Rees Odhiambo

[CodeWarrior]

Pete love's SPARQ ratings and he isn't shy about it. I appreciate the methodology I just think it applies least well to OL of any position on the field. I don't think it's coincidence that this team has the most trouble drafting OL.

Just look at SPARQ ratings for OL in the 2016 draft class: https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/ol/
index.php
Jack Conklin comes in at 48th highest on the list. He was taken 8th overall by Tennessee and I'd argue is a top RT in the entire league already. See who is 3rd on that list? George Fant. Rees Odhiambo was not rated. In keeping with this Kristjan Sokoli was the top SPARQ OL of 2015. Seattle has cut him already and Indy picked him up and is transitioning him back to DL. He just didn't work out on the OL.

Looking at those SPARQ ratings I am surprised Seattle took Ifedi over Jason Spriggs. Ifedi has looked raw but capable so far and his SPARQ rating is certainly elevated so it isn't as though he's deficient in that aspect.

I am not trying to condemn the OL approach entirely. I see what the team is trying to do in an effort to save money on the OL for use at other positions. The SPARQ OL experiment is admirable, but it just hasn't worked out thus far.

 

[hawk45]

Pete love's SPARQ ratings and he isn't shy about it. I appreciate the methodology I just think it applies least well to OL of any position on the field. I don't think it's coincidence that this team has the most trouble drafting OL.

Just look at SPARQ ratings for OL in the 2016 draft class: https://3sigmaathlete.com/rankings/ol/
http://www.seahawks.net/index.php
Jack Conklin comes in at 48th highest on the list. He was taken 8th overall by Tennessee and I'd argue is a top RT in the entire league already. See who is 3rd on that list? George Fant. Rees Odhiambo was not rated. In keeping with this Kristjan Sokoli was the top SPARQ OL of 2015. Seattle has cut him already and Indy picked him up and is transitioning him back to DL. He just didn't work out on the OL.

Looking at those SPARQ ratings I am surprised Seattle took Ifedi over Jason Spriggs. Ifedi has looked raw but capable so far and his SPARQ rating is certainly elevated so it isn't as though he's deficient in that aspect.

I am not trying to condemn the OL approach entirely. I see what the team is trying to do in an effort to save money on the OL for use at other positions. The SPARQ OL experiment is admirable, but it just hasn't worked out thus far.

Boy I don't see how anyone could argue with your conclusion about the SPARQ approach with this unit. In all of Cable's time here they have yet to identify any player worth a damn to play tackle other than Giacomini who was no uber athlete. I'm near to just accepting that they never will.

Not that there are great tackles out there like fruit on trees. English has a point about that. But there aren't All-pro corners and safeties out there in the lower rounds either (or QBs) and it hasn't stopped this team. The failure at this position is more glaring for the success they have at every other unit on the team. One is tempted to doubt Cable's purported genius at making a line out of nothing.

 

[Hendo66]

Cable?
After all this time and we are where we are is unacceptable.

 

[sdog1981]

Here is the thing about Cable. From 1997-2011 he was ran out of town in 3 years or less at every coaching stop. That many other coaching evaluators can't be wrong. Also at Cal his longest coaching gig his claim to fame was converting HS D linemen to college offensive linemen. This was during the mid 90's with very little in the way of NCAA practice time and hitting interference. He took thoes ideas from 20 years ago and is trying to do it now with a CBA that limits hitting. The dude is out of touch.

This team has spent 13 draft picks on the oline since Cable got here. How many more must be wasted before he is fired?

The complete dumpster fire that is the offensive coaching staff is starting to be the frayed edge that could unravel this team and cost Pete his job.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

 

[sdog1981]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

Tom Coughlin won 2 superbowls and was ran out of town so. Yeah it happens.

Also that was one small part of my post.

 

[sdog1981]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

Tom Coughlin won 2 superbowls and was ran out of town so. Yeah it happens.

Also that was one small part of my post.

 

[Jville]

It's a shame we see so many of these threads trashed by the same campaign pressing the same agenda in thread after thread.
This threads original topic is now dead.

 

[CodeWarrior]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

I don't understand. Is Pete Carroll unilaterally above reproach? He's a great coach and I'm happy he leads the Seahawks but he is far from infallible.

Is his approach to OL construction not a viable topic of discussion? Why do you believe so strongly in his OL philosophy? I'm genuinely curious.

Jville, I have no agenda. I discuss football topics on a football board. Is that now frowned upon? I don't make baseless assertions. I backup my opinions with facts and data. What is it I do that you take issue with?

 

[Seafan]

Guard is a new position and he was still recovering from college injuries in the spring. I expect to see him be a Bailey type of swing player eventually. I don't expect him to be a full time starter soon. No need at this point. He's a Cable gamble. Britt turned out ok. Coach Chris Peterson said he was the best player he ever coached. Time will tell.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

I don't understand. Is Pete Carroll unilaterally above reproach? He's a great coach and I'm happy he leads the Seahawks but he is far from infallible.

Is his approach to OL construction not a viable topic of discussion? Why do you believe so strongly in his OL philosophy? I'm genuinely curious.

Jville, I have no agenda. I discuss football topics on a football board. Is that now frowned upon? I don't make baseless assertions. I backup my opinions with facts and data. What is it I do that you take issue with?

You'll have to point me in the direction of the quote where I said he's beyond reproach. I think you'll find I never made any reference to that.

I'm merely asserting that anyone talking about Pete's job being in doubt needs to get a grip. Simple as that.

 

[CodeWarrior]

More rubbish about Pete Carroll's job I see.

I don't understand. Is Pete Carroll unilaterally above reproach? He's a great coach and I'm happy he leads the Seahawks but he is far from infallible.

Is his approach to OL construction not a viable topic of discussion? Why do you believe so strongly in his OL philosophy? I'm genuinely curious.

Jville, I have no agenda. I discuss football topics on a football board. Is that now frowned upon? I don't make baseless assertions. I backup my opinions with facts and data. What is it I do that you take issue with?

You'll have to point me in the direction of the quote where I said he's beyond reproach. I think you'll find I never made any reference to that.

I'm merely asserting that anyone talking about Pete's job being in doubt needs to get a grip. Simple as that.

My mistake. I thought you were referring to my thoughts on OL SPARQ evaluation. Agreed on the ridiculousness of questioning Pete's job status.

 

[HawkGA]

Well you gotta love English's argument. So many times on this board I see defense of Bevell that "if you don't like Bevell you must not like Pete" or that "if you think Bevell should be fired then you think Pete should be fired too." So somebody actually phrases it that the inability to get the offense going could be Pete's downfall and it is called rubbish. Sigh.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Well you gotta love English's argument. So many times on this board I see defense of Bevell that "if you don't like Bevell you must not like Pete" or that "if you think Bevell should be fired then you think Pete should be fired too." So somebody actually phrases it that the inability to get the offense going could be Pete's downfall and it is called rubbish. Sigh.

The only thing you should be sighing about is anyone questioning Pete's job.

For starters, nobody has said the two sentences you've put in quotes. One argument I've had on here is that if you're going to constantly call for Bevell to go, you essentially don't trust Pete's judgement. Or you think he's deliberately hurting the team in favour of 'being a good buddy' (which is preposterous given he's already fired one OC and made several tough calls during his Seattle tenure).

If you don't trust Pete's judgement to the point you're going to suggest he might lose his job in the next two years, then I'll stand by what I said before. The person making that argument needs to get a grip. They're 4-2-1, a perennial contender and just endured a tough period with several key injuries including Russell Wilson. To start saying things like, 'Oh the offense could lead to Pete's downfall'. Stop. Just stop.

 

[sdog1981]

Well you gotta love English's argument. So many times on this board I see defense of Bevell that "if you don't like Bevell you must not like Pete" or that "if you think Bevell should be fired then you think Pete should be fired too." So somebody actually phrases it that the inability to get the offense going could be Pete's downfall and it is called rubbish. Sigh.

I thought everyone would understand what a frayed edge is. Is the whole thing ruined? No but if you keep pulling on that edge the whole thing can be torn apart.

 

[razor150]

Well you gotta love English's argument. So many times on this board I see defense of Bevell that "if you don't like Bevell you must not like Pete" or that "if you think Bevell should be fired then you think Pete should be fired too." So somebody actually phrases it that the inability to get the offense going could be Pete's downfall and it is called rubbish. Sigh.

The only thing you should be sighing about is anyone questioning Pete's job.

For starters, nobody has said the two sentences you've put in quotes. One argument I've had on here is that if you're going to constantly call for Bevell to go, you essentially don't trust Pete's judgement. Or you think he's deliberately hurting the team in favour of 'being a good buddy' (which is preposterous given he's already fired one OC and made several tough calls during his Seattle tenure).

If you don't trust Pete's judgement to the point you're going to suggest he might lose his job in the next two years, then I'll stand by what I said before. The person making that argument needs to get a grip. They're 4-2-1, a perennial contender and just endured a tough period with several key injuries including Russell Wilson. To start saying things like, 'Oh the offense could lead to Pete's downfall'. Stop. Just stop.

To say it isn't possible is just as silly. This offense regresses year after year, and it has everything to do with the nickel and dime-ing on the offensive line. You did make a good point about there not being a lot of talent in the draft, but the main problem is we aren't even keeping the little talent he have had on the o-line. Year after year we seem to replace marginal talent with worse talent along the line. This year is the first time we actually seem to have improved any area a long the line, but with how bad the offensive line is overall it kind of overshadows all that. Our offense has become what everyone feared it would become when Lynch is gone.

This area seems to be a major weak spot for Pete's coaching and talent evaluation style. Coaches get fired all the time for their weak spots, even coaches that have had perennial contenders and have won a Super Bowl. We all know that this team would likely be close to unstoppable if it even had an average offensive line, and if that becomes a problem year after year eventually not just the fans that will get tired of it, but the people who sign his paychecks. Not saying it will happen, but if there is any area that will cause it, this is it.

 

[Jville]

Jville, I have no agenda. I discuss football topics on a football board. Is that now frowned upon? I don't make baseless assertions. I backup my opinions with facts and data. What is it I do that you take issue with?

Nothing personal ....... and I am certainly not directing my response specifically at you.

Because, my remarks are a reaction to all posts that repeatedly hijack thread topics to regurgitate the same arguments against the same targets with no respect to thread subjects.

The habitual practice of calling out the same targeted victims in thread after thread is an agenda. IMO such a habitual practice is both disrespectful and arrogant.

There already exists a surplus of preexisting threads dedicated to trashing and demonizing Carroll, Bevell and Cable among others. So ..... why spoil original topics and subjects? Why pee all over every thread in the joint?

What I would like is more consideration and respect for other topics and posts.

 

[Hawks46]

Go through the O-liners drafted in the NFL available without moving up.

People like Terry Poole were the most athletic/explosive from a limited remaining bunch.

In fact in the 2015 draft a bunch of O-liners left the board right before Seattle's second round pick -- so they took Clark and Lockett (two good picks). From round two until round four there were basically zero options. None at all. And by R4 Seattle were taking the best remaining -- Poole, Glowinski etc. Had they wanted to go OL in round two or three instead of Clark and Lockett it would've been Poole and Glow rounds earlier and no Clark or Lockett.

It's very easy to criticise what Seattle has done, but they haven't been missing on O-liners that have gone elsewhere and had major success. There is a dearth of good OL's in college and the good ones go very early (top-15). Leaving the rest of the league, Seattle included, to try and find diamonds. Not easy.

Maybe SPARQ rating isn't as important for OL as it is for other positions? I understand Seattle's approach to OL drafting, I'm just not sure the results are providing validation.

Seattle has also missed on plenty of OL draft picks, Paul Richardson over Jack Mewhort, Morgan Moses, and Gabe Jackson in 2014 come to mind. Now I know this retrospective exercise isn't fair and teams miss all the time, but applying a SPARQ methodology to OL conversion projects has yet to pay dividends. Do you see evidence of it succeeding? I haven't seen much, though I hope that turns around.

One problem that seems consistent is this team's willingness to toss college tackles inside. If that's where they're best suited so be it, but where are the tackles supposed to come from? Our first round picks are relatively cheap and cost controlled. Tackles are expensive and in short supply. Given our budget approach to the OL it seems that these are the type of players that should be playing tackle for us prior to leaving for big money in FA once we no longer control their cost.

Not sure where you're going with this Codewarrior. Looking at the draft picks from last year, I don't see any conversions outside of Fant, and Fant is actually a really exciting player when you look at his performance vs. experience so far. The coaching staff were going to stash him this year and he surprised them in camp. Every other OL we drafted played the position in college.

As for our propensity to slide Tackles inside, that's not us that's everybody. Part of the reason that Tackles have a higher value is that if a guy washes out on the edge, teams can typically slide him inside and still get value for the pick. There isn't a lot of positions on the football field where you can say that. So of course we get guys, try them out, then push them inside.

 

[Joyodongo]

IMHO, the worst pick of the Seahawk's draft . I never never never liked it, specially on the 3rd, he would have most likely been available on the 6th ...

 

[CodeWarrior]

Not sure where you're going with this Codewarrior. Looking at the draft picks from last year, I don't see any conversions outside of Fant, and Fant is actually a really exciting player when you look at his performance vs. experience so far. The coaching staff were going to stash him this year and he surprised them in camp. Every other OL we drafted played the position in college.

As for our propensity to slide Tackles inside, that's not us that's everybody. Part of the reason that Tackles have a higher value is that if a guy washes out on the edge, teams can typically slide him inside and still get value for the pick. There isn't a lot of positions on the football field where you can say that. So of course we get guys, try them out, then push them inside.

What's throwing you off? I'm saying our budget approach to the OL mandates playing your cost-controlled high draft picks at Tackle because we refuse to pay the big money tackles demand. I say mandates because bargain tackles just aren't out there and we haven't shown an aptitude for selecting quality tackles later in the draft. Also, Odhiambo is yet another conversion project, a college tackle that Seattle has drafted and is slotting to play inside. Pete has come out and said the FO projects Odhiambo as a guard. Here's the link from Seahawks.com saying as much: http://www.seahawks.com/news/2016/04/29/seahawks-select-boise-state-guard-rees-odhiambo-pick-no-97

My whole point is: where are our tackles supposed to come from? Tackles are obviously a scarce commodity and for this reason I see what the FO is doing: playing moneyball with the OL, particularly at the tackle position. What has this FO shown that gives you faith in their ability to address the tackle position? They don't pay to retain the decent tackles we have and instead trot out retreads or high potential/SPARQ guys. I haven't seen it work yet and it is hamstringing this team.

Chalking the OL situation up to a dearth of talent isn't an acceptable response. At this point it is just the FO sticking their collective heads in the sand and pretending potential is going to be their savior. This team is going to be forced into spending more on the OL than it currently does.

It pisses me off because I feel an otherwise great time is going to miss out on another SB because of the OL.