Sacks allowed

[nlbmsportin]

In response to the many who may feel I'm insane, I really think Greg Robinson might be a very smart move.

#1. I have heard talk that he has a lot of similarities with our very own Walter Jones. Both were insanely fast and light on their feet. Most rank Greg as the #1 OT in the draft, and I remember Schneider talking about how high Walter Jones ranked on their board that year and how he was one the highest prospect ranking he had ever seen. If, and that's a fairly big if, Robinson sits that high on their board I would hope they would be looking at options to move up.

#2. Depth? We need more depth? Well, last time I checked so do the other 31 teams. We are probably one of the absolute deepest teams in the NFL as I type this. Lame excuse not to find a cornerstone piece if possible.

#3. Okung, while I love the guy he just can't stay healthy, and if this trend continues he won't be extended. We will have to find another LT anyways. I don't care how strange his injuries are, they keep piling up.

#4. We know what we have in Wilson. The guy is HOF material. He's simply phenomenal. Mark my words, you will never see another like him here, ever. For that reason, you cannot risk his health with unreliable OT's and doing so will be far more painful than having more draft picks.

#5. We don't do that well in the 1st round anyway. Thomas is the only surefire bet we have made out of 5 tries. Harvin is special, but let's wait to see if that trade was a worthy investment.

#6. Our money picks have been late round risk picks that have panned out. For that reason especially I wouldn't care if we trade some of our top picks away.

#7. Finally, we have no idea what that cost would be. It all depends on how badly another team wishes to move down. Raiders are talking with three teams as they have made it clear they wish to trade down. Back when the Jets traded for Sanchez they moved up quite a bit for a tawdry second round pick and a couple no-name players, so there's simply no way to know the cost to this team. I would not pull the trigger for 3 first round picks as Kali believes. There is a limit, but it doesn't mean you don't kick some tires.

Bottom line, if Schneider deems Greg Robinson as the next Walter Jones, I hope like hell they pull the trigger if the cost isn't too substantial. A healthy Russell Wilson is worth more than an entire draft.

Okay point by point:

1. Walter Jones was a far superior pass protector and a converted TE. If Walter Jones was seriously the comparison he would be the #1 overall pick on just about everyone's board.

2. Yes we need more depth. I don't hold the Seahawks to the standard of "31 other teams". If they construct their roster the right way, they will remain in elite company for years. Okung was bulletproof in college and now he's oft injured as a pro. So we should gamble that Greg Robinson is better than the guy we have slotted at 32, our 2015 1st round pick, and another high pick in 2015 or 2016?

3. You don't trade away your future for a LT. Walter Jones has really skewed your view of that position and its importance. Especially when you consider we are a run first team.

4. The only way Wilson is "HOF material" is if he does it like Aikman. He isn't Manning, Brady, Brees, or Rodgers. I doubt he ever will be. Wilson will benefit greatly from better interior protection more so than from the edges. If you have Greg Robinson at LT, but still putting garbage on the interior to leave Unger by himself RW will get destroyed by teams like AZ.

5. So we should trade away potentially 3 first round picks for 1 first round pick? How does decreasing the number of chances we have make us better off? Having multiple picks helps when you consider that we drafted E.J. Wilson 4 picks before Kam Chancellor.

6. More of the same faulty logic. PCJS have drafted 4 players in the first round. One of them is a future HOFer if he continues at this pace. I'll take a HOF player out of the first round every 4 years. Especially when guys like Sherman and Chancellor come in the later rounds.

7. There is no way in hell trading from 32wouldn't mean 3 high picks. Sorry, you get what you pay for, except in this case it would be like going to Vegas and betting your kid's college fund because you think he's smart enough to get a scholarship when he gets older.

[kalibane]

In the Sanchez trade the Jets moved up from #17 to #5. This was also under the old collective bargaining agreement where top 5 picks got ridiculously expensive contracts with big guaranteed money.

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, the Redskins moved up from #6 to #2 and it cost them 2 first round picks and a 2nd round pick to switch places.

We're talking about moving up from #32 to #1 (because there is no way you do this trade with the Rams). If anything the price of 3 first rounders is conservative. There is no way such a move would be worth the price.

[HumanCockroach]

Not so sure about the Wilson statement NLB, seems to me, he currently is on the same career arc as Brady, not Aiken, once Lynch is gone, I am not convinced that the predominant run offense we have seen doesn't shift more towards a passing oriented game plan ( along with additional weapons like Harv in being added, maturity of Wilson, Kearse, additional picks etc). Other than that, I agree the cost to jump up that much would be insane. There simply is ZERO guarantee when it comes to draft players ( which is a BIG reason I am always shocked and amazed why people "expect" success each and every year from players drafted in the first round in the first place, talk about unrealistic expectations, Seattle has HIT on half of their first round picks, with some still to be decided, no team hits with more regularity, which is WHY they have their first Lombardi, no matter what the naysayers want to profess).

It's a crap shoot, just the way it is, and has always been, and always will be. Spending draft capital on players that NO ONE knows will succeed just cause they want a LT or a lineman. If the last several drafts hasn't driven that point home ( as yet still waiting to see someone provide an actual good offensive lineman the Hawks whiffed on) I'm not sure what will. Schneider and Carroll prefer numerous picks in each and every draft, the idea they are going to spend 4 or so high picks to draft a single player is not going to happen.

That said, IF there is a player they want, and the choice is some of next years draft capital in the form of later picks(ie compensatory picks, of which they will have NUMEROUS) than I do believe they pull the trigger. A far more likely scenario is trading back, moving up into the early second and getting their 3rd back.

[Anthony]

In response to the many who may feel I'm insane, I really think Greg Robinson might be a very smart move.

#1. I have heard talk that he has a lot of similarities with our very own Walter Jones. Both were insanely fast and light on their feet. Most rank Greg as the #1 OT in the draft, and I remember Schneider talking about how high Walter Jones ranked on their board that year and how he was one the highest prospect ranking he had ever seen. If, and that's a fairly big if, Robinson sits that high on their board I would hope they would be looking at options to move up.

#2. Depth? We need more depth? Well, last time I checked so do the other 31 teams. We are probably one of the absolute deepest teams in the NFL as I type this. Lame excuse not to find a cornerstone piece if possible.

#3. Okung, while I love the guy he just can't stay healthy, and if this trend continues he won't be extended. We will have to find another LT anyways. I don't care how strange his injuries are, they keep piling up.

#4. We know what we have in Wilson. The guy is HOF material. He's simply phenomenal. Mark my words, you will never see another like him here, ever. For that reason, you cannot risk his health with unreliable OT's and doing so will be far more painful than having more draft picks.

#5. We don't do that well in the 1st round anyway. Thomas is the only surefire bet we have made out of 5 tries. Harvin is special, but let's wait to see if that trade was a worthy investment.

#6. Our money picks have been late round risk picks that have panned out. For that reason especially I wouldn't care if we trade some of our top picks away.

#7. Finally, we have no idea what that cost would be. It all depends on how badly another team wishes to move down. Raiders are talking with three teams as they have made it clear they wish to trade down. Back when the Jets traded for Sanchez they moved up quite a bit for a tawdry second round pick and a couple no-name players, so there's simply no way to know the cost to this team. I would not pull the trigger for 3 first round picks as Kali believes. There is a limit, but it doesn't mean you don't kick some tires.

Bottom line, if Schneider deems Greg Robinson as the next Walter Jones, I hope like hell they pull the trigger if the cost isn't too substantial. A healthy Russell Wilson is worth more than an entire draft.

Okay point by point:

1. Walter Jones was a far superior pass protector and a converted TE. If Walter Jones was seriously the comparison he would be the #1 overall pick on just about everyone's board.

2. Yes we need more depth. I don't hold the Seahawks to the standard of "31 other teams". If they construct their roster the right way, they will remain in elite company for years. Okung was bulletproof in college and now he's oft injured as a pro. So we should gamble that Greg Robinson is better than the guy we have slotted at 32, our 2015 1st round pick, and another high pick in 2015 or 2016?

3. You don't trade away your future for a LT. Walter Jones has really skewed your view of that position and its importance. Especially when you consider we are a run first team.

4. The only way Wilson is "HOF material" is if he does it like Aikman. He isn't Manning, Brady, Brees, or Rodgers. I doubt he ever will be. Wilson will benefit greatly from better interior protection more so than from the edges. If you have Greg Robinson at LT, but still putting garbage on the interior to leave Unger by himself RW will get destroyed by teams like AZ.

5. So we should trade away potentially 3 first round picks for 1 first round pick? How does decreasing the number of chances we have make us better off? Having multiple picks helps when you consider that we drafted E.J. Wilson 4 picks before Kam Chancellor.

6. More of the same faulty logic. PCJS have drafted 4 players in the first round. One of them is a future HOFer if he continues at this pace. I'll take a HOF player out of the first round every 4 years. Especially when guys like Sherman and Chancellor come in the later rounds.

7. There is no way in hell trading from 32wouldn't mean 3 high picks. Sorry, you get what you pay for, except in this case it would be like going to Vegas and betting your kid's college fund because you think he's smart enough to get a scholarship when he gets older.

So the points

1. there is no one you can compare to WJ, nobody.
2. We do need more depth on the line and other places, and so does everyone else, I am sure the FO will find what they need depth wise.
3. Agree about the concerns about RO, and think it is something to keep track of and probably even plan for his break down and game missing.
4. Agreed on Rw he is on a HOF path, and depending on how the offense changes over the next few years, and if he stays here or goes someplace else will determine what path he takes to the HOF, weather it is an Aikman path or a Brees path. He has shown he can do it either way like Aikman, and like Brees, Manning, Brady, and Rodgers, and has even shown he might be able to do it a 3rd way, the RW way.
5. agree our 1st rounders as a whole have not been good, but I am not willing to trade 3 for 1.
6. agreed and I Can see were we might trade our 1st round this year for a couple in lower rounds.
7. agree we do not know but the FO will do, but in the end they will do what they think is best and so far that has been good enough.

[Irish Greg 2.0]

It makes all the sense in the world to go OL.

...which is exactly why it won't happen with Pete and John.

[Steady_Hawk]

Quick follow up,

NLBM,

I agree, I would not give 3 first round picks to move up as I said before, and if Greg Robinson was another Walter Jones, that would be determined by Schnieder, not me and maybe not by other teams as well. Because of the other blue chip players in the draft a fair amount of mocks have Robinson falling to #5 or #6. That's where I thought the bargaining would begin. Not #1 or #2. Those are almost impossible spots to get to depending on the players in the draft.

Also, I'm sorry, but I can't see eye to eye with you about Wilson. He'll be in the HOF just as Thomas will. They both are wired very similarly, but Wilson may be a bit more of a automaton.

As far as depth, we have shown a consistency of finding top tier players late in the draft. That's why I'm not concerned about trading some top picks if the situation were amicable.

[RiverDog]

Quick follow up,

NLBM,

I agree, I would not give 3 first round picks to move up as I said before, and if Greg Robinson was another Walter Jones, that would be determined by Schnieder, not me and maybe not by other teams as well. Because of the other blue chip players in the draft a fair amount of mocks have Robinson falling to #5 or #6. That's where I thought the bargaining would begin. Not #1 or #2. Those are almost impossible spots to get to depending on the players in the draft.

Also, I'm sorry, but I can't see eye to eye with you about Wilson. He'll be in the HOF just as Thomas will. They both are wired very similarly, but Wilson may be a bit more of a automaton.

As far as depth, we have shown a consistency of finding top tier players late in the draft. That's why I'm not concerned about trading some top picks if the situation were amicable.

Even #5 or #6 would be cost prohibitive. What I'd rather do is wait and see if one of the three top OT's, perhaps Lewan, slides within viable range in the late teens or early 20's where we'd only have to move up 8-10 slots. If one of them does slide that far, then I wouldn't mind trading up and snagging him. Same goes for Mike Evans. I don't for a minute think that's likely any of those guys will fall, but stranger things have happened. We best forget about Robinson. We'll see him often, but only while wearing a helmet with those yellow curly things on them.

I wouldn't count on Pete and John hitting on so many late round draft picks as they have recently. You have to remember that Pete had spent 9 years in the college ranks and knew a lot of the players personally and had established a lot of contacts that as time goes on, will gradually begin to fade. If that's a reasonable explanation for Pete's above average hit percentage on the under the radar late rounders, then he may not have as good an insight on those types of players today as he did a couple of years ago.

[HumanCockroach]

The team philosophy as I understand it is a strong Defense and an Offense built on a strong run game.
Unless Michael brings similar qualities to the run game, when Marshawn loses his edge as all RB's do at some point, our run game could be impacted in a big way.

The OL is the most important part of the Offense. With an average or less than average OL, thFart to the strong Defense is hampered in performance.
We saw that against the NFC West last year when they shut down the run and then attacked the edges.
It's also why the OL is thought to be the weakest link and highest priority and it can't really reach its peak by picking up last round selections, UFA's, and other former UFAs in Free Agency and hoping to find a gem.

good point but you are forgetting 30+% of our run game was RW, and this offense is also based on big plays in the passing games, something hard to do without protection for your QB.

Wilson provided less than 25% of the rushing yardage for this team, and improving the pass protection doesn't improve that one bit, while looking at the BIG picture ( which factors in multiple variables, not just the ones you want to highlight Wilson's mobility has multiple different aspects, and the idea that all his yardage on the ground came via designed QB runs isn't close to accurate, you're lamenting "protection" refusing to acknowledge that non mobile QB's don't run for that yardage, NOR do the move so much in the pocket ( which makes it exceedingly impossible to protect the QB or avoid holding calls, since they do NOT know where the QB is, or how long he will hold the ball), nor do they hold the ball as long as Wilson does ( which ALSO contributes to sack and hit totals). It is a pretty common denominator for ALL mobile QB's throughout the course of NFL history, and no amount of exaggerating the facts or choosing to only view those stats you feel compelled to profess the "important" ones change that.
Having ONE hole in the line (ie an "average" starter) is COMMON place in the NFL. It happens in EVERY team, because simply put it is difficult to find and hold onto 5 star lineman,the 05' Hawks had holes on that line, just like the bulk of ALL teams in NFL history, I don't think many would say at this point it was a "bad" line, do you? Difference being that that line had to block for a QB that stayed in the pocket, threw the ball away, and got rid of it quickly.

You have to learn to accept Wilson WILL be hit more, it is the type of QB he IS, taking that away CHANGES the unique qualities he brings to the table, the WORST thing a staff can do with a player like him, is CHANGE his thought process. Wilson WILL always move, and hold the ball longer than maybe he should, which means, the O-line will ALWAYS be viewed as giving up to many sacks, or hits.

Not entirely sure how you can be all fired up about "protecting" him and then inflate rushing totals?? Running the ball INCREASES injury risk and hits, so either you want him to not run, and stay in the pocket, or you want what he has delivered up until this point, you CAN'T have BOTH.

Improving the line is a GOOD thing,and SHOULD be done, BUT to ignore the type of play, offense, decisions by Wilson, simply because you are afraid of injury ( something NO offensive line player no matter HOW good he happens to be can remove, ESPECIALLY with a mobile QB who runs, scrambles or leaves the pocket) is a pointless endeavor, EVERY QB is one play away from being hurt, whether it be Farve, Montana, or Manning.

[HumanCockroach]

Just a little info on how MUCH time Wilson spends inside the pocket, and the length of time he spends BEFORE he throws the ball ( ranked 31st in the NFL). Meaning a LONGER period of time to block, more hits and more sacks. I attempted to find a list, but without an "insider" account it isn't readily available.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blog ... rc=desktop

You guys can do with it what you want, but IMO this shows that while not ecstatic about the protection, it is pretty clear that a QB that gets rid of the ball quickly makes his line look better than it is, while one that is slow to release the ball makes his line look worse. Team sport, and it works across the board. Bad receivers make QB look worse, good QB makes receivers look better, great RB makes line look better, bad line makes RB look worse and so on. That line wasn't great, but it simply was NOT as bad as many believe, with quicker decisions, that lines hit/sack total goes down, with improved players Wilson has more time, they work together, just the way it works.

[NorthHawk]

The team philosophy as I understand it is a strong Defense and an Offense built on a strong run game.
Unless Michael brings similar qualities to the run game, when Marshawn loses his edge as all RB's do at some point, our run game could be impacted in a big way.

The OL is the most important part of the Offense. With an average or less than average OL, thFart to the strong Defense is hampered in performance.
We saw that against the NFC West last year when they shut down the run and then attacked the edges.
It's also why the OL is thought to be the weakest link and highest priority and it can't really reach its peak by picking up last round selections, UFA's, and other former UFAs in Free Agency and hoping to find a gem.

good point but you are forgetting 30+% of our run game was RW, and this offense is also based on big plays in the passing games, something hard to do without protection for your QB.

Wilson provided less than 25% of the rushing yardage for this team, and improving the pass protection doesn't improve that one bit, while looking at the BIG picture ( which factors in multiple variables, not just the ones you want to highlight Wilson's mobility has multiple different aspects, and the idea that all his yardage on the ground came via designed QB runs isn't close to accurate, you're lamenting "protection" refusing to acknowledge that non mobile QB's don't run for that yardage, NOR do the move so much in the pocket ( which makes it exceedingly impossible to protect the QB or avoid holding calls, since they do NOT know where the QB is, or how long he will hold the ball), nor do they hold the ball as long as Wilson does ( which ALSO contributes to sack and hit totals). It is a pretty common denominator for ALL mobile QB's throughout the course of NFL history, and no amount of exaggerating the facts or choosing to only view those stats you feel compelled to profess the "important" ones change that.
Having ONE hole in the line (ie an "average" starter) is COMMON place in the NFL. It happens in EVERY team, because simply put it is difficult to find and hold onto 5 star lineman,the 05' Hawks had holes on that line, just like the bulk of ALL teams in NFL history, I don't think many would say at this point it was a "bad" line, do you? Difference being that that line had to block for a QB that stayed in the pocket, threw the ball away, and got rid of it quickly.

You have to learn to accept Wilson WILL be hit more, it is the type of QB he IS, taking that away CHANGES the unique qualities he brings to the table, the WORST thing a staff can do with a player like him, is CHANGE his thought process. Wilson WILL always move, and hold the ball longer than maybe he should, which means, the O-line will ALWAYS be viewed as giving up to many sacks, or hits.

Not entirely sure how you can be all fired up about "protecting" him and then inflate rushing totals?? Running the ball INCREASES injury risk and hits, so either you want him to not run, and stay in the pocket, or you want what he has delivered up until this point, you CAN'T have BOTH.

Improving the line is a GOOD thing,and SHOULD be done, BUT to ignore the type of play, offense, decisions by Wilson, simply because you are afraid of injury ( something NO offensive line player no matter HOW good he happens to be can remove, ESPECIALLY with a mobile QB who runs, scrambles or leaves the pocket) is a pointless endeavor, EVERY QB is one play away from being hurt, whether it be Farve, Montana, or Manning.

I can only surmise you don't get the concept that the run game and pass game complement each other. A good run game helps the pass game and a good pass game helps the run game.
If one is weak, the other suffers because the Offense becomes unbalanced and largely one dimensional. It's much easier to defend and dominate when unbalanced.
Thus the need to upgrade the OL and put things in sync.

[Eaglehawk]

That's the rub folks. If we ignore our OL needs this season, AND RW gets hurt. No SB. And as I asserted on another thread, I will put the blame on PC and company. Now, if there is an earnest effort to truly fix the problem and say Okung or someone else on the line gets hurt again, then obviously not.

I can't see how PC does not address in the draft our key needs on the OL. Even while trying to address Red's departure on D. It's gonna be an interesting draft guys!

[HumanCockroach]

NH, it's safe to say you COMPLETELY missed my point entirely.

[Anthony]

The team philosophy as I understand it is a strong Defense and an Offense built on a strong run game.
Unless Michael brings similar qualities to the run game, when Marshawn loses his edge as all RB's do at some point, our run game could be impacted in a big way.

The OL is the most important part of the Offense. With an average or less than average OL, thFart to the strong Defense is hampered in performance.
We saw that against the NFC West last year when they shut down the run and then attacked the edges.
It's also why the OL is thought to be the weakest link and highest priority and it can't really reach its peak by picking up last round selections, UFA's, and other former UFAs in Free Agency and hoping to find a gem.

good point but you are forgetting 30+% of our run game was RW, and this offense is also based on big plays in the passing games, something hard to do without protection for your QB.

Wilson provided less than 25% of the rushing yardage for this team, and improving the pass protection doesn't improve that one bit, while looking at the BIG picture ( which factors in multiple variables, not just the ones you want to highlight Wilson's mobility has multiple different aspects, and the idea that all his yardage on the ground came via designed QB runs isn't close to accurate, you're lamenting "protection" refusing to acknowledge that non mobile QB's don't run for that yardage, NOR do the move so much in the pocket ( which makes it exceedingly impossible to protect the QB or avoid holding calls, since they do NOT know where the QB is, or how long he will hold the ball), nor do they hold the ball as long as Wilson does ( which ALSO contributes to sack and hit totals). It is a pretty common denominator for ALL mobile QB's throughout the course of NFL history, and no amount of exaggerating the facts or choosing to only view those stats you feel compelled to profess the "important" ones change that.
Having ONE hole in the line (ie an "average" starter) is COMMON place in the NFL. It happens in EVERY team, because simply put it is difficult to find and hold onto 5 star lineman,the 05' Hawks had holes on that line, just like the bulk of ALL teams in NFL history, I don't think many would say at this point it was a "bad" line, do you? Difference being that that line had to block for a QB that stayed in the pocket, threw the ball away, and got rid of it quickly.

You have to learn to accept Wilson WILL be hit more, it is the type of QB he IS, taking that away CHANGES the unique qualities he brings to the table, the WORST thing a staff can do with a player like him, is CHANGE his thought process. Wilson WILL always move, and hold the ball longer than maybe he should, which means, the O-line will ALWAYS be viewed as giving up to many sacks, or hits.

Not entirely sure how you can be all fired up about "protecting" him and then inflate rushing totals?? Running the ball INCREASES injury risk and hits, so either you want him to not run, and stay in the pocket, or you want what he has delivered up until this point, you CAN'T have BOTH.

Improving the line is a GOOD thing,and SHOULD be done, BUT to ignore the type of play, offense, decisions by Wilson, simply because you are afraid of injury ( something NO offensive line player no matter HOW good he happens to be can remove, ESPECIALLY with a mobile QB who runs, scrambles or leaves the pocket) is a pointless endeavor, EVERY QB is one play away from being hurt, whether it be Farve, Montana, or Manning.

Actually it is more than you think, take that away and instead of top 5 we are 20th, huge difference, and it is not even just about the yards but when he gets them. We had a total of 116 rushing first downs, 31 by Rw, that is 27% of our rushing first downs, that is huge, and yes the o-line does impact that. You are correct every QB is one play form being hurt, but that does not mean you cannot mitigate that 1 play, by having better protection.

[Anthony]

Just a little info on how MUCH time Wilson spends inside the pocket, and the length of time he spends BEFORE he throws the ball ( ranked 31st in the NFL). Meaning a LONGER period of time to block, more hits and more sacks. I attempted to find a list, but without an "insider" account it isn't readily available.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blog ... rc=desktop

You guys can do with it what you want, but IMO this shows that while not ecstatic about the protection, it is pretty clear that a QB that gets rid of the ball quickly makes his line look better than it is, while one that is slow to release the ball makes his line look worse. Team sport, and it works across the board. Bad receivers make QB look worse, good QB makes receivers look better, great RB makes line look better, bad line makes RB look worse and so on. That line wasn't great, but it simply was NOT as bad as many believe, with quicker decisions, that lines hit/sack total goes down, with improved players Wilson has more time, they work together, just the way it works.

That's great but you left out one important fact, those number include scrambles, sacks, etc. Also this does not take into account the type of WR, the plays, etc. Our WR do not get open so easily as theirs do, we look more for big plays which take longer, etc. Not to mention Denvers o-line was ranked 1st in pass protection while Seattle was 32nd. Espn in their paid part also had a breakdown of the sacks, this, and hurries on Rw and of the 44 sacks only 1 was on RW. This includes were Rw held the ball to long for no reason. So sorry the line was bad, really bad and needs to be improved.

[Anthony]

NH, it's safe to say you COMPLETELY missed my point entirely.

NO he gets it, he is not talking about taking away what makes Rw, Rw, but you can still mitigate some of it by improving the o-line, and mitigating any of it could be all the difference in the world.

[HumanCockroach]

LOL now you want to include all the parameters? SMH. I'm done trying to aleve other peoples fears. Be scared if you want to, have at it.

[HumanCockroach]

NH, it's safe to say you COMPLETELY missed my point entirely.

NO he gets it, he is not talking about taking away what makes Rw, Rw, but you can still mitigate some of it by improving the o-line, and mitigating any of it could be all the difference in the world.

Nope he doesn't and neither do you, find where I posted I didn't want the pass protection improved, good luck, the difference is I understand multiple differing aspects of the situation the Hawks currently reside, and understand there is no magic wand to fix it, I understand moving parts, and the fluidity of the way a team drafts, signs and improves. I don't let my fear and worry consume my ability to objectively look at the problem to the point of railing on it needlessly , and non stop, nor do I allow it it cloud my vision of what Wilson and that line IS as opposed to what I WANT it to be. Some see "big picture" and understand that it is a long, drawn out process to improve an area of concern, and some believe that there are solutions that are quick fixes around every corner.

I've made it clear throughout the numerous of months of people fretting,exaggerating, and nail biting that I also want the line upgraded ( and NOT just the line), I just see a long term result, not an instant one ( which does NOT exist). I don't need to fill the board with hyperbole about how the O-line has been ignored, or overstate how "poorly" they played, nor do I need to yell "fire" in the theatre to get my position across.

there HASN'T been neglect, there HASN'T been any surefire quick fixes, there HASN'T been some magical pick or player that fixes all of Seattles ills on the line, there HAS been MORE financial and draft capital spent on that line than most of the NFL, they HAVE won a SB with that poor line, and NO line protects all QB's from injury, SCRAMBLING DOES increase the risk of injury, QB's that hold the ball LONGER get hit MORE, I'm done trying to explain it.

If you and others can't grasp it, or are afraid of injury, so be it.

[NorthHawk]

NH, it's safe to say you COMPLETELY missed my point entirely.

I was wondering what that was that brushed past my hair...

[Anthony]

NH, it's safe to say you COMPLETELY missed my point entirely.

NO he gets it, he is not talking about taking away what makes Rw, Rw, but you can still mitigate some of it by improving the o-line, and mitigating any of it could be all the difference in the world.

Nope he doesn't and neither do you, find where I posted I didn't want the pass protection improved, good luck, the difference is I understand multiple differing aspects of the situation the Hawks currently reside, and understand there is no magic wand to fix it, I understand moving parts, and the fluidity of the way a team drafts, signs and improves. I don't let my fear and worry consume my ability to objectively look at the problem to the point of railing on it needlessly , and non stop, nor do I allow it it cloud my vision of what Wilson and that line IS as opposed to what I WANT it to be. Some see "big picture" and understand that it is a long, drawn out process to improve an area of concern, and some believe that there are solutions that are quick fixes around every corner.

I've made it clear throughout the numerous of months of people fretting,exaggerating, and nail biting that I also want the line upgraded ( and NOT just the line), I just see a long term result, not an instant one ( which does NOT exist). I don't need to fill the board with hyperbole about how the O-line has been ignored, or overstate how "poorly" they played, nor do I need to yell "fire" in the theatre to get my position across.

there HASN'T been neglect, there HASN'T been any surefire quick fixes, there HASN'T been some magical pick or player that fixes all of Seattles ills on the line, there HAS been MORE financial and draft capital spent on that line than most of the NFL, they HAVE won a SB with that poor line, and NO line protects all QB's from injury, SCRAMBLING DOES increase the risk of injury, QB's that hold the ball LONGER get hit MORE, I'm done trying to explain it.

If you and others can't grasp it, or are afraid of injury, so be it.

Actually I do get it, despite your ramblings, I do get it,. I understand a scrambling QB increases risk, I also understand a better o-line makes it so a scrambling QB does not need to scramble as much, there by reducing that risk, and that is what you want to do, decrease the risk as much as you can. There will always be risk, but that does not mean you cannot and should not try to reduce the risk.

[NorthHawk]

Wilson doesn't scramble because he wants to, he scrambles because of necessity.
He's a pretty good pocket passer when given time.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, which is exactly what I continue to say, just don't exaggerate it to attempt to make it bigger than it is, and look at ALL the factors, not just the ones I want to to create some sort of panic about an injury that hasn't occurred, may never occur, and certainly is a possibility no matter how good or bad an offensive line happens to be. I've provided the information, what you choose to do with that is entirely up to you. I simply do not go forward fretting things that "might" happen in life, I cope with the situations as the arise, and attempt to mitigate the dangers, knowing full well that there is ZERO way to remove them all from life, no matter how careful, or how many resources are expended on them. You think the line is garbage, and you are welcome to that opinion, I disagree strongly, that doesn't mean they cannot improve or upgrade, just that they are an ABOVE average line playing in a difficult situation. Doesn't mean they bare no responsibility, but they don't bare ALL of the responsibility, and if you asked Carroll, Cable, Wilson, Bevell or Schneider they would say similar words to what I just posted.

There is no magic solution, some get that, some don't. They will CONTINUE to attempt to upgrade every area of their team, the SAME way they have done since they arrived, pretending like they haven't attempted to upgrade the offensive line is just silly. They spend MORE money on that line than 24 other teams in the NFL, they have spent MORE draft capital on that O-line than 22 other NFL teams since arriving. They have SIGNED more FA and retained MORE of their own players than 26 other NFLfranchise since arriving, they have 63% of ALL drafted players still on this team. They ARE paying attention, AND attempting to upgrade the line, each and every season, and will continue to do so, as they always do. They'll "gamble" on some players through free agency, they'll draft players that they want that THEY feel are worth the picks, some will work, and some won't, expecting a "hit" on every lineman drafted is just dumb, NO other team in the NFL has "hit" on a lineman drafted in the last two seasons ( at least not at the time of this post) so where did the expectation that some draft pick was magically become an all pro come from? People that aren't realistic in expectations based on the talent available.

[HumanCockroach]

Wilson doesn't scramble because he wants to, he scrambles because of necessity.
He's a pretty good pocket passer when given time.

I think you are equating all of his scrambles to necessity, when that simply isn't the case, I personally have watched him scramble from air multiple times in the last several seasons, run the ball when there is open ground even though there is no pressure, and take off when things while becoming congested aren't some sort of sack avoidance situation. Wilson like EVERY QB has a "clock" in his head, when he KNOWS he should have already released the ball, SINCE Wilson holds the ball longer than all but one starting QB in the NFL, my guess would be he moves because he KNOWS he shouldn't have the football any longer, and is attempting to avoid pressure he KNOWS should be there.

This isn't some sort of absolve the O-line excuse, it's what I see. Teams with QB's that HOLD the ball longer than others learn to accept those decisions if doing so helps them more than hurts them Pittsburgh has learned to do it with Rothlisberger, and Seattle has learned to accept it in Wilson, while the fans may be behind in coming to that realisation, it doesn't change it. Not all scramble situations were because of Wilson, just like not all were because there was time to do anything else. There were times that line protected him extremely poorly , BUT there were times he had TONS of time to release the ball and simply didn't.

Improving the pass blocking is important, but not over reacting to the situation is as well. If the players available improve your situation, you draft them, if they don't you don't. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.

[NorthHawk]

You seem to equate paying money to being effective for the OL. There's more to it than that - like putting a priority in finding quality OL in the draft. That's where the players that can really help will be found - above the 6th round - and they aren't particularly expensive. Those players are regularly starter material, the ones at the bottom are usually there because they simply aren't as good.

Talking about money.
Okung was the old CBA so his contract skews the figures. In today's CBA, his contract would be significantly less and I expect it will be downgraded if he re-signs after next year.
Unger is a former Pro Bowl player on his second contract - that means paying a lot of money. The rest are bargain basement additions masquerading as starting calibre OL and their backups probably aren't ever going to be solid starters, either. If they had that potential, the FA pickups would still be on their original teams.

Player additions.
In the last 2 years they have done close to nothing in the draft or FA to upgrade the OL performance short of a couple of 7th round picks and FA's that were themselves late picks or UFA's.
Unless that is, you equate 7th round selections and Undrafted Free Agents as quality additions - I don't.
Although it occasionally happens that players play above their draft selections, the probability is much lower the deeper into the draft you go.

When they missed on Carpenter and Moffitt, you would have thought that since 40% of the OL was not performing well, their starting LT regularly missing parts of seasons for injury, and after finally finding a Franchise QB, they would emphasize protecting that asset. That would mean putting a focus on OL - Interior and Edge. A couple of 7th round selections isn't much draft capital considering the asset they are protecting.
It's true that injuries happen, but it's also true that the more a QB gets hit, the greater the chance of an injury that will cause missed games. Add in that teams are going out of their way to hit the QB and the punishment he takes gets even worse. A better OL would at least give him time to get the ball away with less exposure to the big hit not to mention reduce the number of times the QB is forced to run to make the play.

I think we are now beginning to be painted into a position where if they don't get at least 1 starter on OL this draft, we will be forced to go OL next year because all teams are emphasizing the pass rush.
I think it best to do so when the draft is deep along the OL, not when it's thin.

[HumanCockroach]

Not rehashing this. I'm done. I'm note equating money to anything, I am pointing out that resources have indeed been used, and that the magic wand theory on offensive lineman in the last two drafts is a flawed argument, as none have done squat in the NFL to this point, much less late first round and late second round lineman available. Bowie has been the HIGHEST graded drafted lineman over the last two drafts, that is just the facts of the matter. You can speculate all you would like, but those are the bare nuts of the matter. Giacomini was also resigned, as well as McQuistan, the Seahawks let expensive mediocre lineman go and replace them with young cheap options with upside and people panic. I'm not prone to panic, so I don't.( by the way those Cheap players skew the cost DOWN as well, two sides to every coin North).

[NorthHawk]

Nobody's panicking - it's just a point of discussion.

Take out Okungs contract and take out the least expensive contract and what do you get? Not much expense along the OL.
The argument I think we are having is I don't see much upside with the existing OL and you do.
Bowie didn't play all year long so we will see how good he is this year. I hope he is one of those that beat the odds.

The 2 OL that Chicago got are pretty good in Long and Mills and are considered 2 of the best young OL from last years draft.
We didn't have a chance on Long, but Mills was a 5th round selection so he was available at some point for us. I don't know how they ranked to Bowie, but they played all year and Bowie didn't.

If Bowie was that good, why didn't he start over Breno after his injury? Isn't it all about competition and the best player plays?
Apparently we went with the lesser option of the two if the statistic on Bowie is true.

[HumanCockroach]

Nobody's panicking - it's just a point of discussion.

Take out Okungs contract and take out the least expensive contract and what do you get? Not much expense along the OL.
The argument I think we are having is I don't see much upside with the existing OL and you do.
Bowie didn't play all year long so we will see how good he is this year. I hope he is one of those that beat the odds.

The 2 OL that Chicago got are pretty good in Long and Mills and are considered 2 of the best young OL from last years draft.
We didn't have a chance on Long, but Mills was a 5th round selection so he was available at some point for us. I don't know how they ranked to Bowie, but they played all year and Bowie didn't.

If Bowie was that good, why didn't he start over Breno after his injury? Isn't it all about competition and the best player plays?
Apparently we went with the lesser option of the two if the statistic on Bowie is true.

Bowie had multiple starts after Giacomini came back, they happened to be at left guard. Did people forget that Carpenter was inactive against the Saints in the playoffs? Or that Bowie got as much playing time as both guards at the end of the year? They played the five best lineman, Breno had more experience at tackle, Bowie was a rookie, Carpenter was inconsistent, so I ask, what would you have done had you been in the same situation? As for the rookies from Chicago, seems like a silly statement, one because Bowie rated higher than BOTH of them, and one of them playing right tackle was DIRECTLY involved in an injury to Chicago's starting QB. Make up your minds, you laud players that performed WORSE than the rookie drafted in Seattle, one had a DIRECT impact on the Bears missing the playoffs, AND a serious injury to their franchise QB and you want to claim indifference and point out how good those guys were? Seems counter productive to me.

I've provided Bowie's grades ( +8.7) , what more can I do? If your not,sure ,OK, I can't say I'm sure about any player from year to year, so I guess that is fine by me, but just because I'm not sure Wilson will have a great year, or be productive long term doesn't mean he automatically won't, or because I'm not sure Sherman won't ease up after signing his contract that he will. It's all educated guess' . Bowie, not Okung or Unger or Giacomini, or Sweezy had the highest graded season last year, and as such I am making an educated guess that he gets better, not worse, and has the talent to improve that line. You're welcome to the opposing view of Bowie despite outplaying ALL lineman on the team, AND 85% of other NFL can't handle it, we'll see in the next couple years.

That Line drastically improved as the season wore on, to the point of Wilson not being sacked at ALL in the SB and really not being touched. Pretending like playing teams like SF, ARI and the Rams with a banged up offensive line didn't inflate numbers of hits, and sacks is also equally short sighted. McQuistin was HORRID at LT, and he is gone. Giacomini was a STARTING calibre RT but wasn't going to be paid like one in Seattle for his style of play, and so he too is gone, I have little doubt they would have kept him at a low rate, but his market was obviously higher than the value of his play here. People moaned about him for the last two years, and yet, he IS NFL starting calibre at RT. Why do you think that is? Could it possibly be that the level of starting calibre RT's is low, and the ability to find them in the draft is LOWER?

Bowie right NOW is a better prospect than the two you named based on what he did on the field, whether that continues or not can be debated, but as of this moment, the thought that he isn't, isn't accurate.( at least based on how they grade offensive lineman).

The Seahawk's grade players on their criteria, not yours or mine or Maycock or anyone else's.I have little doubt Seattle had Bowie rated higher than the 5th round selection you and other non SB winning coaches, GM's and experts see him at, and to date, he hasn't done anything but prove the Hawks right.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I'm not ready to panic either, though I can understand the sentiment. I still remember watching that Rams game with Bowie, McQuistan, and Jean-Pierre at center. The Rams, as well as everyone else that faced that OL, were merciless with the pressure, and the marquee guys, Long and Quinn, didn't let up one bit. I wouldn't either. One play I distinctly remember was Bowie was mirroring Quinn, Wilson looked to his right, saw Bowie between him and Quinn, then resumed looking down field. In that split second that RW turned his head back down field, Quinn had already put the spin on Bowie and was bringing down on RW. It was ridiculous, but understandable how Bowie got schooled by Quinn. But that's what I like about those young guys; they hung tuff anyway, and I'm hopeful they'll take that hard-earned education and build on it this year.