Did cable have complete control on picking the O line?

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

I did not read that and don't need to.

Per John Schnieder....."I would never sign a player that Tom was not good with".

Per Mike Holmgren..."Tom has very high latitude on selecting his players".

That is all we need to know, and the damage is already done....for years now.

The FG's article is accurate.

Cable had some major influence and input into who we drafted along the O-line, as do most O-line coaches btw.

IMO the downfall of our O-line was just as much Pete and John's fault, as it was Cables. They put too much trust in Cable to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.............trusting that their saving major money on the line to spend elsewhere cause Cable was going to work his magic on deficient or project lineman would work.

Sgt. Largent":1r6fsi0i said:

The FG's article is accurate.

Cable had some major influence and input into who we drafted along the O-line, as do most O-line coaches btw.

IMO the downfall of our O-line was just as much Pete and John's fault, as it was Cables. They put too much trust in Cable to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.............trusting that their saving major money on the line to spend elsewhere cause Cable was going to work his magic on deficient or project lineman would work.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Do you believe that Clint Hurtt has the major say in Dline selections then?

Seymour":9yiew7o8 said:

Sgt. Largent":9yiew7o8 said:

The FG's article is accurate.

Cable had some major influence and input into who we drafted along the O-line, as do most O-line coaches btw.

IMO the downfall of our O-line was just as much Pete and John's fault, as it was Cables. They put too much trust in Cable to make chicken salad out of chicken crap.............trusting that their saving major money on the line to spend elsewhere cause Cable was going to work his magic on deficient or project lineman would work.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Do you believe that Clint Hurtt has the major say in Dline selections then?

Click to expand...

It's apples and oranges to me.

I'd venture to guess next to the main coordinators, the next most valuable assistant is the O-line coach, therefore more involvement and input is needed because that's such a vital and important position group, that depends on a coach to install his schemes and technique.

Go check the paychecks of all the NFL assistants on every team, and I betcha the O-line coach makes more than the D-line coach. Why?

So no, while I do think Hurtt is involved in the vetting and scouting process of who we draft on the D-line, I don't think it's anywhere near the input of guys like Cable and Solari (and every other team's D and O-line coordinators).

LOL. Position coaches do not earn more $$ than coordinators. :roll:

This is likely why they got away giving him his powers. Sub title "Assistant head coach". Not because he was "an empowered Oline coach like all the rest".

Seymour":3vcoe17s said:

LOL. Position coaches do not earn more $$ than coordinators. :roll:

This is likely why they got away giving him his powers. Sub title "Assistant head coach". Not because he was "an empowered Oline coach like all the rest".

Click to expand...

Now you're arguing levels of influence.

All I said was other team's O-Line coaches also have major input into their O-line draft and personnel moves. Maybe Cable had more than most? Idk, but the failure wasn't ALL on him...........Pete and John were the ones who let let that failed chain of command go on too long.

Sgt. Largent":1569zepe said:

Seymour":1569zepe said:

LOL. Position coaches do not earn more $$ than coordinators. :roll:

This is likely why they got away giving him his powers. Sub title "Assistant head coach". Not because he was "an empowered Oline coach like all the rest".

Click to expand...

Now you're arguing levels of influence.

All I said was other team's O-Line coaches also have major input into their O-line draft and personnel moves. Maybe Cable had more than most? Idk, but the failure wasn't ALL on him...........Pete and John were the ones who let let that failed chain of command go on too long.

Click to expand...

Bingo!!
No argument on that one!
Damn right Pete and to a more minor extent John had their hands in this. But IMO it was more their "hands off" that put trust in Fable that enabled the situation to continue year after year. :evil:

Tom Cable was more than a position coach, he was almost assistant head coach, so yeah, he had a lot of influence, I believe.

Without a definitive statement from the Team Office, I doubt we will ever know how much influence Cable might have had.

Logically, I wouldn't think the GM or HC would draft players without some influence from coaches up and down the staff. That doesn't mean that an assistant would be able to dictate who gets drafted for them, but some level of cooperation/coordination would seem to be a good idea. Ultimately, though, the buck stops at the GM/HC duo. P&J seem to have worked well together in the past.

Shanegotyou11":2xr0ktnh said:

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

Click to expand...

I noticed that article but it struck me as an exercise in shaping a data set to support a predetermined assertion. The author assumes Cable had no input on the Seahawk linemen included in his presentation while assuming exclusive determination of Seahawk linemen not included in the tables. Although I've long suspect there were two semi-disjointed schools of thought making collective choices with regards to offensive linemen, the article is not persuasive in neatly proving that notion. I view the article as a faulty proof.

One sees far too much of this where a data set is massaged thru selective inclusion and exclusion of data to give the illusion of supporting a predetermined outcome. It's rampant in our society. Most of the author's articles are far better than this example.

Never-the-less thanks for posting. It does reminds us to examine and consider what we read.

Jville":32xpeyc9 said:

Shanegotyou11":32xpeyc9 said:

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

Click to expand...

I noticed that article but it struck me as an exercise in shaping a data set to support a predetermined assertion. The author assumes Cable had no input on the Seahawk linemen included in his presentation while assuming exclusive determination of Seahawk linemen not included in the tables. Although I've long suspect there were two semi-disjointed groups making collective choices with regards to offensive linemen, the article is not persuasive in neatly proving that notion. I view the article as a faulty proof.

One sees far too much of this where a data set is massaged thru selective inclusion and exclusion of data to give the illusion of supporting a predetermined outcome. It's rampant in our society. Most of the author's articles are far better than this example.

Never-the-less thanks for posting. It does reminds us to examine and consider what we read.

Click to expand...

Cable didn't have 0% total control over the O-line, and he didn't have 100% total control.

So what we're really discussing is level of influence.

Did he have more than most O-line coaches? Yep, I believe he did, but as all the Bevell parrots didn't want to admit, in the end this is Pete's team and Pete had/has the final say on any and all draft picks and personnel decisions.

No one outside of those war rooms during the draft will know just how much influence Cable had in who we drafted. My guess is Cable was heavily involved in the scouting and "type" of linemen he thought would work well in his ZBS system............then Pete, John and their scouting team narrowed those players down to which ones would and wouldn't be on their draft board. Then we picked.

I read that article as well and I thought it failed to address the length of time Cable was here and his degree of control over the O, OLine, and the running game. Certainly the final decision on any Olineman picked would have been made by Pn'J but each of those decisions went through the filter of Cable's approval.

In particular we only need to look at the additions of the FA players added last year, Joeckel was a total bust and so was the other OG. Joeckel was supposed to be a rising star OG but couldn't block his shadow, the other Aboushi guy was so weak at playing his position he couldn't beat out a rookie. When both were added Cable crowed about how lucky they were to have both players to bring stability to young OLine. Pn'J continuously bought into Cable's mumbo jumbo until it became obvious the trend was steadily working against them as far as weak OLine play. Cable simply repeatedly failed to meet any stated objectives. That fact got him fired some thing that should have happened 1-2 seasons earlier.

I suspect the talent the team has at present for the Oline will be better w/o Cable's meddling influence and it won't hurt that Bevell has gone so there can be a normal chain of command as far as the OLine and running game.

Sgt. Largent":1gzb2tks said:

Jville":1gzb2tks said:

Shanegotyou11":1gzb2tks said:

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

Click to expand...

I noticed that article but it struck me as an exercise in shaping a data set to support a predetermined assertion. The author assumes Cable had no input on the Seahawk linemen included in his presentation while assuming exclusive determination of Seahawk linemen not included in the tables. Although I've long suspect there were two semi-disjointed groups making collective choices with regards to offensive linemen, the article is not persuasive in neatly proving that notion. I view the article as a faulty proof.

One sees far too much of this where a data set is massaged thru selective inclusion and exclusion of data to give the illusion of supporting a predetermined outcome. It's rampant in our society. Most of the author's articles are far better than this example.

Never-the-less thanks for posting. It does reminds us to examine and consider what we read.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the confusion is, Cable didn't have 0% total control over the O-line, and he didn't have 100% total control.

Did he have more than most O-line coaches? Yep, I believe he did, but as all the Bevell parrots didn't want to admit, in the end this is Pete's team and Pete had/has the final say on any and all draft picks and personnel decisions.

So you're right, no one outside of those war rooms during the draft will know just how much influence Cable had in who we drafted. My guess is Cable was heavily involved in the scouting and "type" of linemen he thought would work well in his ZBS system............then Pete, John and their scouting team narrowed those players down to which ones would and wouldn't be on their draft board. Then we picked.

Click to expand...

Understood ..... over the years, the press conferences of John and Pete and Cable consistently maintained that the process was a collaborative effort. My comments were narrowly directed at the article's flawed proof of assertion.

Off the top of my head, I don't think the data necessarily supports the conclusion the author is drawing? The players with lower TEF scores comparable to Jamarco's were all later draft picks or cheap FA signings, with Rees being the highest as a 3rd round comp pick. I'd say those are less important draft picks/signings than guys like Carpenter, Ifedi, and Britt, who I recall were TEF monsters. My guess is that Cable had more influence on our higher picks, which changed with the Pocic pick, as Pocic didn't fit that explosive athlete mold Cable liked.

...asking a question that is irrelevant...

Several times our failed OLs ended up on other teams as competent. Most FA OLs that came here were worse. The players were turned into failures. That's coaching and system, not recruiting and drafting.

I do remember reading that Cable knew nothing of Pocic coming into last season so there's that.

Shanegotyou11":799e9emc said:

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

Click to expand...

This article assumes Cable had autonomy in drafting OLINE in OAK. Reggie McKenzie isn't nearly stupid enough to let Cable do that.

lukerguy":1jcw156o said:

Shanegotyou11":1jcw156o said:

Heres a article to discuss.


https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/5/1/173 ... ree-agency

Click to expand...

This article assumes Cable had autonomy in drafting OLINE in OAK. Reggie McKenzie isn't nearly stupid enough to let Cable do that.

Click to expand...

Stewing on this.. the article in it's tone suggests that even if Cable didn't have the main influence in drafting lineman, that somehow it's JS's fault..

Here's the thing, Duane Brown was a an all pro LT, and he started that way for the Hawks. He clearly diminished as he stayed in Seattle longer. So, even if JS picked all of the players (which he didn't), how would you know if previous picks were bad, because they weren't developed well?

The Breh":npxyew0v said:

I do remember reading that Cable knew nothing of Pocic coming into last season so there's that.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with him buying into drafting Pocic. Here is proof of that.

It might seem strange the Seahawks would select someone so high without meeting with the position coach but the Seahawks didn’t want to tip their hand.

“He was the one guy that, quite frankly, we were really sweating out,” Schneider told reporters Friday night. “We felt like we were drafting maybe two and a half players with one guy, so we debated whether to go up and get him or just sit and wait and sweat it out. I changed my shirt [laughing].

“We thought he was so versatile, we just wanted to be very careful with how much interest we showed.”

Click to expand...

https://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2...red-up-to-work-with-seahawks-coach-tom-cable/