Why Michael Bennett is a star & OL issues slightly overblown

[pehawk]

And again, go get Hoyer and watch the pass protection appear "better". Get a tall, quick release guy.

There's still not enough advanced OL statistics to compensate for Wilson's height, avoidance to turnovers and Pete's preference for the big plays. Oh, and the offense being built with rushing the ball, physically, over all else. The style of play makes an average pass-pro line appear dreadful.

This is the very same drum I've been beating for months. It's just that there are other things the offense could be doing to offset the protection problems, and they're NOT doing them. If they aren't going to build in more blitz-beater routes, slants, screens, heavy tight-end route packages, and other pressure-beating devices, they'd better either beef up the pass pro talent on the line itself or pray that Wilson can keep scrambling. It's been sustainable so far, but it only takes one sack.

Agreed.

I bite my tongue ONLY because Bevell got it worked out last year, eventually. Plus, if you criticize Bevell the author of this thread will say "Bevell's the easy scapegoat".

 

[pehawk]

Pete's preference has always been; physically impose your will with the run, then go deep with play-action. That's a really simple way to look at it, but that's what it is when you remove the seeds and stems. So, what does it take to do that? A physical line which can impose its will, then catch them off-guard and throw over the top.

Unless you have a top 10 pick, you have to choose what type of linemen you want. Guess which types Seattle chooses? Also, deep balls off play action takes what...time. You're asking guys known for run blocking to give time. So you need a little advantage thrown in to help them...which is the play-action and fatigue from power running (play calling too).

This line looked good in pass pro once Bevell got his groove last year.

Well, the purpose of play action is to also freeze the line and linebackers for a moment, so theoretically play action gives average pass blockers an extra tick.

Houston's OLBs weren't playing that game, though. After Bevell called a couple of read options, they slowed their roll, though.

You agreed. But just couldn't help emasculating me with your advanced X n O, huh? Yeah, I have poor grammar and thinks research is for pansies. Don't rub it in.

Honestly, Pete just likes big plays. I think that's why he likes the play-action.

 

[Scottemojo]

I kind of guess the coaching staff sat around a table about 11 days ago, asked Cable if this O-line could block consistently enough for 14 play drives, had a good laugh, decided to go with play action big shots, then drank deeply.

 

[pehawk]

Agreed. And now I wonder aloud if it isn't Christine Michael time. Speed's a bitch to defenses licking their chops.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Agreed. And now I wonder aloud if it isn't Christine Michael time. Speed's a bitch to defenses licking their chops.

Who?

Christine Michael?

Who's that???

 

[Lynch Mob]

There is no JJ Watt, B. Cushing, and W. Merciless on the Colts D while they are good they are more power less speed except for Mathis so i think this will play more to the Seahawks 2nd string O-line strength. I think it won't get any worse than last week against the Texans the Line should be hardned by it and play better until we get more starters back but thats my opinion.


I have nothing more to say about M. Bennett He's the MAN

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

In response to Roland... the worst case scenario of drafting o-line early every year is other areas of your team will eventually suffer. Seattle is on the brink of having to replace multiple key veterans all over the roster for cost purposes. It's the only way to keep and pay your elite players.

This I agree with. Reorganization of where our big contracts are tied is going to be vital to keeping this going.

As for need though, I don't see any way one can not see OL as the single most deficient unit on this team. And incidentally, the planned succession of these cost casualties can be seamlessly factored in Seattle's grading paradigm. Simply by comparing prospect quality to whatever depth remains when cost casualties are omitted.

It's not inconceivable at all to think that whatever LEO is available won't be comparatively worse to Avril than a R1/R2 OT prospect compares to Bowie. Or even a R4 OG compares to Sweezy. Seems this OL could use an infusion of serious competition to accelerate the improvement of the line. Even if it results in Sweezy and Carp getting it in gear it's a price well paid.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I would agree, but it really depends WHO you're talking about with those picks. Everyone wants good OL, and last year guys with late first round grades went high in the first and guys with 2nd round grades went in the top 20.

You think Papa Pete & Uncle John couldn't find a good prospect in the 3rd round if they didn't deem any guys potential starters in the 1st or 2nd rounds? Seems unlikely, IMO; but, I'm not an NFL GM.

In response to Roland... the worst case scenario of drafting o-line early every year is other areas of your team will eventually suffer. Seattle is on the brink of having to replace multiple key veterans all over the roster for cost purposes. It's the only way to keep and pay your elite players.

Part of the reason I think it could/would work is that you wouldn't have to have a bunch of expensive veteran O-linemen. Assuming you hit one decent starter (or better) every other year, you could get away with having at most one guy on your line making big bucks. Besides, a line filled with 5 guys that are solidly good would make for an EXCELLENT offensive line, you don't need an elite guy or two on your line; though obviously, they're nice. Considering the cohesiveness with which offensive lines must work, I think it'd be definitely feasible. Not that I know for sure or anything, obviously. Has any team ever tried this? I wonder if there's a way to easily check if a team has drafted a lineman in say, 8 drafts out of 10, or something?

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Part of the reason I think it could/would work is that you wouldn't have to have a bunch of expensive veteran O-linemen. Assuming you hit one decent starter (or better) every other year, you could get away with having at most one guy on your line making big bucks. Besides, a line filled with 5 guys that are solidly good would make for an EXCELLENT offensive line, you don't need an elite guy or two on your line; though obviously, they're nice. Considering the cohesiveness with which offensive lines must work, I think it'd be definitely feasible. Not that I know for sure or anything, obviously. Has any team ever tried this? I wonder if there's a way to easily check if a team has drafted a lineman in say, 8 drafts out of 10, or something?

Two major issues with this:

1. You'd be potentially fighting your board in the early rounds every year. If the supply is there to make these O-line picks, fair enough. But at the moment offensive lineman are being way over drafted. Three tackles went in the top four picks last year and it pulled all the other guys forward too. So you might be drafting the 7th or 8th best tackle or guard in a class for the sake of it, when the value is superior elsewhere. This limits your opportunity to draft the solid starters you're talking about. Plus, you'd be potentially missing out on better players elsewhere.

2. The whole plan is reliant on hitting on a decent starter every other year at a minimum. Just two drafts where you don't achieve this sets you back to the point you're having to then replace the guys on the o-line you've busted on... all the while ignoring other positions. Whenever you zone in on one unit repetitively, it puts even more pressure to hit on your picks.

Plus, as mentioned earlier Seattle is approaching a crossroads. For three seasons we've benefited from cheap rookie deals in the new CBA and being able to add high price free agents to compliment the squad. Starting at the end of this current season, we're going to have to pay the studs. Sherman will be paid in 2014. Earl Thomas will be re-signed to a much bigger contract. I would argue Michael Bennett has already done enough to warrant serious consideration for a big deal.

It means guys like Mebane, Rice, Miller, Bryant, Clemons and others will be on the chopping block to save cash to pay our stars. And they will need to be replaced in the draft to get new cheaper players on the roster. I think last year showed we're already in 'plan ahead' mode. Guys like Jesse Williams and Jordan Hill may well be possible replacements for Mebane and Bryant. Next year the draft will be more of the same.

That doesn't mean we ignore the o-line... we will almost certainly have to replace Breno and McQuistan in the draft unless they're willing to sign ridiculously cheap deals. But it means keeping an open mind and drafting for value and not focusing too much on one unit.