsiders think our oline will be of the leagues worst also keep in mind.

Given our other weapons and Russell's health it stands to reason we would be better. But ultimately the line will dictate that more than the weapons we have.

Click to expand...

If you read the article, he's not accounting for the OL this is just skill position players.

I thought for skill positions we were a bit low. Then you have to remember the Seahawks insist on trotting out Kearse as our #3 WR and he was pretty bad last year. Lockett is really good, but he's coming off of a broken leg so there is a question mark there. After that, the most experienced WR we have is Tanner McEvoy, who was very productive for the amount of reps he got.

As for TE's, we have an elite one in Graham which was mentioned.

Rawls is legit but he's also an injury risk, as is Prosise. You have Lacy, who is proven, but he's a question mark due to his weight and conditioning issues.

So for sure things, the author mentioned Baldwin and Graham. Kearse and Lockett are question marks. We're likely rated as average in the backfield, which I can't argue with as we have lots of question marks there.

The way I look at it, 16th is about as bad as it gets and we have a lot higher ceiling. But if Lacy doesn't pan out, Kearse is last year's Kearse, and Lockette takes a while to round back into form....16th should be about right. If things go right and the OL pitches in and helps......we're top 5. We have that talent.

Seymour":2ro8k1fr said:

Last season we finished 12th in yards and 18th in scoring, so 16th puts us close to where we left off. Personally I think we take a jump. But I could not offer a strong argument we will for sure without seeing our oline compete with another team.

Click to expand...

I think with the raw numbers from last year and just average them, this would make sense. Couple that with the fact that we didn't really add anything in terms of talent outside of Eddie Lacy, who could end up behind Rawls on the depth chart, and there's not really much reason to say that we're going to make a huge jump without seeing a jump in competency from the O-line.

The article actually was supposed to take out the line and QB and just compare the skill position players, which is where the homer in me says "ehhhh, maybe a little low". I feel the list really overvalues rookies and assumes anyone picked in the first round will be a star. Maybe our ranking just got Kearse-d.

Seems fair to me. One win vs the pats does not make up for a lot of shitty offence a lot of the other games

Well the Mediot is he is stating Prosise should become a feature back instead of the platoon of Lacy and Rawls, we did not draft him to be a every down back, we drafted him as a Reggie Bush type guy that happens to be able to run the ball if asked. Said he was a wild card player that can change dynamics when we drafted him and a former WR etc.

These guys should really have Matt proof read their shit before posting it.

I am baffled that anyone is baffled.

Isn't this the very same offense that literally went multiple games without scoring a single TD?

The purpose of the offense is to score, and the measure of the value of the offense is often predicated on the ability to score TDs. We are no more than average in our ability to score TDs, so I am not sure what the complaint would be in listing it 16th.

If anything, that # is extremely generous.

TwistedHusky":1h2hzecz said:

I am baffled that anyone is baffled.

Isn't this the very same offense that literally went multiple games without scoring a single TD?

The purpose of the offense is to score, and the measure of the value of the offense is often predicated on the ability to score TDs. We are no more than average in our ability to score TDs, so I am not sure what the complaint would be in listing it 16th.

If anything, that # is extremely generous.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't know that it's generous. Supposedly we're going back to a balanced offense. That in and of itself counts for a lot even if the OL were to stay as bad as it were last year. Speaking of that though, the notion that we needed to execute every OL from last year not named Britt is an absurdity thrown around from people who obviously don't know a lot about football. We had 3 starters last year who had ZERO experience. Those players should take a significant jump and that alone will help, but we also brought in 3 guys who could change the lineup.

Middle of the pack sounds about right with potential for better if we really do stick with the run this season.

TwistedHusky":3bwx2rpt said:

I am baffled that anyone is baffled.

Isn't this the very same offense that literally went multiple games without scoring a single TD?

The purpose of the offense is to score, and the measure of the value of the offense is often predicated on the ability to score TDs. We are no more than average in our ability to score TDs, so I am not sure what the complaint would be in listing it 16th.

If anything, that # is extremely generous.

Click to expand...

O line should be improved and a healthy Wilson/Rawls/Prosise should make a dramatic difference. Also, Lacy instead of C.Michael.

Hawks should once again be at least a top 10 offense.

Also a little confused at the Dolphins being #3...

I'm with TwistedHusky. I'm baffled that anyone is baffled.

The offense was painfully inept for much of 2016. Go back and watch last season's games again, at your own risk.

Wishes, new season optimism, hopes, and expectations ... don't add up to jack squat. This front office owes us a competent offense after subjecting us to 2016.

That being said, I see potential for a top-10 unit, maybe even top-5 if all goes well. An NFL caliber O line and a running game will go a long way. A Wilson who isn't abused, chased, crushed, skittish, and off-target will help greatly as well.

But #16 seems right, for now. They have much to prove, but the pieces are there.

TwistedHusky":qzecofig said:

I am baffled that anyone is baffled.

Isn't this the very same offense that literally went multiple games without scoring a single TD?

The purpose of the offense is to score, and the measure of the value of the offense is often predicated on the ability to score TDs. We are no more than average in our ability to score TDs, so I am not sure what the complaint would be in listing it 16th.

If anything, that # is extremely generous.

Click to expand...

Will the O-line better this year?

Why would it be any better than last year?

And with a bad O-line the run is mediocre.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see, but don't expect much different from the Offense this year.

I agree with several here. Why are people shocked by this prediction/assessment? It's based largely on last year's performance where we were tied for 18th in points. Have folks already forgotten the 1st Ram game, the TB game and other games where we couldn't do anything until late in the 3rd offensively?

For our offense to have a chance at top 10 scoring, the OL has to take a collective big step, Lacy/Rawls have to produce consistently and stay healthy and Russell has to be as nimble and quick to elude sacks as he was 3 years ago. These are all legitimate questions or challenges so the ranking seems in the ballpark. Now it's up to the O to prove ESPN and others wrong.

vin.couve12":2mvm7355 said:

TwistedHusky":2mvm7355 said:

I am baffled that anyone is baffled.

Isn't this the very same offense that literally went multiple games without scoring a single TD?

The purpose of the offense is to score, and the measure of the value of the offense is often predicated on the ability to score TDs. We are no more than average in our ability to score TDs, so I am not sure what the complaint would be in listing it 16th.

If anything, that # is extremely generous.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't know that it's generous. Supposedly we're going back to a balanced offense. That in and of itself counts for a lot even if the OL were to stay as bad as it were last year. Speaking of that though, the notion that we needed to execute every OL from last year not named Britt is an absurdity thrown around from people who obviously don't know a lot about football. We had 3 starters last year who had ZERO experience. Those players should take a significant jump and that alone will help, but we also brought in 3 guys who could change the lineup.

Middle of the pack sounds about right with potential for better if we really do stick with the run this season.

Click to expand...

So we have three guys that had zero experience and now were going to shuffle them to new positions that they have zero experience starting in the NFL at and adding others that have not played in the offense here to compete. How is that going to benefit us going into the start if the season ? Seems like another recipe for Russell to .

[youtube]86URGgqONvA[/youtube]

FlyingGreg":1effrx2v said:

The offense was painfully inept for much of 2016. Go back and watch last season's games again, at your own risk.

Click to expand...

I think you've officially crossed into the territory of making it sound worse than it was. The way you write that makes it sound like 2008's offense. We were beating playoff-caliber teams as well last year.

I think the best phrase to describe our offense is "hot-and-cold".

MontanaHawk05":11cex7rz said:

FlyingGreg":11cex7rz said:

The offense was painfully inept for much of 2016. Go back and watch last season's games again, at your own risk.

Click to expand...

I think you've officially crossed into the territory of making it sound worse than it was. The way you write that makes it sound like 2008's offense. We were beating playoff-caliber teams as well last year.

I think the best phrase to describe our offense is "hot-and-cold".

Click to expand...

Maybe. But, I see it how I see it... it wasn't pretty. Hot and cold? I'd concede Warm and Freezing. Hot was the offense down the stretch in 2015.

Scoring 12 points (and getting a TD at the last second) at home against Miami. 3 points in Los Angeles. 6 points in Arizona. 13 in New Orleans against a terrible defense (we got 7 points from the Earl fumble return TD). 5 points in Tampa Bay. Basically, 3 points in Green Bay, the McEvoy TD was garbage time.

The common thread, obviously, was all except Miami was on the road. I get that.

But... that is a TOTAL of 42 points in 6 games. 7 ppg. Abysmal, no matter how we want to twist it.

This article ranks "offensive weapons", not the offense as a whole unit.

Make your own ranking it means the same as anyone else.

As long as we score 1 more point than our opponents in the vast majority of our games, especially down the stretch, it's a success. The rest is just for fantasy and Vegas purposes.