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

[TwistedHusky]

I think we feel we don't have a choice.

The Seahawks get their guys by shooting for people that have a higher % chance of being really good, than people with a higher % chance of turning into pro players. Someone with twice as high a % chance of being a top 25% type of player is going to be picked, even if the data says the upside is good but the player has only half the chance of even making a pro team vs some of the other options out there.

Put simply, we want guys with high ceilings but to get that at a reasonable cost (draft slot) you have to pick guys with almost no floor.

Remember EVERYONE wants serviceable OL, so not only are they in high demand - the guys are in such demand that teams have to overpay vs contribution to value for the draft slot. So the only thing you can do is find guys that have fundamental challenges in their measurables that drop their stock, guys that look bad on film, or guys that might not have enough tape (or any!) for another FO to evaluate.

The only option left is to try to find guys with the temperment and body type you feel you wish you had, and then hope you can put some schemes & training in place to make the player serviceable. That allows you to spend the other draft slots on players you have better talent eval guys available for.

The Seahawks have a system that consists of looking at undervalued positions and finding guys that can contribute value from that position in those groups. So unless we can find OL with huge physical flaws that we feel we can work around (like short arms ), we are not really going to get much to help us. And if you notice, the OL we get are either physical specimens with little skill dev or guys missing on measurables like Britt. Neither is working well for us, but it isn't like a team is going to trade any above average OL guys for anything reasonable.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

The approach isn't the problem.

It's the way they've executed it.

The Seahawks have let parts of their OL leave (Carpenter, Giacomini) that were never as bad as people thought. And it's fine to let them go. But have a strategy in place to replace them properly. They took Britt almost because they had to in round two in 2014 after they'd passed on Bitonio at #32 to get Paul Richardson. Had they taken Bitonio instead right now, we're not worrying about the LG position for the next 6-7 years. Britt of course was originally supposed to replace Breno. And after deciding to move on from Unger, their replacement policy at center was borderline farcical.

They created an O-line that was good enough for this team (Okung-Carp-Unger-Sweezy-Breno). But in transitioning away from three fifths of it -- they've not replaced their guys well enough.

 

[Clayfighter]

As I recall, Cable's OL when he was with the Raiders had similar results in that they were good at run blocking and not so much at pass protection.

 

[Exittium]

wonder if Toebeck had any advice to Graham about the Injury since he had the same one as well, and after he came back from it he didn't miss a single start for the following 5 1/2 years.

 

[scutterhawk]

As I recall, Cable's OL when he was with the Raiders had similar results in that they were good at run blocking and not so much at pass protection.

I think that's exactly what fed Pete's infatuation, and exactly why he wanted Tom Cable, but now that there's no longer the Lynch / Wilson power pack in place, it's time to see if Tom Cable has what it takes to rethink, refit & retool for a more pass oriented O-Line.
I think Rawls has shown that he doesn't seem to need, or use the O-Line push as much as Marshawn did, which would help to let Cable put more focus on shoring up the Pass Protection for RW.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

The approach isn't the problem.

It's the way they've executed it.

Well I can't deny that the execution wasn't good.

But I'm not sure the guys they did let go (Giacomini/Carpenter at least), were the same kinds of OL that they ended up trying to replace them with. The replacements reflected the approach -- not really the guys that foreshadowed the 'move' athletes.

I don't know that Carpenter or Giacomini -- if they were available in the last couple drafts -- would have even been on our boards. They certainly didn't compare physically to anyone we've drafted since the new approach has been implemented.

If we did like them, then we have gone through a lot of trouble to not draft anyone like them.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

Yes, and putting the interview in context, he wasn't advocating a total overhaul of Cable's approach, but you get the feeling that, in the lower rounds or undrafted, Tobeck would rather experiment with finding spread O guys that had potential to be good run blockers, so you're not starting with a total project from the ground up.

Moffit, came from a Pro-Style offense, which is Cable's first choice, and I believe Britt did also..OOPS! Britt did not.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

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

Also a good point. Sometimes 'early reviews' aren't much of an indicator when it comes to OL.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

.....I think that's exactly what fed Pete's infatuation, and exactly why he wanted Tom Cable, but now that there's no longer the Lynch / Wilson power pack in place, it's time to see if Tom Cable has what it takes to rethink, refit & retool for a more pass oriented O-Line....

Really good point IMO

 

[HawKnPeppa]

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.

Also true. One just has to look where most of team's money is committed.

 

[mikeak]

We could draft someone with spread experience then play more with spread.....

 

[Seanhawk]

Doesn't explain Britt, Moffitt, et al.

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

Maybe not, but at least you're dealing with a toddler instead of a newborn baby if you draft a college OL. I would prefer it if a player that is in his 4th year in the NFL, is in his 4th year in the NFL, not something that equates to his senior season in college developmentally.

 

[OrFan]

Perhaps is has nothing to do with who we pick, but who is coaching them.

 

[Marlin Man]

get a head coaching job promotion elsewhere.

 

[Rob12]

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

This.

That pick 6 Russ threw a couple of weeks ago was a direct result of too much damn pressure, too soon.

It's not working. I am not a Cable hater and don't even want the man to lose his job. But it's time to do something different. This line is constantly bailed out by one of the most elusive QB's ever and a running back that has turned out to be one of the hardest to tackle backs to ever step foot on a football field.

We're too good of a team to be churning out garbage on the offensive line. Guys like Lewis (he's solid, don't get me wrong), Britt, and Gilliam should be DEPTH. Sweezy is borderline, and Okung is simply made of glass.

Shift in philosophy. Let's protect our $87M QB and give him some time. If 2015 was proof, he absolutely shreds defenses when he gets a pocket to throw from.