SB Nation User Blog: srainier

Ruskell Talks about the Future of Seattle's Offensive Tackles

srainier — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:22:11 -0000

"That was a plan when we paid Sean and said that that was in the back of our heads in terms of when Walter's done, Sean would move over," Ruskell said. [...] "So that's still the plan. That's still the plan that when Walter is done, Sean moves over there and that's the reason we signed him to a long-term deal and it's the reason we signed Ray Willis."

Everything said in the week before the draft has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it's fair to say this is what Ruskell is actually thinking. I'm no John Morgan, but I liked what I saw from Willis early in the 2008 season, and Locklear seems capable enough at LT. So this rules out Monroe at #4.

This draft really can't come soon enough....

Larry Fitzgerald Ran a 4.63 40

srainier — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:32:05 -0000

I don't know if Michael Crabtree (if he's available at #4) is the right choice for the Seahawks. There may be better values at less-risky positions. But one thing I do know is that a less-than-elite 40-time is not a reason to pass on him with the fourth pick.

This post was prompted from listening to Rob Rang on with John Clayton this past Saturday. You can listen to it here. John Clayton repeatedly said Crabtree would be hurt by his 40 time, which he and Rang agreed would likely be in the high 4.4s, if not low 4.5s. Really? Is running a 4.49 a reason to pass on a guy who an absolute stud in every other area, a gamer that can make a play when the game (season) is on the line, and a two-time Biletnikoff award-winner? Really?

Like most of us, I've spent the last three weeks (never mind the last five seasons) watching Larry Fitzgerald absolutely dominate opposing defensive backs. It's getting beyond ridiculous, where all Kurt Warner has to do is huck it and Fitzgerald will come down with it. His three touchdowns today really took it over the top for me. What a weapon to have. If you have the opportunity to get a talent like that, don't you have to take it?

Fitzgerald and Crabtree are quite similar. Fitzgerald is currently 6'3", 220 lbs, played two years in college and caught 161 passes for 2,667 yards and 34 touchdowns. Crabtree is 6'3", 214 lbs, played two years in colleges and caught 231 passes for 3,127 yards and 41 touchdowns. Crabtree is projected to run a 'non-ideal' high-4.4 or low-4.5 time. Fitzgerald ran an even-worse 4.63 at the combine.

Again, I don't know if Crabtree is the right pick. But if the lesson from last year's post season was that you create a pass rush to win, isn't this year's that an elite, Fitzgerald-esque receiver will trump all? It's not like the Cardinals have faced off against weak pass rushers. John Abraham, Julius Peppers, and a Jim Johnson-led Eagles defense are tough opponents for any team, nevermind Arizona's marginal offensive line. Yet they've been able to overcome all of them.

And since I mentioned last year's copycat-league lesson, it's funny how quickly everybody forgets that the story up until the Super Bowl was how dangerous of a weapon Randy Moss was. Had Eli Manning not escaped the Patriots clutches on that final, game-winning drive, last year's lesson could easily have been 'get a dominant wide receiver.' Oh, and who did throw the game-winning touchdown to? Of course it was to, who was quite the dominant receiver before he got shot at Chili's shot himself in the leg. Burress is 6'5", and just for the hell of it I decided to look up his 40 time. Guess what: 4.6 even.

Ok, I take it all back. Draft Crabtree already.

Why the Seahawks Absolutely Shouldn't Trade for Anquan Boldin

srainier — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:25:30 -0000

Or Joe Horn, or any other veteran receiver. Before I get started, I should qualify that statement by saying that if Anquan Boldin could be swapped onto the Seahawks roster in place of one of the younger receivers (probably Logan Payne or Ben Obomanu) they would be a better team with a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than they do now.

That's a pretty strong statement there. Isn't the NFL a win now league, with no guarantees for next year, where you go for it all when you have the opportunity to? Sure... if your organization is poorly run.

Much more after the jump...

Perhaps I've been spoiled with the success of the Seahawks in recent years. Perhaps. But history will have to prove me wrong on that one, because I believe the Seahawks are by a man, Tim Ruskell, who has set a principles for how to build a winning team for the present while keeping an eye towards success in the future. Such principles include:

Build through the draft.
Keep your own players.
Make full use of younger, cheaper players to allow you to keep your own players
And, of course, build the team with high character, high motor individuals.

There are a number of other organizations that use essentially the same principles. New England regularly lets big name free agents go, from LawyerMilloy to Asante Samuel. The Pittsburgh Steelers let Joey Porter go, which allowed James Harrison to step up. The Colts let Edgerin James go and were better off for it. It's not just that these teams were able to replace these players, it's that they saved money in doing it and allowed them to build a stronger overall team.

The Seahawks, of course, need only look back on the Deion Branch trade from two years ago for some insight into how to approach such a situation. If anything, the Deion Branch trade emphasises that nothing in the NFL is guaranteed, that there is always some inherent risk that a trade won't work out.

The consequences of that trade are twofold - the money allocated for Deion Branch's (6 year, $39 million) contract, and the first round draft pick the Seahawks traded. I don't know how the Seahawks structured Branch's contract, but it's safe to say that the money he got in 2006 didn't prevent them from signing any additional players. So, the true consequences of theDeion Branch trade were, are, and will be experienced in the years after.

Such consequences are typically thought of only in the abstract, but I'll give a very concrete example: John Carlson. Or, more accurately, the need for a Tight End that is being filled this year, MikeHolmgren's last year, with rookie tight end John Carlson. This isn't a new need by any means. By all means the Seahawks utterly failed to find a competent tight end after letting Jeremy Stevens go, and thus the Seahawks were stuck in Green Bay watching balls go through Marcus Pollards hands.

What if the Seahawks hadn't traded their first round pick and were able to use it for a tight end. Check out the 2007 nfl draft. Greg Olson and Zach Miller would both have been available. Or, the Seahawks could have taken Ben Grubbs and used their Mansfield Wrotto pick on someone like Kevin Boss. Or, the Seahawks could have targetted a safety like Brandon Meriweather (though his character issues may have kept him off Ruskell's list) and we wouldn't have to deal with Brian Russell play. Of course, these are all hypotheticals, and draft picks are probably less of a sure thing than free agents (or trades). But the point is that a trade like the one forDeion Branch are not done in a vacuum. They have very real consequences, like Holmgren taking his last shot at a second Super Bowl title with a rookie tight end.

It's also worth pointing out that the Branch trade wasn't made out of immediate need. The Seahawks had two solid receivers, Jackson and Engram, a promising young prospect, Hackett, and a free agent pick-up, Burleson, that provided depth as a fourth receiver. Without foresight of Engram's kidney problem and Burleson's busted thumb, that's good enough. Branch was traded for because Ruskell's relationship with Darrell Jackson had broken down and after a second offseason of dealing with his BS he knew he was going to need to replace him after the season. Branch was traded for because he was probably going to be better than any free agent wide receiver. Access to Branch was what theSeahawks gave up the first round pick. The salary is roughly negligible because that same money would have gone towards a wide receiver starting in 2007 anyway.

The Seahawks current situation, with regards to the future, is the exact opposite. While Bobby Engram will have to be replaced within a few years, TheSeahawks have a group of young receivers that they believe will produce their receivers of the future. Again, there's no guarantee, but good organizations develop their young talent into impact players.

So, let's say the Seahawks trade for Anquan Boldin. That trade would be undertaken with the understanding that Boldin would want a new contract, probably larger than Deion Branch's. Meanwhile, Leroy Hill is set to be a free agent after this season. Taylor/Kent/Payne/Obomanu might not be ready this year, but there's a darn good chance that (at least) one of them blossoms this season and challenges for a starting job next season. While the choice for this year may be betweenBoldin and Taylor, the choice for years to come will be between Boldin and, say, Lance Laury vs. Hill and Taylor. Not such an easy choice anymore, is it? I don't think it's possible to keep Hill if Boldin is acquired, and if they try they'll have to cut money from some other place, like Julian Peterson. What's the point of keeping Hill if you lose Peterson now? Why not keep the trio together for another couple of years, and when Peterson starts to decline and cutting him would have negligible cap impact, replace him with a younger, cheaper linebacker, which then allows you to give someone like Kelly Jennings or Lawrence Jackson a (potentially) deserved large second contract. And such the cycle of player development goes.

The Seahawks have what they need in wide receiver right now. Yes, it's going to hurt going the first few weeks without Engram and Branch, but that won't be something that keeps theSeahawks out of the playoffs (maybe it keeps them from earning a first round bye), and if Boldin is the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs then trading for Boldin shouldn't even be considered. This is the kind of trade you make, if you're at the level that the Seahawks are, to win the Super Bowl - not to just make the playoffs.

Two seasons from now, when the Seahawks are making another run at the Super Bowl, I would hope they learned their lesson about jumping at wants that violate core principles. I don't want to start the 2010 season thinking, "TheSeahawks would be solid if they just had an impact outside linebacker. Ooh, so-and-so is available from this team. Let's trade a first round pick for the rights to give him a big contract!" We already have that guy. His name is Leroy Hill, and the only way we'll be able to sign him is by saving money by developing 5th- and 6th-round picks into starting wide receivers.

Immediate Thoughts - Chicago Bears

srainier — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:44:46 -0000

The only way for me to see this game was through the NFL Network replay, except that Charter (sucks) doesn't give me the NFL Network. Fortunately for me there's a sports bar-ish restaurant nearby that opens at 7:30 am, which allowed me to see all but the first 30 minutes of the game. And it was totally worth it. Not that the game was that good, but for preseasons standards, it was pretty entertaining.

Story number one has got to be Justin Forsett. There's no way this guy can be kept off the 53-man roster. The dude just produces. 136 yards rushing, including one touchdown, seven runs of 10 yards or more, and a long run of 40 yards... and he only played one half at running back. He had 117 total return yards, including a 40 yard punt return and kick-off returns of 33 and 37. I don't care that he wasn't going against the Bears' starters. Nine yards/carry is a ridiculous amount. Overall, Justin Forsett accounted for 40% of all team offense and special teams yards. Give this man a roster spot!!! Unless Forsett shows otherwise, he'll probably make the team as a special teams returner, which is needed with Burleson giving up duties while being the number one receiver.

Story 1a is the atrocious punt-team play (minus Forsett, of course). Two punts were blocked, one of which resulted in a safety while the other gave the Bears a chance to win with a late field goal, and a third punt was returned 75 yards for a touchdown. That's horrible. I know the Seahawks coaches use the preseason for experimentation with player pairings on special teams. Alright, so don't use the combinations from this game ever again.

Other notes:

Kyle Orton has got to be leader for the Bears QB job. The stats between him and Grossman weren't that different (except for the vicious hit-induced interception), but there was a very telling shot of the two after they were both done for the day, with Orton laughing, chatting it up with teammates, and Grossman walking along the sidelines, alone, with slightly dejected look on his face.

The first team defense appeared to redeemed itself, giving up only three points in the first half, coming during a bend-but-don't-break effort in the final two minutes. After their poor showing in Minnesota, this was a confidence-inspiring showing.

Charlie Frye has a long way to go. He had some good moments, especially in the two scoring drives following his interception and the punt return for touchdown. It looked like the game was getting away from the Seahawks after the punt return, but Frye took command and brought Seattle back. Unfortunately for him, his 209 passing yards are overshadowed by the three interceptions, including the horrible decision to chuck the ball while being pursued in the endzone, which led to the easiest pick-six a cornerback will ever have. He played better than David Greene did in preseason week two last year, but that is only good enough to not get cut. This performance means Seneca Wallace won't be getting any reps at wide receiver anytime soon.

Jordan Kent had a couple of nice catches on intermediate routes, but really blew a chance to make a statement by missing two deep balls in the endzone. One was in tight coverage, but the other went right through his arms. NFL receivers are expected to make those catches. Kent's special value will come from his ability to stretch the defense deep (plus his ability to get above defenders from his height and vertical leap), but that only works if you catch the ball. Looks like he's not quite ready, but he could be soon.

Seattle doesn't have much of a second string offensive line. Frye was under constant pressure, especially from that one Bear with crazy long hair. I'm doubling down on my concern of offensive line depth.

Darryl Tapp was Kelly Herndon-esque with his inability to bring down the quarterback after a botched snap (and poor protection) gave him a would-have-been gimmie sack. To be fair, he also dished out the brutal hit on Grossman that led to an interception, but given that he's fighting for a starting job with Lawrence Jackson he can't afford misses like that. Meanwhile Jackson has been consistently good, and I'm getting the feeling Jackson will win the starting job, if not immediately then within a few games of the start of the season.

John Carlson had some nice catches, but he also had two false starts. It's all part of the learning process.

Charlie Frye seemed to favor Jordan Kent while he was playing. Perhaps this comes from both playing with the third/scout team last year?

I missed most of Julius Jones' carries, but his stats looked nice. Mo Morris looked explosive, but his stats don't show that at all. Not sure why.

At one point near the end of the game, Seattle had converted only 3-15 third downs. That would be worrisome, except that Frye was at the helm for that. On the flip side, it was good to see the Seahawks pound the ball into the endzone with three straight runs.

Kevin Hobbs had a beautiful interception. If he wasn't already off the bubble, he should be now. Josh Wilson looked active too.

Coutu was 5/5 on field goals, including the non-chip-shot game winner from 36 yards.

Time to go read the reactions from others. Next stop: Monday night in San Diego.

Love the Draft

srainier — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:46:06 -0000

For me, the draft is effectively the start of the 'football year'.

What's the football year? Basically, the football year is the 12 month period bookended by the Super Bowl. Each year, once the Super Bowl champion is crowned, I'm usually ready for a break from football - 17 regular season weeks plus 5 post-season weeks are enough to drain my football spirit. Free agency will pique my interest some, but lets be real: all too often, free agent signings are money down the drain. Free agents are getting paid for past performance (albeit good) in a different system. Free agents already have learned habits, have been tuned to function for another coach's requirements.

Nobody wants to remodel another's house. We all want to start with an empty lot and build exactly what we want.

That's what makes the draft great. The draft is about combing through hundreds of college players to find just what you need. The draft is used to build the core of your team, brings in youth which, if all goes as planned, can contribute for a decade or more (or, at least the first rounds picks will). The draft is the moment of truth for a team's GM and scouting department.

And I love having Tim Ruskell as the 'Hawks GM.

I was happy to be surprised by the Lawrence Jackson pick. I'll place trust in the John Carlson pick, that he was the best fit for their needs among the top tier tight ends. Red Bryant appears to be Brandon Mebane v2.0 (potentially with a touch of Tatupu's leadership). How do you not love Owen Schmidt? We got the best long snapper available, who didn't botch a single snap in college, can block, and can tackle.

I know we didn't get any offensive linemen, specifically tackles. Well, they all went early . Who could they have got in the fourth round or later that would be more adequate than Pork Chop? Is it worth next year's number one and one of this year's late round picks to get Sam Baker? No. Grab a tackle next year.

As for this year, I love the 'Hawks on paper.

I've heard nothing but positive comments on new O-line coach Solari. I'm hoping that translates into progress for Spencer and Sims (assuming he's the starting RG). The offense should be able to run first, get the tough yards with Duckett following Schmidt, and supplement with a possession receiving game appropriate for Holmgren's swan song.

Our defense looks equally great. A first round end and a run-stuffing tackle are the perfect medicine for the D-line. The linebackers, even with an aging Peterson, are beyond solid. Trufant will keep the left side locked down, Jennings will complement, and the safeties will provide the risk management.

And so begins the journey towards the Super Bowl.

I love the honeymoon period.