Mebane and Sweezy, gone.

[HumanCockroach]

Actually the worst had to be Moffitt, which is actually kind of funny as he was one of the few lineman that wasn't as a whole lambasted as a reach or bad pick, buy either the fans or the "experts"... " exactly the type of lineman Seattle needs and wants" was the general consensus " excellent pick that will instantly upgrade Seattle's line" LOL... So much for the couch GMs and so called experts opinions...

[NorthHawk]

Actually the worst had to be Moffitt, which is actually kind of funny as he was one of the few lineman that wasn't as a whole lambasted as a reach or bad pick, buy either the fans or the "experts"... " exactly the type of lineman Seattle needs and wants" was the general consensus " excellent pick that will instantly upgrade Seattle's line" LOL... So much for the couch GMs and so called experts opinions...

And yet our FO that you are defending in their OL selections drafted him. It contradicts your message.
Moffit is, I believe a different case in that he had the tools, but got caught up in substance abuse and it ruined what might have been a solid but probably unspectacular career. I don't think he was a bad pick from an ability PoV.

[obiken]

As the Zen Master said: we'll see!

[HumanCockroach]

And yet our FO that you are defending in their OL selections drafted him. It contradicts your message.
Moffit is, I believe a different case in that he had the tools, but got caught up in substance abuse and it ruined what might have been a solid but probably unspectacular career. I don't think he was a bad pick from an ability PoV.

Well I guess I'm realistic enough to grasp that no FO is going to have a 100% success rate in players drafted. I know crazy.

Honestly it doesn't surprise me much that you seem to be defending the worst o-line pick in Schneiders and Carroll's tenure on the line, yet couldn't stand the others that played better, had more talent and tools, and continue too succeed in the NFL... Wouldn't fit in with the running complaints about them not caring or inability to evaluate properly the talent level. Makes sense.

I am not in the habit of expecting perfection, as its unattainable in any endeavor, they have "hit" far more often than not, I can accept that, can you? It would seem not. No worries.

[NorthHawk]

The fact is, since the Super Bowl many of us could see the OL in decline and it culminated in a disastrous start to last season. They admitted they made mistakes and Pete suggested there wasn't enough quality competition last year so now they are forced to address it in the draft instead of going after the best player available - the one thing they don't want to do.

We can hope the experience from last year will help get past the problems that will happen with 2 new players and at least 1 other playing a new position, but will know only in the fullness of time. If we start poorly again like last year, another year within our Championship Window will be lost.

[HumanCockroach]

The fact is, since the Super Bowl many of us could see the OL in decline and it culminated in a disastrous start to last season. They admitted they made mistakes and Pete suggested there wasn't enough quality competition last year so now they are forced to address it in the draft instead of going after the best player available - the one thing they don't want to do.

We can hope the experience from last year will help get past the problems that will happen with 2 new players and at least 1 other playing a new position, but will know only in the fullness of time. If we start poorly again like last year, another year within our Championship Window will be lost.

So, the same exact thing he says about every position, every year? He claimed the same last year, and the year before and the year before... I'll skip the discussion about absolutes in regards to "losing" a year based on not attaining HFA ( which is ridiculous), that said, yes we will only know in the fullness of time, have I ever claimed otherwise?

If you believe they will draft solely on need, you haven't been paying attention. Seattle draft principles are unique, and they do not draft solely on "need" or did you miss the whole Wilson, Micheal, Irvin etc choices? Of there is an "average" player of "need" sitting there at 28 and an explosive player sitting there, which do you think they'll take? I'm curious? Do you really think they will do a complete 180 from all of their previous draft history?

[obiken]

Actually if you look at the PC drafts they are way better than Holmy's except for the OL.

[HumanCockroach]

Actually if you look at the PC drafts they are way better than Holmy's except for the OL.

Even that admission isn't accurate. Not sure if it's nostalgia, revisionist history or just a bad memory, but Holmgren was worse by far drafting offensive lineman. In his years in Seattle he drafted one viable starting o- lineman ( Hutch) one injury prone viable backup ( pork chop) signed multiple lineman ( Tobeck, Gray) and drafted a couple below average lineman that struggled to stay in the league once he was gone ( Spencer and Locklear) Carroll and Schneider have not only "hit" on a higher percentage of offensive lineman through the draft, they have expended more capital it ( truth is Holmgren shouldn't unfairly be "saddled" with Locklear and Spencer as he was no longer the GM, which would actually being his "success" rate down to one actual starting caliber lineman in all of his drafts)...

Not only that, but Holmgren BIGGEST weakness was continual drafting based solely on need ( something people here continue to get upset with this FO for NOT doing... Thank God they don't, or there would be NO Sherman, Wilson, Chancellor, Lockett etc) you have all witnessed first hand what drafting based solely on need accomplishes ( a steady decline into irrelevance) but the claim Holmgren did a "better job drafting offensive lineman" ( or drafting period) is crazy. I recommend revisiting those draft choices with a clear head.

http://www.scout.com/nfl/seahawks/story ... -a-good-gm

[c_hawkbob]

So the guys you insisted all of last season got a "pass" ( the SB winning coaches) kept a player on the active roster( manning he was at least a viable NFL lineman) and then STATED him over their drafted hand picked player, excelled the last third of the season ( 17th rated tackle in the NFL in pass protection, number 1 tackle in the NFL in run blocking - Which would be HIGHER than Okung) but he isn't an NFL tackle?

There you go again, arguing against things not said (you do that a lot). I never said anything about anyone getting a pass, or whatever the rest of that incoherent mess was.

Don't take this wrong Bob, but is it really so crazy to trust the guys that have spent the last four years winnings opinion, higher than a couple of nervous couch GMs evaluation of a player they have never seen take a single snap at LT? I mean, Cable and Carroll have right? And evaluated him at least good enough to be given the chance to open training camp as the starter.

Again; never said anything about not trusting anyone, that's just the straw man you're building to argue against. I trust Pete implicitly to build and maintain a winning program, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of recognizing the areas he's had less success with thus far.

And it still remains to be seen whether Gilliam starts at LT this year. There's still a lot of offseason left.

[HumanCockroach]

e: Mebane and Sweezy, gone.
by c_hawkbob » Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:43 pm
Because he is not a starting caliber NFL LT. I'm sorry you don't agree but I just don't see what you see in him. He may yet one day be, but it ain't gonna be this year

Is this not you? Maybe someone hacked your account. If you need me to provide the link to the fire Bevell thread I can and you can refresh your memory on the "pass" reference. Just let me know.

[NorthHawk]

If you believe they will draft solely on need, you haven't been paying attention. Seattle draft principles are unique, and they do not draft solely on "need" or did you miss the whole Wilson, Micheal, Irvin etc choices?

They were in a box when they selected Britt as there was, I believe, only 1 other OL in the draft that could play Tackle who also met their athletic requirements (SPARQ is one) and neither was likely to be there with their next pick. That is drafting for need, and nothing more, so they do upon occasion do it.
Every team does at times, and we are no different, so get off this idea that they don't stray from their rankings or board when need is paramount.

[HumanCockroach]

Says you. Not them. Nothing leads me to believe that you have an accurate assessment of how or why they draft players, there are FAR more examples of picks drafted because of ability than need, and that isn't really debatable, but if you believe different, so be it. Luckily for Seattle fans "need" has never been a pre requisite to Seattle's drafts, otherwise over half the starters wouldn't be in Seattle, most notably Wilson and Sherman.

[HumanCockroach]

Wednesday Round-Up: Four Players NFL Draft Experts Are Projecting To The Seahawks In Round One
Wednesday, April 06, 2016 9:47 AM

Here's a look at the latest players draft analysts are predicting to see in Seahawks blue and green next season:

Mel Kiper, ESPN.com (Insider): CB Eli Apple, Ohio State
Analysis: I know the offensive line is a concern, but I don't think you can sacrifice talent for need here, especially when the reality is you're not being realistic if you think there's an immediate upgrade at left tackle to be found here. Apple has major upside as a physical cornerback with length. He'll fit right in.

Bucky Brooks, NFL.com: LB Noah Spence, Eastern Kentucky
Analysis: After losing Bruce Irvin in free agency, the Seahawks could use another designated pass rusher to play a key role in their sub-packages.

Pete Prisco, CBSSports.com: DT Jarran Reed, Alabama
Analysis: They lost Brandon Mebane, so they could use a good inside player. They say they like their offensive line, so let's believe them.

[NorthHawk]

Says you. Not them. Nothing leads me to believe that you have an accurate assessment of how or why they draft players, there are FAR more examples of picks drafted because of ability than need, and that isn't really debatable, but if you believe different, so be it. Luckily for Seattle fans "need" has never been a pre requisite to Seattle's drafts, otherwise over half the starters wouldn't be in Seattle, most notably Wilson and Sherman.

Of course there are, but to say it doesn't happen with our FO is wrong.

EVERY TEAM DRAFTS FOR NEED. There are no exceptions as the primary reason for the draft is an equitable distribution of talent based on what teams consider their needs.
If last year Winston or Mariota had fallen like Rodgers did and was available for us, would we have taken him and let him sit on the bench for 4 years?
The immediate need would override the talent, wouldn't it?

It's all part of setting the boards with balancing needs and talents - and as the players they have targeted are selected before their pick, the pressure becomes greater at those positions. Thus we selected Britt at a higher spot than many thought he should go. If you look at the athletic evaluations which our FO appears to be believers in, there was a big dropoff after him (and one other player, I think).
Teams regularly target a few players that they want to come away with from the draft. As the draft progresses and some of the targets get selected by others, it's more important to get one of the group at the position of most need. I would submit it's why our selections have media analysts scratching their heads but they often work out.

There was a story a few years ago that the Pats only had something like a dozen players on their board. You can bet those targeted were all at positions of need, and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of other teams make their boards up similarly, but it would mean drafting players higher than the conventional thought in order to ensure they get them.

What will we do this year? Nobody knows yet, but I suspect that unless someone like Rankins at DT falls, they might want to get a T/G with their first pick and maybe another G/C for the interior OL in round 2 or 3. They seem to like along the OL a big LG like Carpenter, a big RT like Breno and Webb and an athletic RG.
So we have to look at who in the draft can play T/G first as they get selected early, has the size they want to play RT with good athleticism, and might be there at 26. It looks to me like they would target Germain Ifedi to fill those needs. After playing a little Guard, he should be able to move to RT - or at least push Webb at some point to start and could be a good backup should Webb get dinged up and maybe also be a backup for Gilliam.
At Guard, Connor McGovern looks to have the athleticism they want to take the place of Sweezy (at some point). He might also be able to play T as he did in college and some have said he could be a Center as well. Both those players have high SPARQ rankings which seems to be important considerations and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't take them early as they aren't single position players, but there are some other players outside the LoS on both sides of the ball that might be considerations that could torpedo my guess on this.

[c_hawkbob]

Is this not you? Maybe someone hacked your account. If you need me to provide the link to the fire Bevell thread I can and you can refresh your memory on the "pass" reference. Just let me know.

Yes that was me, so? That's not at all relevant to me giving anyone a pass or not trusting anyone.

[HumanCockroach]

Maybe re read what I posted and your reply again then. I can certainly repost it if you prefer.

The coaches you gave a "pass" to last season are the ones you are now claiming aren't evaluating the talent correctly. Per your words Gilliam isn't a starting caliber tackle, yet the coaches deserve the benefit of the doubt ( I guess depending on how you feel about it at the time??? I'm really not sure why you would reverse that stance that you were pretty strong about just a few months ago???)

Regardless, I was pointing out that you and I ( and ANYONE) don't have the ability to evaluate Gilliam more efficiently than those that not only signed him, but kept him on the active roster ( or possibly it's your theory that they avoided putting the converted TE on the practice squad because they didn't need that active roster spot perhaps?) and then moved and started him as RT over their handpicked RT with two weeks to learn the position, because just maybe they actually think he's, you know, a starting NFL tackle, despite your personal evaluations.

[HumanCockroach]

If last year Winston or Mariota had fallen like Rodgers did and was available for us, would we have taken him and let him sit on the bench for 4 years?
The immediate need would override the talent, wouldn't it?

If they had fallen all the way to the second round? I'm fairly confident they would have traded the pick to garner more picks to pick multiple explosive players, or taken him ( or have you forgotten that a solid backup QB was INDEED a "need" during the draft for Seattle ( as Jackson wasn't resigned until months after the draft) hence a solid explosive backup that was cheap and a viable trade commodity/ replacement etc would indeed have been desired).

Using Rodgers as an example doesn't seem like the most intelligent analogy, as it certainly seemed to work out just fine for GB, they DID forgo need for talent, and Seattle's GM who happened to be in that organisation at the time has continued that draft tradition in Seattle ( and been extremely successful with it I might add). When there are talents that Seattle feels are special and unique, they don't draft the "need" guy. They simply haven't despite your belief ( Frank Clark NOT a need, Michael NOT a need, Wilson NOT a need, Irvin NOT a need, Sherman NOT a need, Chancellor NOT a need, Lockett NOT a need, Richardson NOT a need etc).

You can certainly believe what you want, I'm simply pointing out the Seahawks history, and the lack of success teams create when the draft based on need.

[c_hawkbob]

Maybe re read what I posted and your reply again then. I can certainly repost it if you prefer.

The coaches you gave a "pass" to last season are the ones you are now claiming aren't evaluating the talent correctly. Per your words Gilliam isn't a starting caliber tackle, yet the coaches deserve the benefit of the doubt ( I guess depending on how you feel about it at the time??? I'm really not sure why you would reverse that stance that you were pretty strong about just a few months ago???)

Regardless, I was pointing out that you and I ( and ANYONE) don't have the ability to evaluate Gilliam more efficiently than those that not only signed him, but kept him on the active roster ( or possibly it's your theory that they avoided putting the converted TE on the practice squad because they didn't need that active roster spot perhaps?) and then moved and started him as RT over their handpicked RT with two weeks to learn the position, because just maybe they actually think he's, you know, a starting NFL tackle, despite your personal evaluations.

You're still doing it Roach; attaching more to what is actually said than is there.

1- Rereading what you posted won't help because there are far too many circular references and assumptions made on your part that every one reading you knows what's in your head as you write it. It would help if you'd connect the dots a little better for us old guys.

2- As far as "giving a pass", I though you meant our outgoing linemen (Okung and Sweezey),not Pete and John. And i don't think "giving them a pass" is a correct interpretation of what I said (or at least what I intended to convey). What I said was that I firmly believe in the 5 year rule i.e.: for 5 years after winning a SB, no calling for a coaches head. They've earned our trust by winning that SB.

3- In my world it's possible to trust implicitly in a coach and GM's ability to field a team capable of contending for a SB every year and still not agree with them in every single nuance, roster move or player evaluation. I'm sorry it's not in yours.

Truth is, there is a lot about how Pete and John run a team that runs counter to conventional thinking and quite frankly I'm learning a lot from watching/reading/being a fan of them. It's truly an eye opening experience. But it still doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they do or (especially this time of year) believe everything they say. I reserve the right to maintain my own opinion.

[HumanCockroach]

I responded to your claim that a player you haven't seen play "isn't an NFL tackle" by pointing out that said SB winning coaches have, and as such will take their evaluation over someone assuming something from the comfort of their recliner, and I'm "reading more into it than is there" ? Ok sure Bob, whatever you say.

I've provided links to multiple locations both for and against my opinion on things, I'm not going to apologize for your refusal to actually look at them. Gilliam WAS graded better than Okung the last half of the season, just how PFF graded him ( meaning unless you are going to claim Okung also isn't an NFL tackle) that he absolutely is an NFL tackle, whether you think it or not, and that the coaches you "trust" to make those decisions, did so, and according to PFF made the right decision. It isn't complicated, and shouldn't need any "connecting of the dots" to realise it.

[RiverDog]

No, Cable made the assessment that Carpenter was an NFL lineman. That tackle thing is you, not him, not Carroll. There's a heck of a LOT of college tackles drafted ( especially in weak offensive lineman drafts at the end of the first round) that transition to guards. INCLUDING the tackle you wanted Seattle to draft instead of Carpenter that year ( the guy on his third or fourth team). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is he not a starting NFL lineman? A pretty damn good one to. Regardless of your bias since day one on Carpenter, he's strong, athletic and a QUALITY starting offensive lineman that has had a more successful career, more earnings and more success than any lineman you wanted instead of him... Lamenting a successful pick, regardless of a position change seems kind of foolish to me. You think the Niners lamented drafting Lott? Pittsburgh lamented Lambert or Woodsen? But for some unknown reason you continue to get hung up on players college positions. Don't really understand it.

Carpenter was drafted as a tackle, and that's where he played in his entire rookie season until he got hurt. That was Plan A. Plan B, as you noted is the case with many if not most players that are drafted as a tackle, particularly those where high draft choices were used to acquire them, was for him to move to guard. It was only after is horrible performance at tackle that they were forced out of their original plan.

Don't act as if Cable/Carroll knew all along that Carpenter was going to fail at OT. They thought he could become an NFL offensive tackle. If they didn't, they wouldn't have wasted his entire rookie season working him at that position, including starting him in most games. And it's not just that he failed. It's that he failed MISERABLY. He was IMO the worst example of mis-judging talent that we've made at offensive tackle since we drafted Ray Roberts, and that judgment alone casts doubt on Cable and Carroll's credibility as it relates to evaluating talent on the offensive line.

[NorthHawk]

If they had fallen all the way to the second round? I'm fairly confident they would have traded the pick to garner more picks to pick multiple explosive players, or taken him ( or have you forgotten that a solid backup QB was INDEED a "need" during the draft for Seattle ( as Jackson wasn't resigned until months after the draft) hence a solid explosive backup that was cheap and a viable trade commodity/ replacement etc would indeed have been desired).

Using Rodgers as an example doesn't seem like the most intelligent analogy, as it certainly seemed to work out just fine for GB, they DID forgo need for talent, and Seattle's GM who happened to be in that organisation at the time has continued that draft tradition in Seattle ( and been extremely successful with it I might add). When there are talents that Seattle feels are special and unique, they don't draft the "need" guy. They simply haven't despite your belief ( Frank Clark NOT a need, Michael NOT a need, Wilson NOT a need, Irvin NOT a need, Sherman NOT a need, Chancellor NOT a need, Lockett NOT a need, Richardson NOT a need etc).

GB was looking to find Favre's replacement as he was beginning to talk about retirement, so, yes it was a need. That the best QB of the draft fell was an opportunity to develop him and give them leverage when the time came.
Wilson on the other hand had just signed a new contract, so it would not be a need - the analogy is fine. Traded down a real possibility, but then they wouldn't have taken the best player, now would they?

Schneider was on the radio the other day and said in comparing this draft and depth of OL to the 2014 draft: (paraphrase) That draft had fewer players in the tier and so we felt we had to take Britt then as the falloff of OL talent was too great.

That's simply an admission that they drafted for need then and considering they lost Breno in FA, they had a big hole to fill and Britt was the best player left on the board to play RT, not just best player available. Every team does it as they'd be fools to not try to address the shortcomings in their lineup when they have a chance.

[c_hawkbob]

I responded to your claim that a player you haven't seen play "isn't an NFL tackle" by pointing out that said SB winning coaches have, and as such will take their evaluation over someone assuming something from the comfort of their recliner, and I'm "reading more into it than is there" ?

YES it absolutely is when you take the fact that I disagree with what they are saying about Gilliam to mean all of the other things that I did not say! You're jumping to conclusions that don't exist.

And stop with the "proof" you think you're providing about Gilliam being better than Okung, there are at least 2 or 3 times that amount of similar articles (a very conservative estimate) expressing the exact opposite opinion. You are really not the only person here that reads articles about the Seahawks.

And I'm not asking for an apology, I just want you to quit assuming that when I say one thing it means another.

[HumanCockroach]

YES it absolutely is when you take the fact that I disagree with what they are saying about Gilliam to mean all of the other things that I did not say! You're jumping to conclusions that don't exist.

And stop with the "proof" you think you're providing about Gilliam being better than Okung, there are at least 2 or 3 times that amount of similar articles (a very conservative estimate) expressing the exact opposite opinion. You are really not the only person here that reads articles about the Seahawks.

And I'm not asking for an apology, I just want you to quit assuming that when I say one thing it means another.

Who exactly is jumping to conclusions? No where on this entire thread have I said Gilliam will be an improvement, not one time, I've also never said that Carroll and Schneider will end up being correct in their assessment of him. I provided facts about how he performed last year per a pretty accepted website ( PFF) and information on what Seattle's belief is in him. These aren't my "opinions" they are indeed facts. Yet many continue to profess that when they make statements about their "opinions" on whether or not Gilliam is a starting caliber tackle in the NFL ( which is absolutely an opinion, as he by starting 16 games last season, leading the league in run blocking grades the last half and being in the top 17 in pass protection during that same time IS one no matter how you, I or Tom, Dick and Harry feel about it) and I point out time and time again that regardless of how anyone feels about it, he is indeed.

At no point have I made any claim to "know" what will happen, OR made any absolute statement one way or the other. EVERY statement has been ( and will continue to be) about trusting Carroll and Schneiders ability to start the best players available ( long term) and doing what is best for the franchise moving forward.

Your absolute statement about Okung replacement, or Gilliam's viability, is indeed an opinion based on nothing but a feeling, as you also have NOT seen Gilliam play the position he has spent the last two years preparing for.

I've NEVER provided any "proof" one way or the other, Gilliam graded out higher than Okung the last 8 games, that is simply a fact, not some sort of proof he'll be better, but a simple fact of what's occurred. Seattle's line graded out as a whole as a type three line in the NFL the last half of last season, again just the facts of the matter, not proving anything by saying so...

As for these articles, I would love you to provide a link stating Gilliam isn't an NFL calibre tackle. I've provided articles from BOTH sides of the discussion, yet all the articles I've read, I've yet to come across one that claims Gilliam isn't a tackle. Plenty discuss Gilliam's inexperience, or discuss the loss of the "two best offensive lineman" but none that profess in absolutes that Gilliam can't replace Okung, or shouldn't even be on the field. In truth, they pretty much all say the same thing, which is that they don't "know" how Gilliam will perform ( nor the entirety of the Seahawks line). Which is EXACTLY the same thing I've said all along. Until we see them PLAY there is zero way to know HOW they will perform. Their improved play last year is encouraging, but not some sort of guarantee, anymore than claims by people nervous about not knowing what will happen is a guarantee of failure.

In what way did I misinterpret your statement that Gilliam wasn't an NFL tackle? How is that even possible? You were pretty clear, is there confusion there? Was there confusion with how I responded saying you couldn't know how good he was without seeing a snap? Are you psychic? Nothing I've said has been some sort of absolute based on opinion at any point in this entire discussion, and in fact I've provided VARYING sides of the discussion, not just one. How the F can I be anymore transparent?

[HumanCockroach]

GB was looking to find Favre's replacement as he was beginning to talk about retirement, so, yes it was a need. That the best QB of the draft fell was an opportunity to develop him and give them leverage when the time came.
Wilson on the other hand had just signed a new contract, so it would not be a need - the analogy is fine. Traded down a real possibility, but then they wouldn't have taken the best player, now would they?

Um. No. Just no. Favre wasn't discussing retirement in 2005 North, in fact he was just 4 seasons in to a TEN year contract worth 100 million dollars. Per Thompson, Rodgers wasn't a need.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-thom ... ick-2014-9

Would you like me to provide links to how the analysts discussed it at the time? ( ie: not a need, but a quality player).

[Hawktawk]

Wow lots of strong opinions. I saw a few posts back where you guys were debating Holmy vs JS and PC in terms of drafting and acquiring talent on the O line and elsewhere.It isn't really debatable is it?

IMO Holmgren was a dreadful GM who really diminished his coaching career in Seattle with some of his disastrous personnel decisions which i would get carpal tunnel describing all of them. Ruskell came in in 2005 and brought some key pieces to put Holmgrens underachieving and talent devoid team over the top, sort of. Then of course the disastrous bungling of Hutch which slid the window closed in short order.

Holmgren, great coach, horrible GM.I cant believe there were people on this forum pining for him to become the GM when Mora was canned and PC hired.

PC and JS are the gold standard in the NFL right now in terms of identifying, acquiring and developing talent. Nobody hits 100% or even close but the last 6 years speaks for itself.

[monkey]

[Even that admission isn't accurate. Not sure if it's nostalgia, revisionist history or just a bad memory, but Holmgren was worse by far drafting offensive lineman. In his years in Seattle he drafted one viable starting o- lineman ( Hutch) one injury prone viable backup ( pork chop) signed multiple lineman ( Tobeck, Gray) and drafted a couple below average lineman that struggled to stay in the league once he was gone ( Spencer and Locklear) Carroll and Schneider have not only "hit" on a higher percentage of offensive lineman through the draft, they have expended more capital it ( truth is Holmgren shouldn't unfairly be "saddled" with Locklear and Spencer as he was no longer the GM, which would actually being his "success" rate down to one actual starting caliber lineman in all of his drafts)...

Not only that, but Holmgren BIGGEST weakness was continual drafting based solely on need ( something people here continue to get upset with this FO for NOT doing... Thank God they don't, or there would be NO Sherman, Wilson, Chancellor, Lockett etc) you have all witnessed first hand what drafting based solely on need accomplishes ( a steady decline into irrelevance) but the claim Holmgren did a "better job drafting offensive lineman" ( or drafting period) is crazy. I recommend revisiting those draft choices with a clear head.

http://www.scout.com/nfl/seahawks/story ... -a-good-gm

Wow HC what a seriously terrific post! I've got nothing to add, that was perfect.

[monkey]

PC and JS are the gold standard in the NFL right now in terms of identifying, acquiring and developing talent. Nobody hits 100% or even close but the last 6 years speaks for itself.

Again nothing to add. Just quoting because it was worth quoting.

[Agent 86]

I am not jumping into this convo, but I have read pretty much every post, especially the last 3 pages, and it's been great. I have truly learned a lot about our offensive line and it has made me feel better about things. I always found it the hardest spot for me to judge, because I really dont' watch them during games except replays and something is pointed out by the colour guy or play by play guy.

All you guys debating this, I thank you. I have certain favourites I like to read posts from, and a lot of popped up in this thread.

Great stuff.....

[monkey]

Thought I would chip in with this terrific article on Gilliam from Field Gulls. Definitely worth the read!

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/4/7/11381600/garry-gilliam-probably-isnt-jason-peters-but-then-again-who-the-f-are

[HumanCockroach]

Thought I would chip in with this terrific article on Gilliam from Field Gulls. Definitely worth the read!

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/4/7/11381600/garry-gilliam-probably-isnt-jason-peters-but-then-again-who-the-f-are

Nice. Petty much echoes everything I've said ( minus the claim at the very end). No one knows anything about Gilliam moving forward, with the exception of what I've said ( athletically he is better than Okung, nice to have the numbers provided of how drastically he is).

Most won't read it, and even less will acknowledge anything in it to be possible, but it absolutely is "possible" every bit as much as those claiming otherwise at this point.

[mykc14]

Thought I would chip in with this terrific article on Gilliam from Field Gulls. Definitely worth the read!

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/4/7/11381600/garry-gilliam-probably-isnt-jason-peters-but-then-again-who-the-f-are

Good read. I think the hawks are really high on him and do feel like he can be the opening day starter at LT. IMO the most obvious evidence of this is the fact that they let okung walk for basically nothing. I don't think they would let him go for $5 mil (none guaranteed) if they didn't have every confidence that they already had his replacement on the roster.

[NorthHawk]

At this time of year with Draft picks and players changing positions, we can only speak of potential.
Last year, Gilliam didn't look like what I think the Seahawks want at RT. Think Breno as the basic profile of a RT who is big, physical, and a little nasty - even if it cost us some penalties for being too rough or questionable late hits. Webb has the physical size and we'll see if he has the attitude to do what our FO wants.
Gilliam, on the other hand seemed to be more of a technician than a physical RT, and might be better suited to LT where his quickness will be more of an asset.

Like said above though, it's all potential at this point so let's hope he turns out to be at his natural position playing LT.

[HumanCockroach]

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/Seahawks- ... t-44716123

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.spreaker.com/user/legionof12 ... arry-gilli

[savvyman]

Gary Gilliam is being asked to shoulder a significant load next year at Left Tackle.

Anyone who has heard the story of his life has to be impressed with the kind of man that Gary is. He has earned everything he has to date and overcome some significant barriers along the way.

Here is a couple of his recent tweets - nothing you can say with absolute certainty that he will be successful at Left Tackle next year - Yet you can see why John & Pete are optimistic about his chances and must be thrilled with his hard work during the off season:

https://twitter.com/Garry_Gilliam/status/715986531274596352


https://twitter.com/Garry_Gilliam/status/715985690652123136

[NorthHawk]

I'm probably not the only one who forgets how hard the players work in the off season.

[HumanCockroach]

Fortunately, the coaches and FO don't.

[Vegaseahawk]

I'm not surprised that Gilliam is working his ass off. Starting LT's in the NFL get premium contracts. I hope it works out.
Win Forever!

[obiken]

Do you guys really think that he can be a viable NFL LT?

[HumanCockroach]

Yes. Doesn't mean he will or won't be, but he definitely has the Athleticism to be. He is far more athletic than Okung was, and really his story good or bad is yet to be written.