Wilson will be undersiege again Seahawks could lose J.R.

John63 · Mar 12, 2019

Seahawks could lose J.R. Sweezy/D.J. Fluker

https://247sports.com/nfl/seattle-s...082tPqRgh7Ka-LZRIpvkRml89ttjcvFYG7dYjYjzvCqYw

2_0_6 · Mar 12, 2019

All their eggs are now in the Simmons/Pocic basket. Yikes.

DJrmb · Mar 12, 2019

I still like Jordan Roos personally. I've also seen the idea floated of playing Fant or Jamarco Jones at RT and moving Ifedi inside again. They've got a few options.

Seahawks4life · Mar 12, 2019

JR Sweezy just signed 2 year deal with Cardinals

https://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2...-sign-j-r-sweezy-to-two-year-deal-per-reports

Seymour · Mar 12, 2019

I have some bad news for everyone. He already would have been WITH Sweezy. Last year we were #30 in pass protection.

ukeface:

This is why we HAD TO run the ball. Without a run game pass protection was even worse than bottom 2.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

MontanaHawk05 · Mar 12, 2019

Adjusted sack rate is not = OL quality, especially when your QB is Russell Wilson.

Sweezy was fine. We just felt we could get the same level from Jordan Simmons for cheaper, and based on what we saw last year, I'm tempted to agree.

Seymour · Mar 12, 2019

MontanaHawk05":3qi1s40v said:
Adjusted sack rate is not = OL quality, especially when your QB is Russell Wilson.

Sweezy was fine. We just felt we could get the same level from Jordan Simmons for cheaper, and based on what we saw last year, I'm tempted to agree.

No but the topic is Wilson may be undersiege, and that IS what that chart shows for certain. Run blocking was much better though. And I agree the Sweezy was not the main culprit BTW.

WestcoastSteve · Mar 12, 2019

Sweezy is an okay lineman. He is better than Pocic but that's not saying much.

He is not great in pass pro and somewhat penalty prone.

He is a guy the Patriots would let go. I would not be surprised if hes a free agent next spring. Thats just how the nfl works. Poor teams give raises to mediocre players on contenders.

John63 · Mar 12, 2019

MontanaHawk05":3d3mambb said:
Adjusted sack rate is not = OL quality, especially when your QB is Russell Wilson.

Sweezy was fine. We just felt we could get the same level from Jordan Simmons for cheaper, and based on what we saw last year, I'm tempted to agree.

Despite your desire to insinuate the problem is Wilson it is not, it is the system combined with the oline.

The system- longer routes, low risk both mean holding the ball longer.
Oline-they are just bad a pass blocking because HC does not value it.

All that said that is why having a QB of Wilson's ability is so important, a regular drop back passer would be really bad in this system, as would 95% of the current QBs. I think sometimes people forget how much of our warts Wilson hides. We run so much because the threat of the run slows the pass rush which is the only reason we can pass block at all.

AROS · Mar 12, 2019

Sweezy was nothing special if you remove him from the Seahawks and just look at him from a physical perspective. However, he was a good fit as a Seahawk. Reminds me of Chris Gray. I remember all the years many fans (myself included) wanted Chris off the team. Funny how perception didn't really have anything to do with reality. On a milder level I see Sweezy in the same light. One of those "ya don't know what ya got until it's gone" deals.

knownone · Mar 12, 2019

I wonder if Pete and John under estimated the market a bit. Not a major concern, but it would be pretty telling if two of their major priorities don’t resign.

KiwiHawk · Mar 12, 2019

Seymour":26fwpzes said:
I have some bad news for everyone. He already would have been WITH Sweezy. Last year we were #30 in pass protection. ukeface:

This is why we HAD TO run the ball. Without a run game pass protection was even worse than bottom 2.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

The stat being used doesn't consider Wilson's tendency to extend the play well past any reasonable pass blocking time that subsequently leads to a sack or throwaway. This is why it's not a valid stat to use.

There is another stat whose name I can't remember - something like pass blocking success - but it's a measure of how often an offensive lineman held his block for 2.5 seconds, which is the proper measurement for a successful pass block. That 2.5 seconds, plus the time to engage, plus the time for the DL to reach the QB post-block, is what gives the QB time to throw.

The average time to throw is around 2.7 seconds. Russell Wilson's average is 3 seconds, which is 3rd-highest in the NFL.

If the QB elects to hold the ball beyond his protection, then that's the QB's problem not an OL problem. You are using a QB stat to judge OL performance.

sutz · Mar 12, 2019

Well, at least we have the fact that Cable is not training his replacement in our favor. :mrgreen:

Spin Doctor · Mar 12, 2019

Very uncomfortable with this considering Pete, and Jon's track record with the offensive line. People are going to say "but Cable". Yes, we're aware of Cable, but ultimately they were complicit. We have let go of some established lineman and decided to go with our "projects". I don't trust our FO here one bit.

KiwiHawk · Mar 12, 2019

Spin Doctor":19ir38a7 said:
Very uncomfortable with this considering Pete, and Jon's track record with the offensive line. People are going to say "but Cable". Yes, we're aware of Cable, but ultimately they were complicit. We have let go of some established lineman and decided to go with our "projects". I don't trust our FO here one bit.

We can assume that where Cable had input on OL selections before, so Solari will have input on OL selections now.
We saw last year that Solari could make something out of an offensive line full of "Cable picks", so I am wiling to cut some slack to see what he can do with "Solari picks".

Sports Hernia · Mar 12, 2019

sutz":w6vspw0t said:
Well, at least we have the fact that Cable is not training his replacement in our favor. :mrgreen:

You are making a funny, but what you said is very much true IMHO. :2thumbs:

Seymour · Mar 12, 2019

KiwiHawk":2lra19h1 said:
Seymour":2lra19h1 said:

I have some bad news for everyone. He already would have been WITH Sweezy. Last year we were #30 in pass protection. ukeface:

This is why we HAD TO run the ball. Without a run game pass protection was even worse than bottom 2.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Click to expand...

The stat being used doesn't consider Wilson's tendency to extend the play well past any reasonable pass blocking time that subsequently leads to a sack or throwaway. This is why it's not a valid stat to use.

There is another stat whose name I can't remember - something like pass blocking success - but it's a measure of how often an offensive lineman held his block for 2.5 seconds, which is the proper measurement for a successful pass block. That 2.5 seconds, plus the time to engage, plus the time for the DL to reach the QB post-block, is what gives the QB time to throw.

The average time to throw is around 2.7 seconds. Russell Wilson's average is 3 seconds, which is 3rd-highest in the NFL.

If the QB elects to hold the ball beyond his protection, then that's the QB's problem not an OL problem. You are using a QB stat to judge OL performance.

Disagree. Wilson is not the only QB on the planet to extend plays, so acting like he is is ridiculous. Go watch yourself some Mahomes highlights! :roll:

The QB may have to hold the ball if his OC calls long developing routes or has a lessor receiving corps that doesn't uncover well so it's not always 100% WIlson like you and others want to believe. :177692:

Besides, you don't "throw out" stats because of variance like that, you adjust for them.

hawkfan68 · Mar 12, 2019

JR Sweezy was solid last season but let's not panic here. He's not irreplaceable and the Seahawks have the master developer in Solari. I think Sweezy was better because he played under Solari. Solari can make magic out of below to average players. Look at Ifedi's improvement as an example.

jammerhawk · Mar 12, 2019

To me it depends upon what the contract was that Sweezy agreed to with the Cardinals. Him being an alternate for the Pro Bowl didn't argue well for renewing him. Time will tell but it's far too soon to be concerned about free agency before the market in fact is open.

Sometimes the best move into let players go that are priced out of the range the team wishes to pay.

I hope they can keep Fluker as he is more physical than JR.

John63 · Mar 12, 2019

KiwiHawk":192d1nza said:
Seymour":192d1nza said:

I have some bad news for everyone. He already would have been WITH Sweezy. Last year we were #30 in pass protection. ukeface:

This is why we HAD TO run the ball. Without a run game pass protection was even worse than bottom 2.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Click to expand...

The stat being used doesn't consider Wilson's tendency to extend the play well past any reasonable pass blocking time that subsequently leads to a sack or throwaway. This is why it's not a valid stat to use.

There is another stat whose name I can't remember - something like pass blocking success - but it's a measure of how often an offensive lineman held his block for 2.5 seconds, which is the proper measurement for a successful pass block. That 2.5 seconds, plus the time to engage, plus the time for the DL to reach the QB post-block, is what gives the QB time to throw.

The average time to throw is around 2.7 seconds. Russell Wilson's average is 3 seconds, which is 3rd-highest in the NFL.

If the QB elects to hold the ball beyond his protection, then that's the QB's problem not an OL problem. You are using a QB stat to judge OL performance.

And if the scheme and play design forces the ball to be held longer that is on the coaches. All that aside footballoutsiders had Wilson 2nd in pressured, hit, hurries and sacked in under 2 seconds, so the line was bad

Wilson will be undersiege again Seahawks could lose J.R.

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Administrator

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads