Robbie Tobeck's take on our O-line approach.

Not saying emphatically whether he's right or wrong, but I found his thoughts on OL acquisition interesting.

We've all heard Cable's thoughts about the majority of college OL being limited because they are only taught spread O. Cable uses this as his rationale for drafting lower-round D-line conversion prospects.

Tobeck counters that argument by saying that if you pick up somebody with spread O experience, at least you have a better chance of him not being totally abysmal in pass pro, so you could concentrate on developing his run-blocking skills. He contrasted this with a D-lineman conversion, where you're starting from ground zero in both pass and run blocking. I find myself agreeing enough with Tobeck'ss approach that I 'd like to see more of that from Cable. I say this while recognizing that you are more likely the find better athleticism from defensive players, but I sometimes think Cable is too obsessed with how athletic someone is, which may cloud his thinking.

Anyhow the link below was posted in one of Ivotuk's media threads, and I thought it worth breaking out.


http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... 0and%20Tom

We've seen the results of the current approach, it's time to ditch it.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will really know the results of the current approach until the 2017 season. I think it will take that long for the experiment to fully run its course and develop the line in the way Cable is envisioning it. Now, whether they pull the plug on the experiment before it is over or not is anyone's guess. I just don't think you can call it a failed thesis yet.

-bsd

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

Maybe we need both? Cables approach works well enough for the guards but We need tackles that can move latterly. We have absolutely nothing for speed rushers off the edge. They get home in 2.2 seconds time and again.

Largent80":3th3wcvi said:

We've seen the results of the current approach, it's time to ditch it.

Click to expand...

Seriously. We would have won 3 super bowls but the current approach has failed.

I think Tobeck's take is worth a try -

but our "traditional" linemen were failing just as much as our conversions, if not more.

SirTed":2hg6t6yu said:

I think Tobeck's take is worth a try -

but our "traditional" linemen were failing just as much as our conversions, if not more.

Click to expand...

You've got a good point, there.

I do think that it is harder to break down bad habits and rebuild them then it is to start with a clean slate.

Grahamhawker":38z2ct15 said:

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

Click to expand...

I was going to say...the biggest problem on the OL by far isn't a defensive line project.

Grahamhawker":2og2x62b said:

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

Click to expand...

My thought as well. Britt, who had spread experience at both left and right tackle, did not bring any pass pro advantage with him to the NFL – not yet anyway.

Still, the idea that you're starting from scratch either way is valid. Learning the ZBS from either d-line or spread-o, where the ball is often out within 2 seconds, requires a total readjustment. Add to that the scrambliest QB since Fran Tarkenton, and any college kid trying to play OL for the Seahawks is going through a rigorous transformation.

That's why we see the FO stockpile athletic guys like Glowinski and Sokoli, to train them up behind the scenes in hopes they'll hit the field running when it's their turn.

Here's a thought, DON'T LET CABLE CHOOSE THE LINEMEN! You have the premier GM in the business, and some top-flight scouts! use them damnit!

I kind of think we should not rule out any strategy for finding good OL. Drafting and player selection is always a hit-or-miss proposition. Nobody hits 100%.

I'm all for burning a higher draft pick on OL if there is one there. But even that can be a miss some times.

I'm pretty sure there is a lot of speculation and supposition around here on how choices are made behind the scenes.

Sorry to drink the :179422: here, but I trust our FO. When Pete says they'll fix something, his track record is pretty good.

And we don't know if his desire for a particular OL was trumped by John and Pete's desire for someone else. It's quite possible that he's being asked to find success wherever he can.

Grahamhawker":26g30maw said:

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

Click to expand...

It actually does. Britt came from a spread offense. He needed a bit more time to adjust to the NFL.

I see Cable's philosophy and in some cases he's 100% correct. Look at guys like Fisher, Joekel (probably not spelling it right) and many other of the very top tier LT's taken in the top of the first round in the last few years. We're looking at a much higher bust rate than in the past. You can't just assume that because you drafted a guy in the 1st round, he's going to be an automatic hit anymore.

So, I get going the other way, and developing cheaper talent. The other thing is that the coaching staff has been ok with working around the OL because Wilson is a special talent that can neutralize much of the pass rush by himself. The catch 22 is that eventually you're going to get your QB hurt with all the hits he's taking.

Focusing entirely on "athleticism" is just as stupid as focusing on height/bench press/wonderlic etc.

The Hawks don't even have logic on their side, because being athletic enough to get down field and block doesn't do much good if you failed your original assignment.

I care waaaaaaaaay more about an OL blocking on the line than I do about them blocking downfield. The Hawks are putting the cart before the horse, and the bad O-line every year with Cable is 100% proof.

bjornanderson21":uhry7dg2 said:

Focusing entirely on "athleticism" is just as stupid as focusing on height/bench press/wonderlic etc.

The Hawks don't even have logic on their side, because being athletic enough to get down field and block doesn't do much good if you failed your original assignment.

I care waaaaaaaaay more about an OL blocking on the line than I do about them blocking downfield. The Hawks are putting the cart before the horse, and the bad O-line every year with Cable is 100% proof.

Click to expand...

This is one of the assumptions/presumptions I was talking about earlier. Focusing on any one trait exclusively would be a bad thing. A player's worth crosses a range of different skill sets.

If I really thought the FO was doing as you say when evaluating players, I would be a bit annoyed too, I guess. I doubt seriously if that is true.

What's needed is investing in an experienced line with FA acquisitions. Yes, it will cost money but the approach the team is using now hasn't worked. At the very least a veteran OC who can captain the line is a start. Personally, I would also find a veteran LG as well. The real issue is to strengthen the interior so that Wilson doesn't get killed up the middle any longer.

The thing with Britt is that we drafted him based on his SPARQ profile.

Based on his tape, which isn't good at all, he was projected as a late round pick.

So, to me, he fits the mold of "athletic project" in the same way as Sweezy, Nowak, and others, even though he played the position in college. I think this actually supports Tobeck's point more than anything else. Simply ignoring college production at OL in favor of athletic metrics hasn't really proved fruitful for Seattle, especially in pass protection.

I mentioned this a week or so ago.

With the emergence of Wilson as a legitimate elite pocket passer, I have to wonder if our criteria for OL prototypes for guys that move well to excel at ZBS run blocking almost exclusively is ill fitting for us going forward.

When we had a lesser effective pocket passer and Lynch was the identity of the team I could see the merit of that. But this team going forward is not going to be that team. Even if Lynch was in his prime -- this team is going to change to one that has to pass protect as it's primary function. It doesn't mean we abandon the semblance of balance. Far from it. But this OL as constructed and as we've gone about adding talent has been at the drastic expense of pass protection.

Instead it would seem wisest to accept the change in reality and instead turn pass protectors into passable run blockers instead of the other way around at best.

ivotuk":2o5y16qi said:

Here's a thought, DON'T LET CABLE CHOOSE THE LINEMEN! You have the premier GM in the business, and some top-flight scouts! use them damnit!

Click to expand...

So, you're contention is, that Schneider & some scouts would likely have a better chance of finding Offensive Linemen that could or would be a more natural fit, and be brought in with a more natural edge?
For the most part I would agree with your theory, though I wouldn't take Cable completely out of the decision making process, as his O-Line Coaching expertise could be invaluable.
I think what's NOT being taken into consideration with this discussion, is the fact that Pete Carroll asked Tom Cable to put together an O-Line that featured his Run First mindset ,for which served somewhat well for Marshawn Lynch, but not much in the way of Pass Protection.
Early on in the last Season, the Rams unleashed a few first round Defensive bulls, that quickly dismantled & dominated the Seahawks newbie greenhorn Offensive Line with their speed and experience.
I think Pete Carroll was forced to reconsider his Run First mantra, and to regroup for a Passing game, and give RW a fighting chance.
I don't think we can put all the blame on Tom Cable for the way everything unfolded, and in fact, I think he did a commendable job of getting the Offensive Line up to some respectability in the second half of the Season.
My question now is, What kind of Offensive Line will Cable be building, now that he & Pete know that they have a top tier Quarterback to protect.