Why Michael Bennett is a star & OL issues slightly overblown

[plyka]

Again you're selectively picking olines from 2 teams that won "in recent times." That's not an argument. I can say you can win the Superbowl with a below average QB because Dilfer and that QB from Tampa who sucks so much I don't even remember his name, won rings. Just because you can find an exception to a rule doesn't mean the rule does not exist. This is one reason statisticians rely on blind test cases.

What exactly is wrong with me selectively picking those examples? All my argument has to do is prove that it isn't necessarily a Super Bowl killer to tolerate a bad line. I've done that by listing Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

It's a water tight argument. It doesn't mean any team with a crappy line can win it. It does mean that it's proven if you have enough quality in other areas (which we undoubtedly do) it's no guarantee the world will collapse because you're fielding a bad line.

And again, if people want to say the sky is falling because JJ Watt and (according to Bedard's stats) the best pass rushing defense in the NFL abused a line containing only one player (Sweezy) starting in his intended position, you can do that. I'd argue when Unger, Breno and eventually Okung get back, we won't be having this debate.

What's wrong is that you don't have an argument. No one is saying it is impossible to win the Superbowl with a bad line, just like no one is saying it is impossible to win the superbowl with a god awful QB as Dilfer and the best defense I've ever seen in my life proved (for those kids that think this Seahawk defense can compare with that Ravens defense, you just don't know football). But it is very unlikely to win the superbowl with a god awful QB. I'm not even saying it's impossible to win the lotto, as I know a few people have won in the past --it's just a bad bet to make because the odds are not in your favor.

If you have a point of view and you selectively pick 2 examples out of a large number, this in no way proves your point. Unless of course your point is "it's not impossible" in which case you didn't have to selectively pick those 2, as it is technically NOT impossible for anything to happen (outside of the mathematical or logical). It's technically not impossible for the Hawks to pick me up next week, pick you up as the RB, and we win the superbowl together. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[mrblitz]

so, we need more runs, moving pockets, and screen passes.

in the meantime, the line should get better. bowie for one is going to be really good.

 

[kearly]

I fail to understand how we could possibly over blow the O-line issues. The Texans game was truly awful, the QB had less than 2.5 seconds to execute a fake, find a receiver, and get rid of the ball for most of the game. He was pounded on. Every hit he takes could be The Golden BB. How do you over blow the seriousness of that? 120 passing yards. 5 sacks. A dozen more sacks if our QB isn't on roller skates. There isn't enough hyperbole to overblow the problem.

The sad fact is that while McQ stinks at LT, it is the one guy who played his true position and is a starter, Sweezy, that was the absolute worst vs the Texans. Of course, the issues were magnified because the Texans have 3 awesome frontline players. But think about that, the worst player that game was the only guy in his natural spot.

How did Pete sum up the O-line? "We survived". He meant he is happy as hell his QB is intact. I'll bet you he is pretty freaked out about his O-line.

Every game we win right now is because the rest of the team is making up for the O-line's pass blocking.

IMO, this is a fair critique- for the Texan's game. Sweezy's biggest weakness is the bull rush, and JJ Watt pretty much had his way with Sweezy all game long.

The first three games though, I saw schematic/coaching/QB problems more than protection problems. Not to say the protection was great, but before Okung went down (admittedly only a game and quarter), I thought the protection was just as good as it had been the year before. Which was adequate.

Now we've added injury to that list of problems. Protection and certain aspects of our run blocking are a fiasco, but I see legitimate reasons behind them, and they could be fixed when players get healthy and coaches make a few tactical changes.

I honestly believe that if we were healthy, if we had Mike Rob, if we didn't have to use Willson as a #2 TE / FB, and if Darrell Bevell could pull his head out of his butt regarding the blitz, we'd be more than fine. That sounds like a lot to ask for, but it's really not.

Also, our ability to dominate with the run game is pretty key to our ability to protect. That's something the OL benefited from in the previous 1.5 seasons, and they aren't benefiting from right now.

 

[ivotuk]

Above you stated that in a year or two with Manning/Thomas/Welker/TE we wouldn't be 31st. Ok, not sure what this has to do with anything. Even if we keep the EXACT SAME TEAM with every Olinemen, I guarantee you that in a year or two we wouldn't be 31st in the league. We are not talking about 3 years from now, we are talking about THIS YEAR.

No, I said 'in year two' as in this is Manning's second year in Denver and we're seeing the results of the now considerable time he's had with the players he's working with.

Not that he'd be good in a year or two if he and his receivers were in Seattle.

I swear, some people on here are getting "contrary & ornery" and look for any reason to disagree with an Op's post. And damnit, that's Les' job! But seriously, read the post before you dissent, because you just look silly and cranky when you respond without understanding the post, or when you post an opposing opinion without all the facts.

But don't anyone stop on my account, i find it entertaining, especially when others follow your lead and take the topic further astray. :roll:

 

[Scottemojo]

I fail to understand how we could possibly over blow the O-line issues. The Texans game was truly awful, the QB had less than 2.5 seconds to execute a fake, find a receiver, and get rid of the ball for most of the game. He was pounded on. Every hit he takes could be The Golden BB. How do you over blow the seriousness of that? 120 passing yards. 5 sacks. A dozen more sacks if our QB isn't on roller skates. There isn't enough hyperbole to overblow the problem.

The sad fact is that while McQ stinks at LT, it is the one guy who played his true position and is a starter, Sweezy, that was the absolute worst vs the Texans. Of course, the issues were magnified because the Texans have 3 awesome frontline players. But think about that, the worst player that game was the only guy in his natural spot.

How did Pete sum up the O-line? "We survived". He meant he is happy as hell his QB is intact. I'll bet you he is pretty freaked out about his O-line.

Every game we win right now is because the rest of the team is making up for the O-line's pass blocking.

IMO, this is a fair critique- for the Texan's game. Sweezy's biggest weakness is the bull rush, and JJ Watt pretty much had his way with Sweezy all game long.

The first three games though, I saw schematic/coaching/QB problems more than protection problems. Not to say the protection was great, but before Okung went down (admittedly only a game and quarter), I thought the protection was just as good as it had been the year before. Which was adequate.

Now we've added injury to that list of problems. Protection and certain aspects of our run blocking are a fiasco, but I see legitimate reasons behind them, and they could be fixed when players get healthy and coaches make a few tactical changes.

I honestly believe that if we were healthy, if we had Mike Rob, if we didn't have to use Willson as a #2 TE / FB, and if Darrell Bevell could pull his head out of his butt regarding the blitz, we'd be more than fine. That sounds like a lot to ask for, but it's really not.

Also, our ability to dominate with the run game is pretty key to our ability to protect. That's something the OL benefited from in the previous 1.5 seasons, and they aren't benefiting from right now.

3 ifs and you are boned. That was 4.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

No one is saying it is impossible to win the Superbowl with a bad line.

:roll:

Thats a superbowl dream killer right there. No team can overcome that. It has to be fixed.

 

[brimsalabim]

Most teams don't have to over come having three starting offensive linemen out at the same time. Look at what happens to Rivers at Sandiego last two seasons. They got rid of the constantly injured offensive line starters and he is back. Starters have to be able to play through having sore toes sometimes.

 

[seahawksTopGear]

We don't have a number one receiver that consistently gets separation and will open up the game for the rest. If we did (how about we offer a second to the browns for Josh?) Our oline woes would be glaring.

As it is we have spent or oline budget (picks plus cash) on Percy and I don't disagree with the choice. It is unfortunate that or toy broke before taking the fields once, but we are for and oh without him and if he gets in game shape by the playoffs the point will be moot.

 

[brimsalabim]

There aren't too many receivers that can gain separation in 2.5 seconds. We need starting caliber NFL Oline and particularly left tackle that can get and stay on the field. I know our starters are solid players but they aren't helping RW much from the hot tub. We can't bank on guys who get hurt falling over their own girth and aren't willing to play through injury even in anseason when a Super Bowl in a serious proposition. Blame what you want on Sweezy but at least he is out there trying.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

You can't blame guys for injuries

 

[brimsalabim]

Sure you can. Again look at what happend in San Diego. Their Oline was constantly injured and as a result they couldn't run or pass protect and their QB fell apart. Low and behold they got rid of their constantly injured OL and the QB rebounds. Chronic injuries mean the player can't be counted on.

 

[kearly]

3 ifs and you are boned. That was 4.

It's really one if with some sprinkles on it. If we have all starters out there it's a different story. Backups against tough competition, I draw no meaningful insight from that. Did Sweezy struggle against the best defensive player in the game? Sure. Who had .5 sacks and a couple TFLs. I did not think Sweezy was our biggest problem in that game. I also thought our run blocking was pretty good considering the opponent and the situation.

I am open to adding more talent at OL this offseason, but I think most of our problems stem from injuries and the Seahawks decision makers shooting themselves in the foot in a host of ways.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

Rob, I am finally leaving your side and defecting. We need to fix this O-line. I'm not sure what impetus you could possibly have for wanting things to stay the same. Aaron Rodgers walked the high wire taking 50 sacks a year. That he did not snap his spine is neither endorsement of bad pass protection nor a reason to dismiss it. There are more factors in play and O-line is not all-important, but there is a point at which it just gets ridiculous, even against a scrambler like RW.

Look at it this way...we're not the 2010 Seahawks anymore. Investing respectably in the O-line will no longer equate to snatching resources away from other hurting positions whose importance everyone is ignorant of. That, IMHO, seems to be the reason that you constantly support our current O-line no matter what its performance. You don't want to see O-line take disproportionate importance on our drafting schedule. I agree. But I'd argue that we have a championship team everywhere else and are in little danger of harming our continued rebuilding by focusing on the line.

It's true that PC has already put high picks into the line, but evidence is mounting that he has simply MISSED on those picks (Carpenter, Moffitt, Sweezy) and needs to try again. I have faith that he can take another swing while continuing to target other spots (TE, LB) and stay ahead of the reloading schedule at the rest of the positions.

 

[Hawks46]

No team lets plays develop longer than Seattle. That's a fact. This is not a team that has the personnel or scheme to use a quick-fire passing offense. Hurry-up can help mask deficiencies in your line, but we don't really use it for philosophical reasons. Our banged up line is definitely an issue and not one that we're built to get around easily without sacrificing skill players for added protection.

That's the thing: we can have a quick fire offense if it was practiced. Look at the personnel:

Tate. He can run slants and catch the ball well
Baldwin. He gets great separation and has clutch hands.
Rice and Williams. Tall WRs that can win the jump ball.
Lynch and Turbin. Good pass catching RBs out of the backfield.

These are all things that the coaching staff can use to get the ball out quickly. I'm just not sure why we do, other than it's a deviation of our normal offense and there would be a lack of continuity. We can still throw screens, which we rarely do.

The scary thing about this, is that it seems that we lack the entire repetoire of plays that made Percy Harvin great. So how exactly is he going to be utilized in this offense ?

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

few points:

1. It's true SB champions have thrived with poor line play. Although one can also easily cite the way in which the predominant examples of that theory have turned out. Big Ben is entering his 9th season and his longevity in this league is severely questionable. Punishment due that lack of quality protection being the undeniable culprit. GB similarly has had it's championship windows undone because of their line play. The Patriots are probably the embodiment of Carroll's Win Forever vision. They have not allowed their OL to decay or throw projects into the mix. They add talent there early and often. Brady enjoys excellent protection despite being a similar QB to Manning. Their offense is safeguarded by design with quality through the draft.

2. Philosophy. Yes Rodgers, Manning etc. make their lines look better. But those passing attacks aren't like ours. We continue to use the pass to produce big plays, and frequently have slower, deeper pass options. And it's not a sin to concede that lack of height does diminish the frequency of seeing all of the options possible. I don't see us changing how we use the pass, as this looks like it comes from Carroll.

3. Draft philosophy. We know that seattle grades prospects based on how they compare with who we already have. I'd be hard pressed to name another unit on this team where the relative quality would be narrower. We have seen that Seattle has taken one or two OL in every single draft. We also know that we targeted OL talent early last year but didn't have the opportunity to pull the trigger. Unger and Okung are stalwarts. Each was a top 40 pick. I think it's acceptable to assume we didn't like how 2011's OL investments have turned out. Obviously we want quality there and have consistently added talent there every season.

Clearly you don't have to spend first round picks on the line to succeed. But our style of play would benefit disproportionately with good protection. Wilson is an excellent pocket passer and our ability to execute the deep pass is outstanding. Extended protection is at this point the most needed element that is missing.

 

[Basis4day]

I'm thinking back to recent Super Bowl winners, and seeing several good QB's playing behind bad lines who won rings.

Rob, I am finally leaving your side and defecting. We need to fix this O-line. I'm not sure what impetus you could possibly have for wanting things to stay the same. Aaron Rodgers walked the high wire taking 50 sacks a year. That he did not snap his spine is neither endorsement of bad pass protection nor a reason to dismiss it. There are more factors in play and O-line is not all-important, but there is a point at which it just gets ridiculous, even against a scrambler like RW.

Look at it this way...we're not the 2010 Seahawks anymore. Investing respectably in the O-line will no longer equate to snatching resources away from other hurting positions whose importance everyone is ignorant of. That, IMHO, seems to be the reason that you constantly support our current O-line no matter what its performance. You don't want to see O-line take disproportionate importance on our drafting schedule. I agree. But I'd argue that we have a championship team everywhere else and are in little danger of harming our continued rebuilding by focusing on the line.

It's true that PC has already put high picks into the line, but evidence is mounting that he has simply MISSED on those picks (Carpenter, Moffitt, Sweezy) and needs to try again. I have faith that he can take another swing while continuing to target other spots (TE, LB) and stay ahead of the reloading schedule at the rest of the positions.

Sweezy wasn't a high pick, but i don't want to digress too much.

But is it not true that most of the O-Line woes in the PC era (Include Unger for sake of argument) are injury
related? Unger was IR'd in 2010. Okung was injury plagued his first two years. Carp... you already know. Moffit got IR'd for a whole year.
Sweezy hadn't played on Oline since Highschool and is a starter. He flashes at times and is still only in his 2nd year.

How do you draft to prepare for that? Okung and Carp were injury free in college IIRC.

 

[Largent80]

We have been snakebit in the injury dept. on the O-Line for what seems like decades.

 

[ivotuk]

We have been snakebit in the injury dept. on the O-Line for what seems like decades.

No isht! Getting so tired of this, and it's been going on since you know who defected. What the hell is going on? Somebody's not holding their mouth right...Pe? :?

 

[pehawk]

You want to make the OL look improved tomorrow? Get a tall QB with a rocket release.

By default Wilson's aversion to turnovers, stature, and Pete's love of the big play make their pass protection hard to grade. That abstract reality (IMO at least) isn't something FO or PFF can grade yet, so it confuses some of our smarter football minds.

And I mean no disrespect by that, I love those uber-stats, but I just think they miss a lot of things and are used as a crutch, ALOT. I'll take me eye and assessment over most of those stats.

 

[RolandDeschain]

You can't go wrong drafting high O-line every year. (Say, somewhere in the first two rounds, occasionally the third.)

You simply can't. Worst case scenario, you get so loaded with talent at O-line over time that you can afford to trade away a guy who's about to get a lot of money and get more draft capital, and your QB takes very little damage each season, PLUS gets to perform under optimal circumstances. It's HARD to get a great O-line together and keep it healthy/functional.

I'm completely serious. I'd love to see us draft an O-lineman somewhere in the first couple rounds of the draft every single year.