hawk45":vf73iadg said:
A second year of play has not served as an upgrade on the OL and most specifically at tackle.
Remember when Garry Gilliam was assumed to be on such an upward trajectory that folks were penciling him in at LT? Good times.
Fant is just as likely to go either way or not improve much. We have precisely one conversion project success story in sweezy who was t worth a second contract. And that was at guard.
After one year of play Justin Britt was so improved at tackle they moved him inside to fail at guard.
Who are the examples of cable draftees at tackle who have improved in a linear fashion?
In case you haven't noticed, Britt is now the best lineman we have, and one of the conference's better centers. He wouldn't have become that for us if we'd have jettisoned him when you wanted (which seems to be, "after his first year or bust").
Sure, it took a third year for Britt. So what. We have a QB who can make up for the deficiencies of the OL and has done so magnificently even while gimpy. If there's any team in the NFL that can afford time for lineman growth, it's this one.
Fant is a gamble, sure. In that situation, you judge him off potential. Does he have the tools? Has he shown enough flashy plays to merit development? Is he cheap in the meantime? The answer to all three questions is yes. Cable just has to get him consistently owning.
I'm not as excited about Gilliam, but Michael Bennett is.
You don't hand out permanent judgments to players for a bad rookie year. You just don't. You bring in competition to motivate them, and then leave them in the mix. That's exactly what Seattle has done.