Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

O-line

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:10 pm
  • Yet another one of those threads.

    IMHO the O-line is continually getting better. Not by leaps and bounds but incrementally. Yes they have plenty of room to improve but they don't suck a s bad as they did our first two games. I hope to see some more steady improvement throughout the season. What say you all?

    BTW I am not sure why we did not employ more of what we did against Indy on offense (2nd half) with more designed roll outs with Russell. They seemed to work well but I know the Rams D is a different beast so there is that.
    User avatar
    Year of The Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1014
    Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:18 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:23 pm
  • They looked better than they did last year against that D front. I'll call it progress with a ways to go to "get there".
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:28 pm
  • The Seahawk offensive line played better today. The Rams have changed their defense a bit. It think it's hurting Aaron Donald. He's not the monster in this defense (3-4 formation) that he was in the 4-3.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6782
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:29 pm
  • I will admit that they looked better today. Hope its a continuing trend.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 345
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:30 pm
  • I would say they had a solid game. However, not consistent enough for the offense to get into a rhythm. Russell had a clean pocket in moments but an O-line needs to have more consistency to build offensive chemistry and rhythm
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 383
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:37 pm
  • It's weird, they played okay in pass pro (terrible in run blocking), and the worst pass pro came in our TD drive where Russ and Bevell got it done despite them.

    The level of run frustration against a bottom dwelling Ram run D is concerning, but since we got the win I'm looking on the bright side.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8227
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:54 pm
  • Ifedi and Joeckel making big strides. That's really good news. Interested to see PFF's take on it. But as it stands, it's looking like the OL is beginning to take shape for us.

    That was the Rams that we didn't get totally destroyed by. That was a big litmus test for this group and I think they really shined comparatively speaking.

    May have been a better game than the Colts game considering the level of competition. That's probably the best DL we face all year.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2074
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:03 pm
  • Against that front much better than expected. Biggest missed scheme block was Rawls before the half.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    User avatar
    DJ_CJ
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:48 pm
    Location: Cedar Rapids, IA


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:19 pm
  • I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2008
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:38 pm
  • Saw Ifedi blocking from behind the dine man again. Weird....at least he got his hands on him without running 10 yards or drawing a penalty.
    Shaq Griffin: 2017 Adopt a Rookie (injury substitution)
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3200
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:43 pm
  • Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16462
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:25 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.



    The trouble with looking towards the future is that, the future is now. We've been working with this line for the past 4 years with nothing to show for it.. and now, Fant is gone and will only be a hopeful for the future. We seem to work the CAP when we want something, Richards comes to mind, and really, I would rather have a Good LT that would solidify our OL.

    BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2008
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:40 pm
  • Joeckel looked good most of the game. Ditto Britt. Aboushi was abused by Donald a few times, but who isn't? He also moved to the second level way too soon a few times. That's correctable.

    Ifedi and Odihambo both had a number of "WTF were you thinking" moments. The Quinn sack of Wilson where Quinn was actually running 145 mph at the point he hit Russ stands out among them. Russ is lucky he didn't shit out some vital organs.
    User avatar
    nanomoz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5620
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:20 pm
    Location: UT


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:49 pm
  • Those two are still struggling but it doesn't look like lack of effort. There are just too many plays where they don't understand who it is they are supposed to block first.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3738
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:51 pm
  • Expected them to do alot worse against the rams front. They are improving, slowly but surely.
    Image
    User avatar
    RussB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2359
    Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:42 pm
    Location: Spokane, WA


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:51 pm
  • Line was good today.

    The backs were not.
    User avatar
    FlyingGreg
    * Master Chief *
     
    Posts: 9167
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: San Diego, CA


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:52 pm
  • Bobblehead wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.



    The trouble with looking towards the future is that, the future is now. We've been working with this line for the past 4 years with nothing to show for it.. and now, Fant is gone and will only be a hopeful for the future. We seem to work the CAP when we want something, Richards comes to mind, and really, I would rather have a Good LT that would solidify our OL.

    BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Good points all, but I don't think Whitworth was ever a real possibility for us. I'd rather have Sheldon Richardson and let our Oline grow together. Rees Odiahmbo is a very athletic left tackle, and while not All Pro, I think he will only get better.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy

    http://ivotuk.com/
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16462
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: O-line
Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:41 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.



    The trouble with looking towards the future is that, the future is now. We've been working with this line for the past 4 years with nothing to show for it.. and now, Fant is gone and will only be a hopeful for the future. We seem to work the CAP when we want something, Richards comes to mind, and really, I would rather have a Good LT that would solidify our OL.

    BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Good points all, but I don't think Whitworth was ever a real possibility for us. I'd rather have Sheldon Richardson and let our Oline grow together. Rees Odiahmbo is a very athletic left tackle, and while not All Pro, I think he will only get better.


    Sorry about the rant.. just frustrated in our futility.. but I do share your optimism.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2008
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:07 am
  • FlyingGreg wrote:Line was good today.

    The backs were not.



    to be clear..... you are blaming the backs for the free running pass rushers and also for the failure to open running lanes?
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3738
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:11 am
  • I thought they were better than the typical garbage they have been showing against the Rams recently. The overall result still was not good though. This run game is on life support.
    User avatar
    Missing_Clink
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3241
    Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:30 am
  • brimsalabim wrote:
    FlyingGreg wrote:Line was good today.

    The backs were not.



    to be clear..... you are blaming the backs for the free running pass rushers and also for the failure to open running lanes?



    Watch the game again. There were cutback lanes open. Carson or even Prosise likely would have had multiple 15-20 yard gainers.

    Easy to lazily blame the line for every offensive ill. There is more to it.
    User avatar
    FlyingGreg
    * Master Chief *
     
    Posts: 9167
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: San Diego, CA


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:35 am
  • Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    It was actually a FA LT and Center. This allowed them to move some guys around that were playing out of position. I'm more dismayed that they shifted their OL so much and then came out looking so polished. We can never do that.

    Oh, and ask the Panthers how being weak at Tackle can affect them. In that Superbowl loss to the Broncs, they had a very good interior OL but were below average at both Tackle positions. Denver abused them for it.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7458
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:42 am
  • Bobblehead wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.



    The trouble with looking towards the future is that, the future is now. We've been working with this line for the past 4 years with nothing to show for it.. and now, Fant is gone and will only be a hopeful for the future. We seem to work the CAP when we want something, Richards comes to mind, and really, I would rather have a Good LT that would solidify our OL.

    BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.

    They also got a new center on many teams the center sets the Offensive line. Also the team had faith in Fant and also did not have the cap space for Whitworth. Finally injuries are injuries any player a team is counting on can get a season ending injury. Seea JJ Watt it happens.
    tersal
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 31
    Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:30 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:11 am
  • tersal wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:I just don't understand, Can a LT really have the impact to make a poor OL, that good all by himself?

    Rams had a very crappy OL, but today, they looked very good... and just because they got a FA LT.

    Why wouldn't the Hawks do everything they could to secure a workable LT? Just amazing they think a work around is ok.


    They had a decent o line. They got a high price veteran that we couldn't afford. It's not that easy.

    "Why can't we do what that other team is doing?" Is never a good philosophy.

    We were looking to the future with the chance of Fant becoming an excellent YOUNG Left Tackle. Which is much better than signing an older, expensive free agent

    This team has had so much success because their philosophy is to build from within, and stay young.

    Whereas Tim Ruskell signed every high priced free agent he could.



    The trouble with looking towards the future is that, the future is now. We've been working with this line for the past 4 years with nothing to show for it.. and now, Fant is gone and will only be a hopeful for the future. We seem to work the CAP when we want something, Richards comes to mind, and really, I would rather have a Good LT that would solidify our OL.

    BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.

    They also got a new center on many teams the center sets the Offensive line. Also the team had faith in Fant and also did not have the cap space for Whitworth. Finally injuries are injuries any player a team is counting on can get a season ending injury. Seea JJ Watt it happens.


    We have a workable center.
    The team has faith in their OL every new year, which doesn't mean crap if it never works out. Of course they had faith in Fant, he's all they had and are you not going to have faith in him? How can you expect Fant to perform if the team comes out and says they have no faith in him.

    Let me ask you this, for all the glory, the expensive, one year rental player has done for our D, would you not rather have a one year aging all pro LT that can keep your offense on the field with a running game and add to the precious time that Wilson can garner because of it? Wouldn't you rather see us sustain Drives through out the game, that doesn't end in .. nothing?

    Lets face it, we won.. but really, the Rams lost it with some stupid bone head plays expected of a young first year team(coaching wise). The Seahawks have been contenders for the past 5 years and everygame is a "which Seahawk team will play today" game. We should be destroying teams, yet every game, every game is a "can the d hold on" affair. Our Defense is good enough to hold on with out SHeldon, our Offense is not good enough to drive the field on a flat tire
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2008
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:58 am
  • nanomoz wrote:
    Ifedi and Odihambo both had a number of "WTF were you thinking" moments. The Quinn sack of Wilson where Quinn was actually running 145 mph at the point he hit Russ stands out among them. Russ is lucky he didn't shit out some vital organs.


    :lol: :lol:

    Thank you for this - almost spat my delicious cup of tea I was drinking out onto the screen [yes I'm a Brit].

    That hit was utterly brutal, Still amazed Russ got up unscathed, the involved players seemed not to move for a few secs after the hit on the ground which made me anxious for a few secs
    Followthelegion
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 191
    Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:56 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:01 am
  • I've been saying this every week, I think they have improved a little each week. To the eye, live, they looked like they may have taken a step back this week, but they were playing a more talented Defensive front this week.

    They definitely have a ways to go, but I see some improvement every week. Do I wish it was faster? Yeah, no doubt, but improvement week in and week out is really all we can expect realistically.
    Image

    “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 22049
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:38 am
  • Bobblehead wrote:BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Who do you want gone so that we can sign said LT?

    Because you do have to get rid of someone, and I don't see anyone on this team who isn't playing vital roles right now. That includes Jimmy Graham, Kam Chancellor, and Sheldon Richardson.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16214
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:44 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Who do you want gone so that we can sign said LT?

    Because you do have to get rid of someone, and I don't see anyone on this team who isn't playing vital roles right now. That includes Jimmy Graham, Kam Chancellor, and Sheldon Richardson.


    Many ways to make that happen. Joeckel and Lane would get us the $11M for Whitworth. Do that and draft an actual Starting guard.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:31 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Who do you want gone so that we can sign said LT?

    Because you do have to get rid of someone, and I don't see anyone on this team who isn't playing vital roles right now. That includes Jimmy Graham, Kam Chancellor, and Sheldon Richardson.




    I will say, I used to be on the Jimmy Band wagon, but, if you don't use something, what good is it?
    Probably the wisdom is that teams target him defensively, but on the other hand, say we had someone under the radar, (Willson?) that teams don't target and I bet, we can get as much productivity out of him than we and how we utilize Graham.

    Kam.. Kam's been productive and has been instrumental to our D.

    Sheldon..he had that int, anything else? That's not fair, I"m sure what he brings is a lot of unseen intangibles to the line.
    However, I would say, before we had him, we all probably thought our D was good enough. As it is right now, our D has got to be good for a long time on the field, a long long time on the field. Now, would our Defense be more effective if they were on the field a lot less? Would our offense be more effective on the field a lot more? Yes to all, and not only that, by keeping our offense on the field, as we have witnessed in 14, 15, it just wares out the opponents defense. Do you remember those pics of opponents d all standing around, hunched over, exhausted? I do, why, cause our damn offense was on the field all the time, running them bastards into the ground setting up easy long passes, and long runs.

    So yes, get rid of who you want.. anyone not named Kam, Sherman, Thomas or Wagner.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2008
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:20 pm
  • Bobblehead wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:BTW a young Left Tackle, that cannot tackle or is injured is not better than an aging expensive FA, who happened to be all-pro.


    Who do you want gone so that we can sign said LT?

    Because you do have to get rid of someone, and I don't see anyone on this team who isn't playing vital roles right now. That includes Jimmy Graham, Kam Chancellor, and Sheldon Richardson.




    I will say, I used to be on the Jimmy Band wagon, but, if you don't use something, what good is it?
    Probably the wisdom is that teams target him defensively, but on the other hand, say we had someone under the radar, (Willson?) that teams don't target and I bet, we can get as much productivity out of him than we and how we utilize Graham.

    Kam.. Kam's been productive and has been instrumental to our D.

    Sheldon..he had that int, anything else? That's not fair, I"m sure what he brings is a lot of unseen intangibles to the line.
    However, I would say, before we had him, we all probably thought our D was good enough. As it is right now, our D has got to be good for a long time on the field, a long long time on the field. Now, would our Defense be more effective if they were on the field a lot less? Would our offense be more effective on the field a lot more? Yes to all, and not only that, by keeping our offense on the field, as we have witnessed in 14, 15, it just wares out the opponents defense. Do you remember those pics of opponents d all standing around, hunched over, exhausted? I do, why, cause our damn offense was on the field all the time, running them bastards into the ground setting up easy long passes, and long runs.

    So yes, get rid of who you want.. anyone not named Kam, Sherman, Thomas or Wagner.


    We're 3-2 with a hard road win over the Rams. We haven't fallen short of ten wins in a single season since Russ arrived. As irritated as I am by the product on the field, it isn't translating into unsuccessful seasons yet. There isn't enough evidence on the scoreboard to convince Pete and John to change their philosophy at all yet, much less to jettison Pro Bowl players for it.

    I think you're like a lot of other frustrated fans - intentionally seeking out weaknesses and low player valuations in an attempt to find something, ANYTHING, to trade for an offensive lineman. Problem is, if you're looking for something hard enough, you'll usually find it - whether it's there or not. There are numerous players on the defense (Clark, Wright, Richardson - our defense was NOT good on 3rd down without him last year, everyone was complaining about it and the lack of turnovers) that we'd be fools to get rid of right now, and cutting Graham only leaves us without enough tall targets. Motivating defenses to double Luke Willson isn't a good idea.

    There isn't a single move I've seen mentioned that doesn't bear some element of robbing Peter to pay Paul. TJ Lang would have been nice, but that money went to Richardson, and we don't win the Rams game without him.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16214
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:24 pm
  • Pete is about defense first. And it won us a Superbowl and for us to a second straight one. However, our offense is always gonna fall short due to paying everyone on the defensive side.

    The O line has slightly improved but we have no run game...again. The Rams were 31st against the run and we managed like 2.0ypc. No push, no holes.
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 565
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:08 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:44 pm
  • Seymour wrote:They looked better than they did last year against that D front. I'll call it progress with a ways to go to "get there".


    I agree that they looked better, but was it the same D front? Didn't Wade Phillips come in this year and install a 3-4 front? So, if I remember that correctly, it may be the same players, but playing in a different defensive scheme, and they may have fallen off in effectiveness due to having to learn to play together in a different scheme. I am just wondering here.

    Those players are good, and Wade Phillips is good, so we will have to watch this carefully going forward.
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1206
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:46 pm
  • hawkfan68 wrote:The Seahawk offensive line played better today. The Rams have changed their defense a bit. It think it's hurting Aaron Donald. He's not the monster in this defense (3-4 formation) that he was in the 4-3.


    I hope this teaches me to read the entire thread before responding to a post. I apologize.
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1206
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:17 pm
  • progress are seldom linear, at current pace, we may not see threads about OL in couple of months. If our tackles improves to league average, our whole line could be somewhat above average. The rest .... will be on Mr. Wilson.
    toffee
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 147
    Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:44 pm


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:44 pm
  • netskier wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:The Seahawk offensive line played better today. The Rams have changed their defense a bit. It think it's hurting Aaron Donald. He's not the monster in this defense (3-4 formation) that he was in the 4-3.


    I hope this teaches me to read the entire thread before responding to a post. I apologize.


    No need to apologize. No harm done. :2thumbs:
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6782
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: O-line
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:47 pm
  • nanomoz wrote:Joeckel looked good most of the game. Ditto Britt. Aboushi was abused by Donald a few times, but who isn't? He also moved to the second level way too soon a few times. That's correctable.

    Ifedi and Odihambo both had a number of "WTF were you thinking" moments. The Quinn sack of Wilson where Quinn was actually running 145 mph at the point he hit Russ stands out among them. Russ is lucky he didn't shit out some vital organs.

    After that play I felt like shouting "Oh-Lay" each time the ball was hiked. To encourage our Oline of course.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1463
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


Re: O-line
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:16 pm
  • Remember when we had posters lusting over the Cowboy's offensive line?
    And how that lusting went on and on and on?
    Today, I hear hardly a peep.

    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6915
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: O-line
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:57 pm
  • What is the point posting that? Has nothing to do with the Seahawks. Just because they were elite, doesn't mean it's automatic every year. Same could be said about our defense at times too.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:17 am
  • Gee Wiz, a lot of us remember the why can't we be more like Dallas posts. Its only been a couple weeks since the drum beat and lusting subsided and faded from offensive line topics. It's a humorous turn of events.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6915
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:10 am
  • Jville wrote:Gee Wiz, a lot of us remember the why can't we be more like Dallas posts. Its only been a couple weeks since the drum beat and lusting subsided and faded from offensive line topics. It's a humorous turn of events.


    Well I haven't seen much praise for them this year myself, but in reality I sure as hell would take that oline over ours. They protect the QB a hell of alot better for damn sure.

    Oline grades through week 5. Seattle is moving up in the world to #27 overall.

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-ranking-all-32-nfl-offensive-lines-by-average-grade-week-5

    14. Dallas Cowboys
    Average offensive lineman grade: 64.6

    Even though Dallas has been among the best offensive lines in recent years, they have yet to reach that level this season and it is largely due to the play of the new pieces on that line. Left guard Jonathan Cooper and right tackle La’el Collins currently rank 62nd and 56th, respectively, at their positions in PFF grades, respectively. Nevertheless, single games can heavily influence rankings this early in the season and the Cowboys offensive line had one of its worst games in recent memory against Denver in Week 2 when it allowed 23 total pressures – the most by any offensive line that week – on 55 passing plays and had the third-worst pass-blocking efficiency rating that week.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:29 am
  • Scorpion05 wrote:I would say they had a solid game. However, not consistent enough for the offense to get into a rhythm. Russell had a clean pocket in moments but an O-line needs to have more consistency to build offensive chemistry and rhythm

    This here is what is so frustrating about the heavy tendency to try for the big play on so many of the PA plays (at least when it's beyond the flat). Move the freakin chains and get more plays. That's really a weakness in my eyes of DVOA; it's a per-play efficiency when a per-possession would probably be more telling. Big plays are nice, but when you depend on them they come less reliably. That's how I look at consistency, because it's the reliability that matters.
    purpleneer
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 240
    Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:19 pm
    Location: The Green Lantern (almost)


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:08 pm
  • It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................





    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6915
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:43 pm
  • Jville wrote:It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................

    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    Whitworth gives up 1 sack to Clark and you are going to "dismiss" his obvious value to his team because of it? Damn, that is a reach of epic proportion there. Even Walter Jones gave up an average 2 sacks a season. Whitworth has given up 2 sacks this season (and zero holding penalties) and ZERO all of last season with a career average of 3.5 per season. :roll:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:30 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    Jville wrote:It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................

    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    Whitworth gives up 1 sack to Clark and you are going to "dismiss" his obvious value to his team because of it? Damn, that is a reach of epic proportion there. Even Walter Jones gave up an average 2 sacks a season. Whitworth has given up 2 sacks this season (and zero holding penalties) and ZERO all of last season with a career average of 3.5 per season. :roll:


    So you agree that even the best get beat from time to time and that NFL offensive lineman can be made to look silly with selective video clips. :lol: That is the point.





    It's a process and I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6915
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: O-line
Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:09 pm
  • Jville wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Jville wrote:It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................

    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    Whitworth gives up 1 sack to Clark and you are going to "dismiss" his obvious value to his team because of it? Damn, that is a reach of epic proportion there. Even Walter Jones gave up an average 2 sacks a season. Whitworth has given up 2 sacks this season (and zero holding penalties) and ZERO all of last season with a career average of 3.5 per season. :roll:


    So you agree that even the best get beat from time to time and that NFL offensive lineman can be made to look silly with selective video clips. :lol: That is the point.

    It's a process and I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    If that was the point then somehow I missed that it was intentional.

    Yes, of course I agree that one small snapshot (pic or video) does not stand on it's own without other data to back it up.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3219
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: O-line
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:05 am
  • Jville wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Jville wrote:It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................

    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    Whitworth gives up 1 sack to Clark and you are going to "dismiss" his obvious value to his team because of it? Damn, that is a reach of epic proportion there. Even Walter Jones gave up an average 2 sacks a season. Whitworth has given up 2 sacks this season (and zero holding penalties) and ZERO all of last season with a career average of 3.5 per season. :roll:


    So you agree that even the best get beat from time to time and that NFL offensive lineman can be made to look silly with selective video clips. :lol: That is the point.





    It's a process and I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    I second that. They are showing weekly improvement, and I expect to see continued improvement as a unit as they gain experience playing together and in the system. The younger less experienced guys are also likely to improve their technique with more reps.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 27
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:45 am
    Location: Idaho


Re: O-line
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:28 am
  • Jville wrote:It wasn't that many weeks ago when Andrew Whitworth was declared by some as "the" answer for left tackle. And yet even brand named players are beaten and made to look silly at times ......................





    I'm ok with pressing on with developing what we have.


    Are you seriously comparing Whitworth with our line? He is the answer and I would be attempting backflips if he was a part of this team. You're right every player can look bad at times on film and get beat but its a huge stretch to say that applies to our line.

    I have zero confidence in our line and they've been absolutely terrible for years now. I'll hold out hope that they improve but not optimistic. I'll be rooting they prove me wrong.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6380
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: O-line
Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:00 pm
  • Andrew Whitworth has started 169 games but is in the twilight of his career at 35 years old and @ $9,166,666

    Rees Odhiambo has started only 5 games and is in the beginning of his career at 10 years younger @ $714,355

    So no ........ of course they are not comparable. And, no one has made such a claim.

    The new Rams staff needed to outbid others to fill their patch work needs.

    The Seahawk staff continues to churn it's roster.

    Seattle has another 11 games for their young offense to grow and develop one day at a time.

    I feel good about that. :2thumbs:
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6915
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


Re: O-line
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:22 pm
  • Jville wrote:Andrew Whitworth has started 169 games but is in the twilight of his career at 35 years old and @ $9,166,666

    Rees Odhiambo has started only 5 games and is in the beginning of his career at 10 years younger @ $714,355

    So no ........ of course they are not comparable. And, no one has made such a claim.

    The new Rams staff needed to outbid others to fill their patch work needs.

    The Seahawk staff continues to churn it's roster.

    Seattle has another 11 games for their young offense to grow and develop one day at a time.

    I feel good about that. :2thumbs:


    Then we start all over again next year .
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22463
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: O-line
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:42 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Jville wrote:Andrew Whitworth has started 169 games but is in the twilight of his career at 35 years old and @ $9,166,666

    Rees Odhiambo has started only 5 games and is in the beginning of his career at 10 years younger @ $714,355

    So no ........ of course they are not comparable. And, no one has made such a claim.

    The new Rams staff needed to outbid others to fill their patch work needs.

    The Seahawk staff continues to churn it's roster.

    Seattle has another 11 games for their young offense to grow and develop one day at a time.

    I feel good about that. :2thumbs:


    Then we start all over again next year .


    Yeah that was not the plan week one of the season 4/5th of the starting Oline was on the team last season the line was always supposed to be filled with drafted talent. The team has failed at developing and keeping that talent.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1597
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


Next


It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:43 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information