... Fit Together Perfectly.

I wanted to put some input of a few hot topics.

1) I don't think the Seahawks are desperate for a bonafide 3 tech as many believe and presumably aren't relying on Branch to return to be satisfied at that position.

A) I think that the Seahawks think that Red Bryant can provide similar play to Alan Branch at the position. I know of the arguments that Bryant was very underwhelming until he was a 5 tech but I'll counter argue that he played DT on a very bad defense his first two seasons and whilst incredible athletic, he was also very very raw. Now with considerably more experience starting the last 2 seasons, and on a defense that now has considerable depth at the end positions as well as bigger, faster LBers and DBs than we had in 2008 and 2009. I think Red can transition back to the middle if needed and still be an effective player.

B) With the addition of Michael Bennett, and the further development of Greg Scruggs and on a questionable side note, Jaye Howard. The Seahawks have able bodies to fill the nickel 3 tech role as well as depth at 5 tech.

I think the Seahawks could go with a base (depth) of Bennett (Scruggs), Bryant (draft pick), Mebane (McDonald), Avril (Irvin) and be incredibly effective against the pass and vs the rush.

2) The Seahawks aren't desperate to find a bonafide WLB as many want and believe. More importantly they do need to add significant depth.

A) If Clemons return insert Avril/Irvin into the Linebacker corps more

B) Seahawks can roll with, (not exclusively but to mix it up how they see fit) S: Wright, M: Wagner, and W: Smith or S: Morgan, M: Wright, and W: Wagner and be content.

C) If the Seahawks can get another gem Safety or possibly just a Charles Woodson type player next to Thomas, Seahawks probably have a great nickel linebacker as any in Kam Chanchellor.

(Due to time constraints I couldn't finish with a closing statement. )

Welcome!



Seattle needs depth for Red Bryant as the 5-tech run specialist. Until they sign back Branch, they don't have it. I agree that Seattle is no longer "desperate" at 3-tech, but the need is absolutely still there. If Branch and McDonald both leave, we'll have to add two more bodies from somewhere just to make the numbers. Until Branch signs back, we do not have a run specialist 3-tech. Given how Carroll is so emphatic about the run game on both ends, I think he considers this a priority.



I want to agree with you here. But that said, Bryant's ability inside is an unknown at best. He struggled there before. Maybe he wouldn't now, but we can't know that until the offseason is over and the preseason is upon us. Seattle would be unwise to bank on the unknown, and I don't think they would. Besides, if you move Bryant inside, who plays the run stopping 5-tech specialist? Either way, you'd need to add a body in the draft.



I think Scruggs and Bennett are very similar players. Both are 5-tech / 3-tech hybrids who are more natural at 5-tech than the 3-tech. I'm not sure if Scruggs offers the kind of run defense inside that Pete wants, although Bennett probably would.

Seattle really values run defense and seems averse to adding more specialists (they highly value versatility and utility). For that reason, I think Jaye Howard is probably in trouble. Unless his run defense skyrockets towards respectability this season, unless that happens, I think he's PS material at best.

I don't think any of those 3 players are the ideal 3-tech that Pete Carroll wants. Bennett comes the closest, but he's far more valuable in a 5-tech role so putting him inside would waste his talents. Seattle doesn't really have a "pure" 3-tech right now. Even Alan Branch is more of a Brandon Mebane type.



Agreed 100% on point 2 and all the subsections to it.

_________________

"I believe there’s merit to the idea that once something in life becomes conventional, it’s no longer the safest path to success." -Matt Waldman
"If everyone's thinking alike, no one's thinking." -Bill Walsh

Red did not only play the five technique the last couple of years. They sometimes bounce him around the line a bit to help disguise where the pass rush may come from. I have seen Red lined up on the right side and DT numerous times last season. He only lines up in the 5 technique about 80% of the time. The coaches have a very good idea if Red can or cannot play Red as DT, it is the fans that are guessing. I expect lots of movement on the line. OCs will never be quite sure how we are going to line up.

Kearly,
You make great points, great logical points. But if you were to make the assumption, this is what I would have “assume” the Seahawks are thinking.
1) Red Bryant & Alan Branch are very similar players… both spent their first 2-3 seasons on the bench before blossoming into starting roles. Their lack of success I would think was 1) their general lack of experience and 2) they both played too big for their own good (as in the Bennett thread someone correlated that they both had more success in NFL as opposing lineman specifically interior (in Branch’s case) got bigger and taller overtime making their matchups a little bit easier to handle from a physical aspect.

One could “assume” I say rather easily that a 6’4, 320 pound Red Bryant can replace a 6-6, 325 Alan Branch at a level that is similar and perhaps a little better in consideration that Bryant is a little bit more athletic.

Furthermore, in 2008 and 2009… wasn’t it Brandon Mebane who played more of a 3-tech role and Bryant more of a 1-tech, NT role type of role on a wholly undersized team that lack sized on the outside and physicality in the middle.

2) I wouldn’t view as Red Bryant as a 5 tech as “special”, unique, yes, but not special. Its not like he was a Richard Seymour, J.J. Watt or Aaron Smith type talent on the edge. Yes, he was an effective asset on a team that prominently wanted to be consistently and physically successful vs the rush.

And he was unique, he could hold his edge and dominate it accordingly, but teams found success by flushing him out of the play and slashing it up the gut for big gains.

If I think Bryant can easily replace Branch, and now the question is who replaces Bryant at 5 tech, and that easily is Michael “You gonna cut me for a Kicker” Bennett. (Quick note: How funny is that 2 players would return to Seattle after being cut/traded in 2009, then finding success elsewhere and then return in 2013 in Bennett and Mariner’s Michael Morse).

Michael Bennett is a very well-rounded DE/NDT, but he statistically and probably more naturally a great run defender/solid pass rusher type of DE. He has size and power to uphold the edge like Bryant, plus the athleticism to knife into the backfield and track plays to the opposite field. He’s not going to be a freak wall of nature but he also isn’t going to be one trick pony that Red is. As Bennett can generate a pass rush from the edge as well as the ability to track and contain QBs and RBs that happen to step into his gap areas and zones.

With Bennett replacing Bryant one could see the Seahawks 5 tech Rush Defense (with Bryant healthy) go from an A to a B. With Bennett replacing Bryant at 5 tech one could see the Seahawks Pass Rush from that edge increase from an F to a solid B.

And it doesn’t have to be a concrete decision, just think of the possibilities you can do with Bryant/Bennett and the experience that Bryant has outside and Bennett has inside. Quinn can mix it up, switch it up plenty playing Bryant at 5 tech/ with Bennett at 3 tech 1 play, switch it around the next play, or have them stunt the opposing offensive lines into confusion.

That’s why in the end, I believe the Seahawks will roll with:

5 tech: Bennett/Scruggs
3 tech: Bryant/Howard
1 tech: Mebane/ McDonald
LEO: Avril/Clemons/Irvin

And of course expect to see 1-3 players drafted to added to complete and compete with the depth players.