As the draft approaches...

[RiverDog]

He might have been 'one' of the worst, the worst though? That seems like a pretty significant stretch to me. Even with that being the case, he was always exactly what they had drafted, an excellent run blocker with strength to spare, who they identified as a liability in pass blocking and moved extremely quickly to a position his strengths suited better. He wasn't the first tackle to go through that transition, he won't be the last ( even on this team, with or without the coaches in place) the Seahawks value versatility amongst lineman, always have and always will. Seems to me, they draft players, NOT positions regardless of what many may desire. The same move was made with Britt ( and more than likely he'll develop into a nice starting caliber guard that people will bemoan "losing" in 3 years despite consistent complaints about him now, just the cycle Seattle fans continually churn through it seems).

At least they weren't top ten picks like many other more highly regarded tackles coming out in recent years. Truth is that all tackles struggle their first year, not just Carpenter ( pick 28) the continued amount of dismissing of that often baffles me. All teams have those issues with rookie tackles, it comes with the territory.

Can you name several starting tackles that played there at least a season as Carpenter did that were worse? The only one I can think of is Ray Roberts. Carpenter was bad, much worse than Britt, and I don't care what excuse you make up for him, whether it be the lockout, first year woes, or the man in the moon. Bad is bad, and Carpenter stunk. That's why he didn't last more than a season at tackle, and why he couldn't beat out a journeyman for the LG spot several years later and was on the brink of being cut loose before he decided to get his arse in shape in his contract year. Saban was right, he wasn't first round material.

But Carpenter's ability relative to every other Seahawk tackle wasn't my point. My point is that I doubt very seriously that the reason we are not considering Joe Thomas as a solution to our LT position has anything to do with his perceived inability to perform in the ZBS. IMO it's all about a matter of money/draft capital. Even if he wasn't the perfect ZBS blocking tackle, I'd love to see him in blue and green. He has proven ability in other aspects of the position could make a huge difference in our passing game/short yardage offense, and I'm not concerned about age being a factor.

[HumanCockroach]

Off the top of my head? Ray Roberts, Sean Locklear, bill Hitchcock, Bob Cryder ( that doesn't take into account players that only started for 5-10 game stretches) there are actually quite a few, fortunately they've been relegated to distant memory.

I don't need to "make excuses" he isn't my player, I didn't draft him, I didn't move him, and as with all offensive lineman the Seahawks have ever drafted, I had zero expectations from him from day one. I don't tend to expect things, I don't claim numbers( 28 in this instance) equate to production, and I don't spend time placing said personal expectations into the coaches mind, words or choices. Simply put, I don't pretend to know something I don't. I accept that a majority of offensive lineman flame out entirely or struggle in their first couple seasons. ( just like a majority of positions and rookies).

[RiverDog]

Off the top of my head? Ray Roberts, Sean Locklear, bill Hitchcock, Bob Cryder ( that doesn't take into account players that only started for 5-10 game stretches) there are actually quite a few, fortunately they've been relegated to distant memory.

I don't need to "make excuses" he isn't my player, I didn't draft him, I didn't move him, and as with all offensive lineman the Seahawks have ever drafted, I had zero expectations from him from day one. I don't tend to expect things, I don't claim numbers( 28 in this instance) equate to production, and I don't spend time placing said personal expectations into the coaches mind, words or choices. Simply put, I don't pretend to know something I don't. I accept that a majority of offensive lineman flame out entirely or struggle in their first couple seasons. ( just like a majority of positions and rookies).

I don't remember Hitchcock and Crider, but Locklear was WAYYYY better than Carpenter, certainly as a tackle and arguably as a OL, too. He played the position for us for 7 years. He was never Pro Bowl quality, but he was a solid starter, played very well during our SB run in 2005. Carpenter didn't last as a tackle for more than one season, couldn't even earn a second contract as a guard.

[obiken]

Human, the Point River and I are making, is that this the make or break year for the dynamic duo. Ether they end up as geniuses or what many of us have been saying, both amateur and professional experts, that the days of using the OL as a cap b**** is over.

[NorthHawk]

Make or break year with the OL? I think that's a little over dramatic - maybe said for effect.
With players playing new positions and new players starting, it might be like an all rookie OL for the first few games depending if they can find a way to work well together early.
A lesser talented line working well together can play better than a more individually talented line that's out of sync, but time is the big enemy.

[obiken]

"Joe Thomas" and "lack of skills" are ludicrous in the same sentence.

He's the closest thing to another Walter Jones we're likely to see this generation. Walt could have played in any scheme and I believe the same to be true of Thomas. He's always done everything he's been asked, to assume he can't do a thing that he's not yet been asked to do makes little sense to me.

Right CB, hes an All Pro. He has till 35 at least.

[HumanCockroach]

That is an assumption, just the opposite side of the assumption that players drafted aren't any good. Even if that plays out, is four years of declining play ( also an assumption) worth it? I'm not emphatically stating that will be the case simply that it is a pretty realistic possibility ( as most players peak and then deteriorate over the course of their final years), even IF that isn't the case with him, he isn't signed for four seasons, which would put Seattle in the position of either paying a ton of money in two seasons for a vet who's 33/34 on a long term deal he'll never play out, or be in the exact same boat they're in right now. Attempting to replace a tackle with someone no one knows anything about ( except them) or gambling a draft pick no matter how high is going to excel immediately ( which occurs somewhere in the neighborhood of like 3 to 7 percent of the time), or trading picks/players for yet another veteran getting long in the tooth.

It really isn't a recipe for long term success, despite the desires of fans.

[NorthHawk]

Gilliam is a RFA next year, so we could lose him if he does well at LT and we don't want to match a big offer.
That might be a factor in how our FO looks at the draft prospects considering it's said to be a good draft for OL.

[HumanCockroach]

So now we should worry that he plays so well he gets a large contact? That makes no sense. If he plays that well, aren't you ahead if you have to pay a YOUNG and still ASCENDING LT 10 million a year instead of an older descending player the same amount?

At least you're getting compensation versus losing the player, and picks. RFA allows teams to at least lock in salary for what they feel the player is worth, if someone wants to pay more money than a team feels he's worth, you let him leave as recoup the tendered pick you placed on them. Do you think Seattle wouldn't put a first round tender on him if he excelled and they viewed him as a long term answer? Would they decline to match the offer if they did?

At this point the club controls Gilliam for two years, Thomas is signed for two years, one costs 1/10th of the other, and will not cost any picks/ players Seattle doesn't want to sacrifice, as well as possibly having 3x as much "playing time" left. If Gilliam doesn't perform, you let him go, sign him to a cheap backup, with Thomas none of those things are on the table.

Doesn't mean it will ultimately be the "right" choice, but regardless of how we view it, it doesn't make it the "wrong" one either. I trust this FO to make that decision.

[NorthHawk]

I don't know where you got that from.
I was just pointing out that it could affect their draft plans considering this is a good year for OL and our FO's trend to go cheap on the OL payroll.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm sorry you responded right after a post discussing Thomas, I thought you were responding to my post.

As for going cheap, I'm far more inclined to believe they are willing to spend the money, just not on players they don't feel are worth what the market yields. Okung had his fifth year option exercised and they paid it, Unger was the highest paid center his last year in Seattle and they paid it, when they felt Okung wasn't worth what they were paying him ( something the rest of the league confirmed) they let him walk...

Having young lineman means less money,to just the way it works. To the best of my knowledge, there's a lot of teams that have gone the other way ( overpaying for their own talent that become a huge drain on that team).. I don't doubt that Seattle will pay for the lineman THEY deem worth it, but to date I don't think they've found that player.

[RiverDog]

As for going cheap, I'm far more inclined to believe they are willing to spend the money, just not on players they don't feel are worth what the market yields. Okung had his fifth year option exercised and they paid it, Unger was the highest paid center his last year in Seattle and they paid it, when they felt Okung wasn't worth what they were paying him ( something the rest of the league confirmed) they let him walk...

They haven't re-signed any of their starting OL's to new contracts since they took over and have let their entire starting OL from our Lombardi winning team walk. That's a lot of players they've been dissatisfied with to attribute all of that to simply not wanting to pay individual players because they don't think they're worth it. IMO a lot of it has to do with their basic philosophy. They simply do not believe in prioritizing the OL. Not that I'm complaining as at least to this point, they've been very successful with that philosophy. But you have to wonder if eventually the chickens will come home to roost.

[NorthHawk]

I get the impression it's part of the philosophy, too. That, and younger players recover from injuries quicker.
However, if that were the case, it would seem a simple blocking scheme would be employed. One where the learning curve is shallower, the pool of potential players is deeper, and the players could challenge for a starting role earlier. That way they could get 3 or 4 years out of the players and have others behind them to push the starters and ease into the spot when the previous starter moves on via FA.

I could be (and probably am) wrong in reading into what I think their philosophy is, but I do know we can't start like last year and expect better results.

[HumanCockroach]

They haven't re-signed any of their starting OL's to new contracts since they took over and have let their entire starting OL from our Lombardi winning team walk. That's a lot of players they've been dissatisfied with to attribute all of that to simply not wanting to pay individual players because they don't think they're worth it. IMO a lot of it has to do with their basic philosophy. They simply do not believe in prioritizing the OL. Not that I'm complaining as at least to this point, they've been very successful with that philosophy. But you have to wonder if eventually the chickens will come home to roost.

Not true..

http://www.seahawks.com/news/2012/07/25 ... -extension

[NorthHawk]

Then they traded him.
It has been a steady shedding of salary on the OL.
We'll see if the continuous youth movement works. It might very well be the future of the NFL if in fact the talent from college is poor.

[HumanCockroach]

Yes they did indeed trade him, however that wasn't for two years, and the cost of the player received back exceeded the cost of the player. This wasn't some sort of money saving move as the salary eaten up exceeded the salary removed.

Even if it was, not sure what the relevance would be. RD said they hadn't resigned one of their own lineman and let them walk, which isn't true.

[NorthHawk]

That money form Unger's salary was spent on a pass catching TE, not the OL.

From the link you provided:

“Pete and I are excited to lock up a young core leader on our offense,” said General Manager John Schneider. “Max’s consistent and professional approach to his job transcends the locker room and the huddle.”

Seattle drafted Unger in the second-round (49th overall) of the 2009 NFL Draft and he has started all 32 games played.

“I am very happy about this new deal,” said Unger. “We have a developing young line that had some success last year that we can build upon this season. It’s a good deal for the both of us and I couldn’t be happier to be in Seattle.”

And now, less than 4 years later all 5 of that developing young line is gone...

[HumanCockroach]

It doesn't matter if he was traded for a bag of Doritos or a multiple all pro TE. The fact remains Seattle did resign one of their own, and didn't "let him walk". Which was a claim made, it isn't true, and I provided a link showing that. What more do I need to say?

Seattle felt at the time he signed he was worth the cost, decided two years later they preferred a TE, none of that changes anything I was replying to. Seattle resigned one of their own to a lucrative contract.

[RiverDog]

Not true..

http://www.seahawks.com/news/2012/07/25 ... -extension

You'll have to find a better example than Unger if you want to prove the premise of my statement as being false. Besides, he's just one out of how many?

The failure to resign ANY of the multitude of starters (with the exception of Unger, who was subsequently traded) that have past through this locker room is proof positive that it's more than just a reluctance to resign players they don't feel are worth the salary. It's a reflection on their overall core philosophy that de-emphasizes the OL.

[HumanCockroach]

No, I don't. The statement is false. I have been told that "premises" and reading into what is said is a problem for some. You made a statement, it was false. I replied and stuck to exactly what was posted. The statement isn't true, hence a reply and a link showing why it wasn't true.

[RiverDog]

No, I don't. The statement is false. I have been told that "premises" and reading into what is said is a problem for some. You made a statement, it was false. I replied and stuck to exactly what was posted. The statement isn't true, hence a reply and a link showing why it wasn't true.

Congratulations! You pinned a false statement on me. But you forgot to say "Gotcha!"

[HumanCockroach]

I don't need to say anything, it isn't the first one, won't be the last one. I stuck to what was said, as you have asked me to do. If you want to complain about it be my guest. It isn't like you and Bob ( as well as many others) haven't done the same with my posts. I'm holding up my end. I don't need to do anything else do I?

[RiverDog]

I don't need to say anything, it isn't the first one, won't be the last one. I stuck to what was said, as you have asked me to do. If you want to complain about it be my guest. It isn't like you and Bob ( as well as many others) haven't done the same with my posts. I'm holding up my end. I don't need to do anything else do I?

You're exactly right, it wasn't the first time and more than likely won't be the last. I am not immune to making an off the cuff statement without taking the time to do my homework. Thankfully I have you to keep me honest.

Glad you're hold up your end. At my age, some of my ends need assistance to keep them upright.

[RiverDog]

Speaking of developing young players for the line, I am intrigued by Sokoli, and what he will turn into. He is the most athletic offensive lineman (or defensive lineman) to come out in recent memory, he seems intelligent, and he is big. They have consistently said that he is being developed as a center, and I believe them, but it would be interesting to see what he could do as a RT.

Strong, long, and athletic. Sounds like tackle meat to me.

So ObS...our good friend Bird Droppings thinks our #26 will be Ryan Kelly, center out of Alabama, but a few think that he isn't a Hawk OL, that we tend to favor OL that can play multiple positions. What's your take?

[NorthHawk]

Kelly is getting a lot of love (Like?) in the media lately and to believe them, he might be gone by 26. Polian said he thought he was the 4th or 5th best player in the draft. If so and there is real interest, not just talk throughout the league, he might not make it past the Colts who have to protect Luck better.

[monkey]

If the Seahawks took Kelly, it would be a pretty big deviation from what they have done in the past, and what they claim to look for in o line targets.
Not saying that if the right guy came along, they wouldn't make an exception, but that's just what he would be, an exception.
Personally I don't see it. I'd give it less than 10% chance.
I think the Seahawks would much rather take a guy like (for example) Conner McGovern, who definitely fits athletically, and who can play all over the line, and possibly turn him into a center, than take a guy who isn't what they look for athletically at O line, and who essentially only plays center, and certainly couldn't play tackle.
The Seahawks value versatility and athleticism too much to take a guy like Kelly IMO.
Besides, I still think they trade down, and Kelly will be long gone by the time we pick.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/jam ... id=2495134

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/ ... id=2555191

Seems pretty similar to Carpenter at least athletically.

[obiken]

so ObS...our good friend Bird Droppings thinks our #26 will be Ryan Kelly, center out of Alabama, but a few think that he isn't a Hawk OL, that we tend to favor OL that can play multiple positions. What's your take?

I would have no problem with that pick. However, most experts have them taking a DT. I just hope we don't trade down we have enough picks as it is.

[HumanCockroach]

More is always better.. At least that is the Seahawks belief. I'm not sure they shouldn't if the player they covet can be selected in the second round. If the player they are going to select will fall to early second, and someone like Cleveland wants to move back into the first, it would be pretty foolish not to trade back and pick up additional picks wouldn't it?

[RiverDog]

I would have no problem with that pick. However, most experts have them taking a DT. I just hope we don't trade down we have enough picks as it is.

Supposedly this draft is loaded with DT's, so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to dedicate a lot of resources to acquiring one, so I wouldn't expect to see the Hawks go with a DT in the first. But if I'm wrong and they do take one with our #26, then look out, because it would mean that they must really like him if they take him that early in a draft so deep with DT's.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't need to say anything, it isn't the first one, won't be the last one. I stuck to what was said, as you have asked me to do. If you want to complain about it be my guest. It isn't like you and Bob ( as well as many others) haven't done the same with my posts. I'm holding up my end. I don't need to do anything else do I?

You really needn't drag my name into this Roach. I don't have a problem with minor details the way you do.

I read what Dog says trying to understand and respond to the point he's trying to make.

You read what someone else says trying to find some detail you can pounce on and declare "that's a lie!" or to extrapolate what the have said to mean some extreme view of it it that you'd rather argue with.

No thanks.

[RiverDog]

What can we do to get the Bird man to post on here once in a while, he is knowledgeable, funny, and able to find the odd slant.

I'll ask him if he wouldn't mind posting again from time to time. He's still very involved, did his Hawks mock draft. You're exactly right about your characterizations of him. He has a very unique style.

[NorthHawk]

More posts by Bird Droppings would really be welcome.

As the draft approaches and is imminent now, I wonder if (with medical evals saying he just needs a full year to get to 100%) Jaylon Smith is available at 26 AND there aren't any teams wanting to trade up, would we select him?
I think there would be a good discussion about it as he's considered a top 10 pick if healthy. It would mean red shirting him this year but next year it would be like having 2 first round selections.

Any thoughts?
Anyone?
Buhler?

[mykc14]

More posts by Bird Droppings would really be welcome.

As the draft approaches and is imminent now, I wonder if (with medical evals saying he just needs a full year to get to 100%) Jaylon Smith is available at 26 AND there aren't any teams wanting to trade up, would we select him?
I think there would be a good discussion about it as he's considered a top 10 pick if healthy. It would mean red shirting him this year but next year it would be like having 2 first round selections.

Any thoughts?
Anyone?
Buhler?

I don't think so. IMO, there is too much of a risk that he won't heal completely. He has nerve damage and 'drop foot' which basically means that he can not pick up his foot to run. There is a decent chance that it will heal completely, although he almost certainly will miss all of next year. There is also a significant enough risk that it will never fully heal and in that case you have wasted too high of a resource. I would think 4th round would be the earliest I would even consider picking him and that is just because he is so early in the healing process that it could still grow back. It seems like about 6 months post surgery they will have a pretty good idea if the nerve will grow back completely. He sounds like a great kid that is going to work as hard has he possibly can to get back, but you can't work that nerve to grow more than it will eventually grow and it will either grow back or it won't.

[HumanCockroach]

You really needn't drag my name into this Roach. I don't have a problem with minor details the way you do.

I read what Dog says trying to understand and respond to the point he's trying to make.

You read what someone else says trying to find some detail you can pounce on and declare "that's a lie!" or to extrapolate what the have said to mean some extreme view of it it that you'd rather argue with.

No thanks.

c_hawkbob
Legacy

Posts: 2131
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 4205

Damned if I do, damned if I don't. Wasn't it you and RD claiming I was arguing things not said? I'm attempting to adjust to what you asked me to do, and I'm still getting grief?

Whatever, I can't win, and don't even really care to. Multiple times I've been "called" on doing so ( while those calling me on it do the same with my posts) and here I stick strictly to the exact words posted but I'm not getting the point? LMFAO.

I apologize for pointing out the statement was false, I simply want aware that you and RD were the ones deciding which were minor details, and which weren't. I felt like since he was denying my claim that Seattle would be willing to spend money on a lineman that they felt was worth what the market would yield, with a claim that they've never resigned one of their own, that signing one would be valid to the disagreement. My mistake, maybe I should PM you prior to each post so you can tell me whether they are important enough to share??

[c_hawkbob]

Actually yes, we were calling you on trying to argue with things not said, and we did tell you to instead focus on what actually is said. So in that respect, thanks. And I'm sorry for not making that clear.

The thing in this instance though is that you are trying to use that one example (and as we traded him away, it really is a weak example) to completely nullify the rest of Dog's argument rather than trying to understand the point he's making and arguing the validity of that point.

The point is that we do not place as great a premium on the O-line as most other teams and certainly not as much as we are used to as Seahawks fans. From Knox to Holmgren O-linemen were the foundation of the team. The fact that Dog was mistaken about Pete not extending any of our O-linemen contracts doesn't change that fact. By all means go ahead and point out the errata, but don't use is as a mike drop. That one instance doesn't alter the dynamic of how this FO operates. At most it's a sidebar.

These discussions aren't a contest to see who can prove someone else wrong the most. They are a means to flesh out a particular issue and expose as many different facets, or ways of looking at it, as possible. It's interesting to discover how someone else sees the same thing as you do a little bit differently, as well as educational.

Frankly I agree with the point of view I think you're expressing that the way Pete and John are doing it is working! And that they deserve our trust in how to make it all work. But I don't believe that's all there is to be said about it.

[RiverDog]

Nice post, CBob. You put the issue as accurately yet as delicately as a person could possibly do.

Roach, I have a high degree of respect for your opinion as I regard you as a very intelligent football mind and I love debating you. But there are times that I feel that you are being intentionally antagonistic, that you are looking for the smallest point of disagreement to argue about. I guess I don't mind it all that much as I feel I can do an adequate job of defending myself and the last thing I'm going to do is cry about being picked on. But I do think that you are misinterpreting almost to the point of misrepresenting the overall gist of many of my arguments.

Now, in the words of the immortal Rodney King..." Can't we all just get along?"

[Agent 86]

Woooooooooooooooooooh!

Just put the flag up outside, my ET29 Thomas jersey on my back, steaks are out ready to go on the grill, and a rye and coke in my hand.

Love the draft!

One thing I like they have done the last 2 years I think? Is you don't know the pick until the Commish announces it. I hated it when you already knew 2 minutes before the pick was made on TV, it took the surprise out of the announcement. Get the cameras out of the green room!

Who ya watching? NFL Network(Mayock) or ESPN(Kiper).......me, I am Mayock all day long....

[RiverDog]

Woooooooooooooooooooh!

Just put the flag up outside, my ET29 Thomas jersey on my back, steaks are out ready to go on the grill, and a rye and coke in my hand.

Love the draft!

One thing I like they have done the last 2 years I think? Is you don't know the pick until the Commish announces it. I hated it when you already knew 2 minutes before the pick was made on TV, it took the surprise out of the announcement. Get the cameras out of the green room!

Who ya watching? NFL Network(Mayock) or ESPN(Kiper).......me, I am Mayock all day long....

I was sitting on my deck, by the outdoor fireplace and listening to it on NFL Radio.

[Agent 86]

I was sitting on my deck, by the outdoor fireplace and listening to it on NFL Radio.

Hey Riv, I have Sirius and didn't even think to listen to that. I had to PVR yesterday's action, and have to do the same today, so won't be able to go the Sirius route

But curious as to who the hosts are? I am assuming Pat Kirwan is part of it, and even though I am not a big fan a Gil Brandt, he does seem to be heralded as a Draft guru on there, so thinking he is part of it as well?

I also like Ross Tucker and Booger McFarland when they are together......but not a fan of Bob Papa either. It's actually been a while since I listened to NFL Radio other than little bits of PK and Jim Miller's spot....you ever notice how much commercial time takes up an hour? seems like over 50% of the time I change it over to there, it's a commercial.

I usually listen to my Classic Vinyl/Lithium/Pearl Jam/Classic rewind at work (all commercial free!), but will start to listen to more NFL radio when training camps start.