Siouxhawk":3j42kqrj said:
Please read the entire post. It's because we have 12 veteran Pro Bowlers -- which has to be among the league leaders -- we a) don't have as many positions open as other teams for young guys to ascend and become Pro Bowlers and b) by making the playoffs the last 5 years, we are at the back of the line in the draft order.
I have to reject this conclusion.
Not because it isn't otherwise sound. Or in the case of B, actually true.
But to accept the conclusion, then we'd expect to see two specific traits of the team in that time:
1. No depth issues at all (we don't have openings remember?)
2. Very few drafted and UDFA players making the team
If it were so difficult to make the team, then that would necessarily mean that our depth simply outclassed rookies in quality. And that we'd be jettisoning draft classes by the truckload.
But we don't see either of those things (lack of depth has derailed one SB win, and the subsequent runs the past two years).
In addition, Seattle has led the league in numbers of rookies making the final 53. And probably been in the top 10 every single year since the 2013 draft.
The reality is, Seattle relies on rookies heavily. And they do make the team. In fact, Seattle has made quite a reputation as a team willing to showcase young talent for their second contracts. A reputation that provides a massive advantage against other teams vying for UDFA talent.
In this regard, I think it's easy to make the above assumption that our roster is too hard to break. But the evidence doesn't support that common sense theory. Seattle almost operates perpetually as a team that is rebuilding with every class.
Our roster is kind of a hybrid. We allocate massive contracts to our pro bowl stars. So really, it's kind of like we have two rosters. A roughly 12 man 'gets paid' roster. And then a 40 man roster that pretty much looks like any 5 win team in terms of difficulty to make the team. We churn this roster over hard and fast.